Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Alma 03-12-07, 05:36 PM	Honestly it is crap bumped me from the core Specal at Weathertop despite my pre reg down with the rule I say.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-12-07, 05:39 PM	Or at least add a rule allowing for a vote as to whether to drop a lower level to keep the high or drop the high and keep the low...as opposed to being forced down an apl if someone low want to play and can't be convinced not to...
Grantor 03-12-07, 05:52 PM	Honestly it is crap bumped me from the core Specal at Weathertop despite my pre reg down with the rule I say. Translation: Honestly, I feel that the limit preventing characters that are 3 levels over the average party level from joining a table is crap. I was bumped from the core special at Weathertop a couple of weeks ago, despite having pre-registered my character. Down with the rule, I say! Question: Why didn't they bump the lowest level characters from the table? That would have (in theory) brought the APL up to a level where you could play. Another Question: Did the registration system list the character level or requested APL for each player at the table? Doing so is generally the conventions attempt to have the players identify mustering problems before their arrival at the con. I know that most people just register and then never check back to see who is sitting at their table, but this is something that players can do to save themselves the pain of a table bump. I played one game in which we had a 10th level wizard and a APL 6 table. The first level character did not get to play at all because nearly every fight began with an Ottoluke's Resilient Sphere being cast by the wizard on the newbie to make sure that he survived. Meanwhile, the rest of us formed a line just outside the soon-to-arrive fireball and singed our eyebrows as it enveloped out enemies and just missed us. Very quick fight. It was a good thing that this regional mod had lots of roleplaying, because anything that required rules was utterly overwhelmed by the wizard that was four levels over the APL.
bhale187 03-12-07, 05:55 PM	I agree with Alma's asessment of the rule being crap. I can understand blocking the level 2 PCs from playing APL8, but it does not make sense IMO to block a level 8 from playing APL2 at half xp/gp reward.
Grantor 03-12-07, 05:56 PM	Or at least add a rule allowing for a vote as to whether to drop a lower level to keep the high or drop the high and keep the low...as opposed to being forced down an apl if someone low want to play and can't be convinced not to... Of course, a table with five level 2 characters are going to have trouble accomodating a level 6 or higher character. Some combinations don't really allow any choice on who to keep if the table is going to successfully muster.
Alma 03-12-07, 05:57 PM	Translation: Honestly, I feel that the limit preventing characters that are 3 levels over the average party level from joining a table is crap. I was bumped from the core special at Weathertop a couple of weeks ago, despite having pre-registered my character. Down with the rule, I say! Question: Why didn't they bump the lowest level characters from the table? That would have (in theory) brought the APL up to a level where you could play. Another Question: Did the registration system list the character level or requested APL for each player at the table? Doing so is generally the conventions attempt to have the players identify mustering problems before their arrival at the con. I know that most people just register and then never check back to see who is sitting at their table, but this is something that players can do to save themselves the pain of a table bump. I played one game in which we had a 10th level wizard and a APL 6 table. The first level character did not get to play at all because nearly every fight began with an Ottoluke's Resilient Sphere being cast by the wizard on the newbie to make sure that he survived. Meanwhile, the rest of us formed a line just outside the soon-to-arrive fireball and singed our eyebrows as it enveloped out enemies and just missed us. Very quick fight. It was a good thing that this regional mod had lots of roleplaying, because anything that required rules was utterly overwhelmed by the wizard that was four levels over the APL. Ya we had levels listed the issue came up because one of the others died and pushed us to apl 5 thay all wanted to play down.
Mattastrophic 03-12-07, 07:27 PM	Ya we had levels listed the issue came up because one of the others died and pushed us to apl 5 thay all wanted to play down. I totally agree that the rule is unwarranted and unfair. I have also been bumped by it once already, and it'll probably happen again if I go to Gamestorm (Portland, OR) at the end of the month, as they have no way to premuster. -And with regional mods capping at 12, Matt HAS to play 12.
Eric Anondson 03-12-07, 07:38 PM	Honestly it is crap bumped me from the core Specal at Weathertop despite my pre reg down with the rule I say.Until I read the translation I was doing this :headexplo
Timlagor 03-12-07, 08:21 PM	I agree with Alma's asessment of the rule being crap. I can understand blocking the level 2 PCs from playing APL8, but it does not make sense IMO to block a level 8 from playing APL2 at half xp/gp reward. It most definitely does make sense. Whether the rule causes more problems than it solves is a different question but there is a valid reason for it. My preference would be o have had a 4 level limit. in any case I recommend e-mailing your triad and/or Circle POC about the specific problem you had... just try to be civil.
bhale187 03-12-07, 09:19 PM	It most definitely does make sense. How so, how is a high level PC playing down an abuse of the game? Of course he is going to be way over powered for the module, but he is also highly punished for playing down. A level 6 player in APL 6 gets 900xp/900gp or at APL 2 he would get 225/225-that alone is more than enough to discourage the behavior unless absolutely necessary to muster a table, why is it necessary to ban such a person from playing the table?
JohnduBois 03-12-07, 11:12 PM	Ya we had levels listed the issue came up because one of the others died and pushed us to apl 5 thay all wanted to play down. Not that I don't think that the "3 down" rule should be reconsidered, but I'd wonder about a group of players that would deny a fellow player his/her only opportunity to play a mod because they were able to play an APL he needed, but instead wanted to play a different one. Yes, it's INCREDIBLY dangerous, but I would never try to deny someone their only chance to play an adventure.
Mattastrophic 03-12-07, 11:51 PM	Of course he is going to be way over powered for the module, but he is also highly punished for playing down. Agreed. No one chooses to play down for half, so why punish someone who has already been screwed over? -Matt
Dempster 03-13-07, 01:18 AM	I choose to play down whenever possible. I am in this to roleplay my character and the more games I play down the longer I can play him. One thing that seems to be unsaid so far is the effect that a character above apl has on the mod for the rest of the party. I have played a 7th wiz in a few apl 4 mods before and I ruled the combats. Most were over in one fireball. This was fun for me but everyone else at the table looked pretty bored. I have been in the same situation before where a 14th level cleric ended up at our apl 6 table and every combat was over in one holy word. That kind of play is not challenging and not very fun. When I pay 5 bucks to play a mod and drive an hour to play I would like the mod to take more than an hour and a half.
copper_wyrmling 03-13-07, 02:09 AM	I choose to play down whenever possible. I am in this to roleplay my character and the more games I play down the longer I can play him. One thing that seems to be unsaid so far is the effect that a character above apl has on the mod for the rest of the party. I have played a 7th wiz in a few apl 4 mods before and I ruled the combats. Most were over in one fireball. This was fun for me but everyone else at the table looked pretty bored. I have been in the same situation before where a 14th level cleric ended up at our apl 6 table and every combat was over in one holy word. That kind of play is not challenging and not very fun. When I pay 5 bucks to play a mod and drive an hour to play I would like the mod to take more than an hour and a half. Yeah, when I played my L14 cleric down to APL 10 I agreed at the start to refrain from Holy Word'ing the combats: when you're that far above APL it's just as bad as Divine Spellpowered Holy Word. That said, I did end up nuking one fight with Holy Word: in-character my fiend-hunting sacred exorcist wanted to do it because the enemies were devils, while out-of-character none of the other players wanted to fight that combat, and the GM didn't particularly want to run it (large numbers of fairly wimpy bad guys with nasty status effects). The challenge in that fight then became setting up the combat so that the Holy Word didn't kill any innocents (we got the jump on them thanks to our wonderful rogue), which required rather more creativity and cooperation than actually fighting the devils ;) I recently played an APL 8 mod with my L11 sorc for story reasons, and it occurred to me that this presented a wonderful opportunity to meet some of my friends' lower-level PCs in-character. The eventual table went something like sorc 11 / barbarian 6 / warchanter 6 / thief-acrobat 8 / pacifist cleric 6 / rogue 6, and we had an absolutely fantastic time. Sure, the combats all disintegrated pretty quickly (although the image of the barbarian using the trapped floor as a trampoline is one that will remain with me ;) ), but that just meant we had more time for roleplaying. Lots and lots and lots of roleplaying... and everyone else had the freedom to bring L6 characters and / or PCs who weren't generally very strong in combat, whatever they thought would be more fun to roleplay, because they could trust that my sorc would slam-dunk the combats if necessary. (As it happened, the pacifist cleric bypassed the first fight with diplomacy, in the second fight my sorc buffed the bouncing barbarian while laughing uncontrollably... it was only the third and fourth fights that she nuked stuff, and one of those combats could easily have been handled by other PCs, but it was just more cinematic to let my sorc get ALL of them with a sculpted fireball, and everyone on that table valued cinema.) I've seen tables ruined by players being jerks, but in the vast majority of cases, they were people playing at APL, not 4+ levels down. Some people may simply have different priorities and presume that the other players would like the combats to be finished quickly and efficiently, so no PCs would be at risk and there would be more time for roleplaying. If you ask, they may well be able to change tactics and focus on supercharging the other PCs (especially if the character is a cleric or wizard), rather than just taking out combats by themselves.
Madfox11 03-13-07, 04:38 AM	Whether or not the rule causes more problems than it solves is one of the things the Circle is keeping a close look at. One thing to remember though is that 1/2xp and 1/2gp is NOT game mechanically a hindrance even if it feels like one. XP and gp ratio remain the same which is what ultimately determines balance, while the loss of 1 TU is not problematic for most players and you still get the favors. At most you would loose access to one or two items you really want. Personally I love role-playing, but I also need to be challenged, so the few times I was at such an unbalanced table (both as DM and player) I found it really boring. Most players around here try to have a PC for every APL, and they are willing to compromize. Probably a benefit of being in a smaller region where the majority of players know one another so that the organizers remember that one player compromized last game day so now it is time for another player. Ironically I never ran across the problem here, but only at the UK GenCon, the big and anynomous convention.
Sieylianna 03-13-07, 07:36 AM	Were they able to get you into another table? If I were signed up, was bumped and had to sit around for four hours due to this rule, I'd complain to the convention organizers. They are the ones who are going to be hurting if I don't return in the future, that's a couple of motel nights and entry fee that I'm not providing. Let them discuss the issue with the RPGA coordinator. Ed
Potato Weasel 03-13-07, 08:02 AM	Another issue is the super mods- Red hand has only one apl playable, if you go to a con and level a bit, you can end up over the playable level.
Timlagor 03-13-07, 08:43 AM	Another issue is the super mods- Red hand has only one apl playable, if you go to a con and level a bit, you can end up over the playable level. Hmm.. don't play that character at the convention?
pedr 03-13-07, 08:51 AM	That was always the rule, Potato Weasel. The problem is with variable APLs. I don't believe that a rule which leads a table which is APL 5 even with a 7th level character to have to decide whether to play up to APL 6 or to bump someone from the table by choosing APL 4 actually has benefits which outweigh the problems. This is mainly because it forces a group of six players into an unfair and un-fun choice. To play APL 6 risks very significantly increased danger for at least some of the players, and half-rewards for some of them. Which, even if it isn't a disadvantage over the long-term, might be a problem if you are expecting to achieve a particular level over the course of a convention. Playing APL 4 is a fair decision if there is space on other tables, and in this particular case the level 7 player could bring in a new first level character if necessary; the same situation can apply to a choice between APL 6 and 8 or APL 8 and 10 where a player might have absolutely no alternative character which could sensibly play at the lower level. I strongly suggest that the Circle either change this rule or find an alternative system which provides the benefits required without forcing these choices and risk organisers being unable to find tables which fit into the system. Edit: Clearly references to level 7 characters above should be level 8. I clearly can't think today!
taylorj 03-13-07, 10:43 AM	You could also maintain a larger stable of characters. Being able to cover more than one APL range is often a requirement. Eventually you have to kinda accept that you're going to run into a lot of situations where you aren't necessarily going to get to play your preferred character, and you have to make the choice between backing out or playing a secondary character. Sucks, but, hey.
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 11:06 AM	You could also maintain a larger stable of characters. Being able to cover more than one APL range is often a requirement. "Just play another character" is NOT valid. We invest our characters into storylines, there are curses that require Mod X to remove, there are modules that tell us they are of particular interest to certain characters, and gorrammit, I'm not playing my Barbarian in an investigative module! If the perceived problem is breaking fight scenes... there are plenty of ways to break fights and "ruin others' fun" with a character AT APL. APL+4 characters are NOT the problem, and just ejecting them is NOT the solution. All this rule does is punish people who make an investment into the campaign, as the higher you go, the less likely you'll get to play. Does the Circle really want to do that? Do they really want to stoop to kicking people from tables in order to chase that impossible goal of "balance?" -Matt
Sargh 03-13-07, 11:21 AM	It causes a lot of issues at cons. Seen it first hand. I now can't play Red Hand because of this rule as well. People not getting to play - it was always tough mustering tables before and this is an even further limitation. A lot of people have spent a lot of time planning for these large mods and keeping chars such that they can cover APL's. LG is an "even" number setup for the most part - this new rule throws an odd number into the equation.
Paul H 03-13-07, 11:59 AM	Hi Seen BOTH sides to this arguement. I've heard one player explain how he started a new character & played on an APL 10 table! Got his +1 armour at end of the mod! This is obviously NOT the way to play. Have even been asked at a con to play on APL 10 table, when Oskar was only 5th lvl! (Usual guarantees of shield other, etc). Myself - my Oskar Thorinson is Clr 3 Warmage 4 Mystic Theurge 1. Normally plays down, even took job of frontline fighter with his non-magical club, once! (Best AC & HP). That one was playing down 2 levels, on an APL 4 table. (Only way to get game). On a similar vein - I've had to forgo the first chance to use my Cohort because although only 5 players, it would have increased the APL (for full table). A decision had to made somewhere, though some may disagree where the line was drawn. Cheers Paul H
Madfox11 03-13-07, 12:01 PM	You do realize that since Red Hand only has one APL you could never have played it even under the old rules?
pedr 03-13-07, 12:45 PM	I imagine that Sargh's problem might have been that he was planning to not play a particular character so it didn't level above the RHoD ceiling but ended up at a convention on a table where that was the only eligible character he could play (or could play without a high chance of suicide) which led to it leveling and becoming ineligble. Even if that's not the particular problem, it is a problem. Playing down a lot is a rare occurance, but I believe it is rare because it is generally only done when there is no better solution. The perceived negatives are such that it only happens as a last resort. The new rule makes those 'last resort' tables impossible, or puts other very significant problem in place.
solbergb 03-13-07, 12:52 PM	I feel constrained to point out that it is a FOUR level over rule, not 3 level rule. Ie a level 7 CAN play at APL4 and a level 11 CAN play at APL8. I have not actually enjoyed most tables when there was an APL+4 person present. APL+3 is not actually as disruptive, but they have to play carefully, especially if they represent half of the power of the party (meaning one blown save or bit of bad luck vs the ambush-pounce-grapplemonster can suddenly leave the rest of the party facing an EL+5 encounter for them) On the flipside, I've actually had a decent time when I was 4 levels BELOW APL (which the rules still allow), although I obviously had to be careful and focus on support rather than primary combat roles. We've got 1-2 years to play these modules, if there are story reasons for a particular PC, get off your rear and organize a homegame for him, and do it early, don't wait till the retirement party. If not, play APL4 with your newly rolled up character and soon you'll be able to play APL2-6 and not be inflicting your level 10 guy on the baby tables. I'm pretty solidly down on the other side of the issue. I've had about four experiences with a big guy playing way down and they were all unpleasant. I've also witnessed one that wasn't so bad (cleric who buffed the party before the combats and stood around doing nothing, not even drawing fire, during the fights). In all the bad cases, the players either had another character they could have played, or it was a mod appropriate for a L1 to join the party, and the game would have been better for it (the APL would have shifted down instead of up, which meant the other 4-5 characters would have been strong contributors instead of cheerleaders, and the one squishie would have still been strong enough to participate)
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 12:53 PM	I've heard one player explain how he started a new character & played on an APL 10 table! Got his +1 armour at end of the mod! This is obviously NOT the way to play. A quick and easy fix, which strangely enough also makes the APL+4 rule and the half XP/GP rule unncessary, has been thrown out there many times. -Matt
Jay_Ibero_911 03-13-07, 01:12 PM	One thing to remember though is that 1/2xp and 1/2gp is NOT game mechanically a hindrance even if it feels like one. XP and gp ratio remain the same... Definately NOT the same. The ration of GP to XP increases with APL. APL 2=450xp/450gp 4=675xp/650gp 6=900xp/900gp 8=1125xp/1300gp 10=1350xp/2300gp 12=1575xp/3300gp 14=1800xp/6600gp 16=2025xp/9900gp So for instance, a 15th level character playing down to 12, instead of getting 6600 or 9900 gp for apl 14-16, gets only 1650gp...1/4 of what he'd get at 14, or 1/6th of 16. The XP hit isn't as bad as with GP, since that scales much more linearly with APL. Let's take another example of the hit a character would take playing 4 over APL. A level 10 character trying to squeeze into an APL 6 table. Being 10th level, he could get full xp+gp for 12th, 1575xp/3300gp, but playing down to 6th he only gets half of APL 6's 900xp/900gp, so 450gp/450xp. By playing that far down, a 10th level character is getting the equivalent of APL 2 rewards...Sure, with a character playing that far down it can be a cakewalk...but the majority of players would prefer a challenger with a bigger payoff. The only times the APL +4 characters get thrown in is usually when it's a player's only way to get a certain mod...
Sargh 03-13-07, 01:16 PM	Exactly. Had a char that would have been fine before, and ended up having to play him to make a table (ie be the 4th or no one got to play), that ended up levelling him. The particular char is very weak for his APL (I never play up)and would not have really overshadowed a game playing up regardless. In fact, that's why I had set him aside for Red Hand, so I wouldn't have to play him at cons where pickup groups need more solid chars. That's also a good counterpoint to the +4 levels above chars break the mod and it isn't fun argument - char level isn't a good measure of character power.
Howie23 03-13-07, 01:40 PM	I'm pretty solidly down on the other side of the issue. I've had about four experiences with a big guy playing way down and they were all unpleasant. I'm of a like mind. I have yet to see a positive game that involved someone playing either significantly up or down. RSOP 11 at APL6 who revelled in dominating combats. Monk10 at APL4 dominated HTBD. Wiz7 at APL4 in Riddle of the Dust was a nightmare (At APL4 due to wizard, then wizard ineffective vs. golem). On the other side of the play up/down issue: Rgr3 archer at APL6 (died and no cash to raise). I recognize that some of these are still playable under existing rules. At APL2 (Ftr4, Cent2, Wiz1, Clr1, Clr1, Rog1): Let's just say dominated fighters who play down, failing two will saves vs. domination, is not fun. :) Under the new rule: A party started to form up with 2 L4 and 2L5. A fifth player wanted to play L10, and was no longer permitted to do so for From the Dust, APL6 min. L10 player sat out (He had an L6 he was unwilling to play). Unviable party of four played an intro instead w/different characters. David
Japangirl 03-13-07, 01:44 PM	Also, the +4 APL character can and probably should modify his/her playstyle to let the on-APL people do their thing. Ask the other players if they want you to stand back or one-shot things, and play accordingly. Let people have fun if their schtick is to charge and power attack for ridiculous damage, even if you could have nuked it from 300 feet away. Just because some people are jerks doesn't mean that all APL +4 people should be banned from a module.
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 02:13 PM	Just because some people are jerks doesn't mean that all APL +4 people should be banned from a module. Exactly! Someone who wrecks everyone's fun when playing down four levels is the same type of person who wrecks everyone's fun when playing his own APL! APL+4 characters are not the problem! -Matt
Grantor 03-13-07, 02:15 PM	"Just play another character" is NOT valid. We invest our characters into storylines, there are curses that require Mod X to remove, there are modules that tell us they are of particular interest to certain characters, and gorrammit, I'm not playing my Barbarian in an investigative module! -Matt I know you don't intend it this way, but one way to look at that comment is that your need to play the module "today", at "this table", with this mix of lower level characters is trumping the opportunity for those players to have a challenging mod. If the rule were removed, we would return to the situation where some players can "bully" the party table composition into agreeing to accept his high level character. This person has the status of (potentially) more experience with the RPGA, "it's legal, so you have to accept it", and is not actually intending to reduce the other players fun, so the lower level characters tend to accept it. After all, their option at that point is to choose not to play at all, possibly keeping the table from mustering at all; and who wants to be viewed as the bad guy that keeps the whole table from mustering?
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 02:23 PM	If the rule were removed, we would return to the situation where some players can "bully" the party table composition into agreeing to accept his high level character. In actuality, however, WITH THE RULE, that same higher-level player is encouraged to "bully" for an APL he can play! He signed up for the slot just like everyone else! It's not his fault that he sat down and it just so happens that he's with a bunch of 2nds! The mod he signed up for runs from 2-12, so he can reasonably expect to play it with his 10th. If not, why go to the con or gameday at all? We don't spend resources just to have a POSSIBILITY of playing, we spend cash so we can ACTUALLY play. And this rule suddenly removes any guarantee of actually getting to play. And again, "just play a secondary" is NOT VALID. Also, I say it again, people who would spoil a table while playing down are the same people who would spoil a table by playing their APL! You are saying that "APL+4 character at table" = "No fun." THAT IS NOT TRUE! What IS true is "Player gets ejected from table" = "No fun." APL+4 CHARACTERS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM! -Matt is very unhappy with this change. He suddenly cannot trust that he will get to play his 14th anywhere. Or his 11th. Or his 8th.
Mommy was an Orc 03-13-07, 02:51 PM	APL+4 CHARACTERS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM! There's a potential huge problem with APL+4 characters which gets discounted a lot - namely the APL+4 character failing a save they ought to have made. Especially against a Dominate Person or similar spell. At which point, the table is often screwed beyond belief. It doesn't matter how nice your Sorcerer 10 is playing at that APL 6 table when you decide to do an Empowered Fireball for 15d6 of damage against your mostly 4th/5th level party...
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 03:00 PM	There's a potential huge problem with APL+4 characters which gets discounted a lot - namely the APL+4 character failing a save they ought to have made. Especially against a Dominate Person or similar spell. That's a problem with characters at any APL. The "problem" of characters getting dominated is NOT exclusive to parties with an APL+4 character. -Matt was glad he had Otiluke's prepped when the raging Dervish came after him.
JamesMaissen 03-13-07, 03:07 PM	One thing to remember though is that 1/2xp and 1/2gp is NOT game mechanically a hindrance even if it feels like one. XP and gp ratio remain the same which is what ultimately determines balance, while the loss of 1 TU is not problematic for most players and you still get the favors. At most you would loose access to one or two items you really want. This is actually not true, as the lower APL played may have less of an xp/gold ratio than the higher one. For example a 9th level deciding between APLs 8 and 10 takes a large xp/gold ratio hit for playing 8 even though both are 'within range' for them. Now an 11th level playing 8 instead of 12 the gold ratio more than halves... if anything the 1/2gold/xp 'penalty' lessens the impact! Personally I love role-playing, but I also need to be challenged, so the few times I was at such an unbalanced table (both as DM and player) I found it really boring. I think the 'solution' to this is fewer rules rather than more. Do away with 1/2xp/gold and let party 'APL' just be a guideline if it's used at all. Let the table decide what Tier/APL they wish to play at then give rewards based on the lesser of character level/Tier played at. I guess I've encountered far more tables that felt 'forced' into choosing to play down so that one person wouldn't get half xp than I've encountered tables where one player was grossly over the APL of the table. Neither cases are optimal and both are imho equally annoying. Most players around here try to have a PC for every APL, and they are willing to compromize. Probably a benefit of being in a smaller region where the majority of players know one another so that the organizers remember that one player compromized last game day so now it is time for another player. Ironically I never ran across the problem here, but only at the UK GenCon, the big and anynomous convention. The problem here is the domain space. Even if you have characters at every APL it doesn't solve the problem. Modules come in series that expect you to play it with the same character (or are atleast far more enjoyable to do so) or whose storyline will appeal to one character while be a horrible misfit for another. The game is not entirely about combats, so you wind up paying for avoiding ruined combats with ruined roleplaying situations. I think that social pressures are a better 'solution' to this 'problem' than hard and fast laws & rules. -James
Mommy was an Orc 03-13-07, 03:15 PM	That's a problem with characters at any APL. The "problem" of characters getting dominated is NOT exclusive to parties with an APL+4 character. Characters at APL can't usually easily take out the rest of the party. That's not true for APL+4...
bhale187 03-13-07, 04:14 PM	Characters at APL can't usually easily take out the rest of the party. That's not true for APL+4... If that is a reason for banning an APL+4 PC from the table then by the same logic we should be banning optimized min/max builds from playing at tables of players who build suboptimal characters.
solbergb 03-13-07, 04:34 PM	If that is a reason for banning an APL+4 PC from the table then by the same logic we should be banning optimized min/max builds from playing at tables of players who build suboptimal characters. It's a reason. The PC by himself is an EL+4 encounter, much less the real badguys, and actually the PC is likely an EL+5 or +6 vs the rest of the party since the char will almost inevitably bring the APL up to the next higher tier. It's bad enough when the APL+2 or +3 PC represents a lot of the party power. It's a TPK recipie when that same guy is APL+4 or +5. You can't measure optomization. You can measure character level. Rules have to be enforcable. In a recent example, the L10 had a L6 character and refused to play it. The table was better off going and doing the intro mod than doing From the Dust at APL8 with most of them level 5. (having played that mod at APL8, with a level 8 character I can say with authority that the level 5 version of the same, strong-for-level character would have not only not contributed, but would have been a scooby-snack in the first encounter)
solbergb 03-13-07, 04:39 PM	-Matt is very unhappy with this change. He suddenly cannot trust that he will get to play his 14th anywhere. Or his 11th. Or his 8th. That's just silly Matt. Those characters cover all APL's from 6-16 without having to even lose XP. You're also from a region with plenty of players to form any table APL you want if you just organize it. Why would you not just 1. Switch to lower level character 2. Organize a homegame/zero at the appropriate APL. (who has characters from level 1-13 and who has never, ever been forced into a table where APL+3 wasn't plenty. I have traveled to large conventions, small conventions, gamedays in remote areas. I have also made zero compromises on playing the right char for the right mod - I've only shifted characters from APL when I didn't care either way. I've also run a considerable number of mods and have never had a char at the table more than 3 levels from the average). Under the old rules a high level could FORCE the APL to shift up to accomodate them. Now they can be asked to play sometbody else, or walk away. In my book, this is a good thing.
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 04:43 PM	Why would you not just: 1. Switch to lower level character 2. Organize a homegame/zero at the appropriate APL. 1: Already explained why above. 2: That's the problem. The Circle wants me to stay home. -Matt
taylorj 03-13-07, 04:56 PM	2: That's the problem. The Circle wants me to stay home. -Matt If for whatever reason the conventions in your area aren't serving your needs, why wouldn't you stay home instead? If you're not happy with the events that are being run then, you know, don't go. Or organize your own event. Not everything is going to work out for every individual.
bitznarf 03-13-07, 04:58 PM	Under the old rules a high level could FORCE the APL to shift up to accomodate them. Now they can be asked to play sometbody else, or walk away. In my book, this is a good thing. And a player who wants to play a low level character can FORCE the APL down, FORCING the high level character out under the new rules. This is just as bad, if not worse in my opinion. Edit: under the old rules, character choice was not mandated by anyone else, under the new, it can be.
solbergb 03-13-07, 05:03 PM	And a player who wants to play a low level character can FORCE the APL down, FORCING the high level character out under the new rules. Except that they always could have done that, and yet you don't really see it in actual play (and if they do, they're at least not also dominating play and/or killing off the party if they fail a save)
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 05:04 PM	Under the old rules a high level could FORCE the APL to shift up to accomodate them. Now they can be asked to play sometbody else, or walk away. In my book, this is a good thing. In fact, the high level is well within his rights to force the APL up to an APL he's able to play. "Play another character," I say again, is not valid. Also, as the original poster said, his table literally elected to eject him out of the table. Is this what LG is coming to? "We're all able to do 6, but we'd rather play 4, so goodbye?" Say it isn't so! -Matt
kenobi65 03-13-07, 05:07 PM	"Play another character," I say again, is not valid. More valid for you, with a high- and a low-level PC available, than for the player who *only* has a low-level PC. And, I think you're abusing the word "valid". Not desirable, certainly. Feasible, yes. Which makes it valid.
bitznarf 03-13-07, 05:07 PM	Except that they always could have done that, and yet you don't really see it in actual play (and if they do, they're at least not also dominating play and/or killing off the party if they fail a save) I didn't think they could force the high level out under the old rules, the high level would simply take half XP/GP. As for the practical/tactical considerations, shouldn't that be up to the table to decide, not the circle?
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 05:09 PM	If for whatever reason the conventions in your area aren't serving your needs, why wouldn't you stay home instead? If you're not happy with the events that are being run then, you know, don't go. Or organize your own event. Not everything is going to work out for every individual. You missed my point; my point was that now I cannot know whether I'll even be allowed to play at a con or gameday until after I sit down at the table. Before, worst-case scenario I play down, sit back, and buff the party, but now I can't even do that. -Matt
bitznarf 03-13-07, 05:11 PM	More valid for you, with a high- and a low-level PC available, than for the player who *only* has a low-level PC. Why is the onus being put on the player with the high level character? In the case where a mod is particularly suited to the high level PC for whatever reason (meta-org connections, next mod in a series, etc.) is it unreasonable to ask the same thing of the player with the lower level PC? Ie. play at a different table, or organize a home game, or any of the other suggestions put forth as a solution for the high level PC.
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 05:12 PM	Not desirable, certainly. Feasible, yes. Which makes it valid. It's not valid because the campaign is not about dictating which characters we're "allowed" to play and which we can't. Unless it really is and I'm just living in a dream-world where people can decide which character they're playing before they sit down. -Matt
taylorj 03-13-07, 05:21 PM	In fact, the high level is well within his rights to force the APL up to an APL he's able to play. "Play another character," I say again, is not valid. Also, as the original poster said, his table literally elected to eject him out of the table. Is this what LG is coming to? "We're all able to do 6, but we'd rather play 4, so goodbye?" Say it isn't so! -Matt We don't know the circumstances of the original complainer's table. If it was 4, 4, 4, 4, 8 - rounding to 5 - or something like that, then they should have played 6 and it's totally reasonable for the level 8 to insist that they do so. After all, it's a level where everyone there can sit down and play and be within 2 of the APL. If it was 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 8 - a weak APL 4 table plus a level 8 guy but still rounding to 5 and giving the option of playing at APL 4 or 6, the question is a lot more varied. Making 4 of the players take half so that the level 8 can get in on it is really rude. I mean, I'd be okay with it (depending on how much of a jerk the level 8 was being about it) were I the level 2 for the same reason that I'd be okay with walking away were I insistent on playing a level 8. But it's a much more interesting arguement. Particularly since any of the level 2s can boot the level 8 just by refusing to play at all and dropping the table calculation to mandatory APL 4. Just what would you do were you trying to marshal one of those tables? Besides buy antacid in mass quantities.
taylorj 03-13-07, 05:28 PM	You missed my point; my point was that now I cannot know whether I'll even be allowed to play at a con or gameday until after I sit down at the table. Before, worst-case scenario I play down, sit back, and buff the party, but now I can't even do that. -Matt Ideally you know in advance based on, say, a warhorn site that shows who else is signed up and what characters they're bringing. If you list a request for APL 12-14 and everyone else has listed 2-4 then you know in advance that there are going to be issues. If your convention does not give you that kind of information in advance then don't patronize them. Giving you enough information to know wether you're going to be able to get in on the games you want is the convention's responsibility as much as being as flexible as possible is the player's. Maybe it's just me personally but I'm obsessive about checking the signups for a convention in the weeks leading up to it, so that if the events I wanted are likely to fall through due to APL conflicts, or I'd be forced to play way up or whatever, I can just not go, and I would never plan to go to a convention that didn't give me the information I need to make that judgement in advance.
bitznarf 03-13-07, 05:29 PM	Try 4, 5, 5, and 8 playing APL6. [EditThen a 2 comes and forces the table to APL4[/Edit]. The 2 has just booted the 8, and both tables are viable.
bitznarf 03-13-07, 05:31 PM	Ideally you know in advance based on, say, a warhorn site that shows who else is signed up and what characters they're bringing. If you list a request for APL 12-14 and everyone else has listed 2-4 then you know in advance that there are going to be issues. If your convention does not give you that kind of information in advance then don't patronize them. Giving you enough information to know wether you're going to be able to get in on the games you want is the convention's responsibility as much as being as flexible as possible is the player's. Maybe it's just me personally but I'm obsessive about checking the signups for a convention in the weeks leading up to it, so that if the events I wanted are likely to fall through due to APL conflicts, or I'd be forced to play way up or whatever, I can just not go, and I would never plan to go to a convention that didn't give me the information I need to make that judgement in advance. But why is this choice being forced upon players with higher level PCs? How is this in any way 'fair'?
taylorj 03-13-07, 05:37 PM	Try 4, 5, 5, and 8 playing APL6. Then a 2 comes and wants to play APL4. The 2 has just booted the 8, and both tables are viable. 4+5+5+8+2 is still 4.8, rounding to 5. Since they still have the option to play 6, the level 8 would be (imo, I'm not sure how it would actually be handled) perfectly justified in insisting that they do so. Generally I'm of the opinion that if there is an option available where everyone can legally play, that's the option people should go with. Seriously - just how would this be handled at a con? It's one thing where it's clear cut (you can no longer legally form an APL 6 table with these characters), quite another where you essentially have to pick between two people. In the example you just gave the level 2 should suck it up and play APL 6. :P
kenobi65 03-13-07, 05:42 PM	Why is the onus being put on the player with the high level character? In the case where a mod is particularly suited to the high level PC for whatever reason (meta-org connections, next mod in a series, etc.) is it unreasonable to ask the same thing of the player with the lower level PC? Ie. play at a different table, or organize a home game, or any of the other suggestions put forth as a solution for the high level PC. No, it's not unreasonable to ask that of the lower-level player, too. And, I perfectly understand when you've got a character that you *really* want to play in a particular module, for whatever reason. All I'm saying is that the higher-level player does have one option in his "quiver" that the lower-level one doesn't.
bitznarf 03-13-07, 05:44 PM	4+5+5+8+2 is still 4.8, rounding to 5. Since they still have the option to play 6, the level 8 would be (imo, I'm not sure how it would actually be handled) perfectly justified in insisting that they do so. /me wonders where my math skills went. I double checked it a couple times. I think the point is still valid though, there can be circumstances where the table is valid either way, but preference is given to the lower level PC for no apparent reason. Generally I'm of the opinion that if there is an option available where everyone can legally play, that's the option people should go with. No argument here, however with the current rules, that is not always the case. Seriously - just how would this be handled at a con? It's one thing where it's clear cut (you can no longer legally form an APL 6 table with these characters), quite another where you essentially have to pick between two people. In the example you just gave the level 2 should suck it up and play APL 6. :P Doing math, making sure it makes sense from a 'this could reasonably happen' stand point... Edit: okay so this is something drawn from a situation a little while ago. One of the players in our area has several 2's, a 5, a 8, and a 14. Combined with heavy metaorg TU costs and lack of play opportunities for the 14, he ran out of TU's for his 8 really quickly, leaving him with (at the time) a 4 and a 14 for that year. In order to catch some expiring high level year 5 mods, he would have had to play the 14 down to 10 (a 14, 12, 12, 7, and 6 IIRC), simply to get a viable table together, the other players in the area had already played the mod. He never actually managed to get a table together I don't think for whatever reason but read on.. Get this, the character is a bard. The quintessential 'every one else looks good and does better' support PC. Under the old rules this could have worked, the table was viable, and stood a very good chance of completing the mod. Under the new, this play opportunity is lost.
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 05:45 PM	All I'm saying is that the higher-level player does have one option in his "quiver" that the lower-level one doesn't. That's not necessarily true. What if the high-level player has only an 11th and a 2nd (my brother has been facing this problem a lot lately)? He doesn't have that option in his "quiver." What if the low-level character kicking out the high has a character that would make the numbers work for everyone? Now he has that option in his "quiver," but according to the rules, he cannot be forced to use it. And THAT is unfair. -Matt
Timlagor 03-13-07, 07:44 PM	Try 4, 5, 5, and 8 playing APL6. [EditThen a 2 comes and forces the table to APL4[/Edit]. The 2 has just booted the 8, and both tables are viable. Ignoring the specific example and addressing the point (I believe such circumstances are possible but you probably need to start with a higher level): The low-level player can only "force" the APL down if the other 4-5 people at the table agree to let them: you can never refuse to let someone join a table but at the same time you can always decline to judge or play at any table at any time. The low level player could potentially force the table not to go ahead at all by insisting that they be allowed to play in a situation where the others are happy to play together but not with that character...
JamesMaissen 03-13-07, 07:50 PM	Under the old rules a high level could FORCE the APL to shift up to accomodate them. Now they can be asked to play sometbody else, or walk away. In my book, this is a good thing. A blind judge isn't a good judge in my book. I think that you are better off handling this socially rather than 'legally'. That is if a person is causing trouble, deal with it. I know that you've seen the community results of this with say judging and the like, why not with play? Personally I think the best solution is that the table act responsibly. To further that and other unquantifiable factors what would be wrong with the rules allowing the table to choose which APL they desired to play? If the table is missmatched either by level or by class breakdowns they could elect to play an easier APL. Rewards could simply be handled by the lower of what is played and the level of the individual PC. Such variations already happen for interactives. Likewise it would solve the inequities of a 2nd level character playing APL 14 mods.. Gee half gold? Darn guess I only get 3300gp! Died? Raise from over cap and then it's back to intro mods for me and my holy sword I guess... Anyway, I don't like the idea of mechanically removing people from tables. I think social solutions are far better. Frankly the problems I hear about this seem more the player than the character anyway... -James
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 08:57 PM	Side topic: Does Living Greyhawk really need to place so many restrictions on play? Shouldn't we be allowed to freely choose our APL, with rewards scaled by either character level or APL played? But let's take it further. Does this campaign really need to restrict the amount of times a person can play with forced retirement and Time Units? Is there any reason why we would actually want to limit someone's play opportunities? Is there a point to saying "Sorry, you've played too much, you have to stop now?" Is it really that bad that someone else will get to play his character more than you will because he gets to play more than you do? So what if he goes from 1st-14th in one year; why do you care? Shouldn't we be about letting people have fun? I'm starting to realize it's ludicrous that the current LGCS includes rules that penalize keeping your level down (multiclass penalties to gold) as well as rules that penalize levelling up (APL+4 rule). Removing all these restrictions would make this campaign more fun. -Matt just wants to play, geez.
Howie23 03-13-07, 09:03 PM	Side topic: Does Living Greyhawk really need to place so many restrictions on play? Shouldn't we be allowed to freely choose our APL, with rewards scaled by either character level or APL played? But let's take it further. Does this campaign really need to restrict the amount of times a person can play with forced retirement and Time Units? Is there any reason why we would actually want to limit someone's play opportunities? Is there a point to saying "Sorry, you've played too much, you have to stop now?" Is it really that bad that someone else will get to play his character more than you will because he gets to play more than you do? So what if he goes from 1st-14th in one year; why do you care? There is no restriction on how much a person can play, other than the number of mods published and geography. David
bitznarf 03-14-07, 11:25 AM	I'd like to address some comments made in the 'Anti-petition to support the 3rd level rule' thread. Rather then muck up that thread with debate, I brought them here. Keep it. If the other wizard is casting fireball and haste and you can only manage burning hands it's Just Not Fun(tm). At worst it encourages players to have more than one character ... Before the mod started, did you agree to play with said higher level wizard? If yes, then I don't see the problem. If the answer is no, why *did* you play with him then? You always have the options put forth for the higher level character: not play, or muster your own home game. At worst, it prevents a player from playing one PC through an entire plot arc, or perhaps from playing anything at all that slot, even though they preregistered. Ditto. If anything, there are a lot of instances where I'd rather not play than be mustered with a high level type. Also, I'd note one of the other downsides of not having the rule is that I know of people who deliberately play down when they're about to level. One of them did this and then tried to run when things looked shaky after the 1st round. Had he actually done the action, 4 of us would have died and he was the only reason we were playing APL 6... Sounds like a problem with specific players then, not with higher levels playing down so that they can play the mod with the right PC. You always have the option of not playing. The same option that people are proposing the player with the high level character accept. I have no problem with the rule and have never had it negatively impact my tables, out of around 80-100 tables. For the folks having trouble with it, there is always the alternative of making more characters to cover that spread. This has nothing to do with the issue as I see it. My beef with it is, as stated above, is with being presented with the choice to either play a mod with the wrong character, or sit out that slot, despite having spent money/time/effort getting to the gameday/convention/whatever. I have had tables negatively impacted by players above APL playing down with and bringing up the APL. Usually they made it tougher for everyone and sucked worse than the low level characters in how they contributed [example, with a party of level 2's being forced up to APL 4: an 8 Ftr/3 Wiz who round 1) runs away, round 2) enlarge persons, round 3) slowly joins the fringes of battles, and all following rounds tries to stay clear of danger] That said, I wouldn't have any great trauma if the level +3 rule was extended into a level +4 rule. Sounds like problems with specific players and their PC's to me, not with the system itself. If this is the case, the solution is not to impose a rule upon everyone, its to work with individuals. I am throwing my support this way, as both the times I have had characters die is because of one or two higher level charater's dragged up the APL by playing down more than +3. :mad: And yet you chose to play at that APL anyway, knowing the risks. You didn't have to, you had the same choice as the high level PC. I lean towards support for the rule as is. I personally haven't seen a problem with it so far and think that there is an overblown sense of hysteria about the possible downsides. I'm also not a fan of high level characters making what would be a fun and challenging mod into a cakewalk just because they played way down. Probably the best argument I have seen so far to support the rule. If combat is your thing, and one PC is playing down and dominating them, I can see you not having as much fun. However, I don't see how imposing a APL+3 limit helps. At the lower APL's a APL+3 character can *still* easily/often dominate the combats (presuming optimized characters). The rule didn't solve anything. Leave the rule, most serious players have a few of characters anyway. It might be nice to have a cl-3 rule as well to keep very low level pcs off high apl tables. This might eliminate that rare scenario where someone gets booted of by the low level player. What it the players other PC(s) are out of TU's (as presented previously)? This is quite realistic as I see it, (at least in our area) due to the lack of high level play generally available. Mid level PC's get more play time, and run out of TUs. I think most people impacted by the rule are those set on playing a particular PC at a specific APL. In this case that person always has the option of playing at cons where APL is pre muster'd or at a games day /home game. Sure that person may have limited options game wise but how much do we weigh one persons enjoyment over anothers? or another 5? Or six if you consider the GMs enjoyment may be hampered. Those who don't like having higher level PC's at the table have the same choices themselves. And how *do* you weigh one persons enjoyment over another's? Not everyone minds having a higher level playing down. But i think the spirit of the rules of team work and cooperation is best represented by people with Higher - out of APL pcs playing an alterante PC (most have them and if they dont - they should. I agree that teamwork and cooperation would be the best course of action. However it appears that people are saying that all the onus for compromise is on the player with the high level PC. A lot of players have alternate PC's yes. This doesn't all PC's are equally appropriate for each mod. At the end of the day a person with only a level 2 PC can never play with any other PC. A person with a level 14 PC can always create a new PC. And if the mod is APL 10? or is the 14 playing down to APL4? :rolleyes: I support the rule. (one of the few changes in the new LGCS that I do support) Love GB I support the rule. If your only character is 10th level then you should really start a new one. Totally besides the point as I see it. Its not a matter of having a appropriate level PC available to use, its a matter of playing a mod with the right PC. Or at least, thats the issue as I see it.
Cardinal Teplin 03-14-07, 02:01 PM	The low-level player can only "force" the APL down if the other 4-5 people at the table agree to let them: you can never refuse to let someone join a table but at the same time you can always decline to judge or play at any table at any time. Ideally you know in advance based on, say, a warhorn site that shows who else is signed up and what characters they're bringing. If you list a request for APL 12-14 and everyone else has listed 2-4 then you know in advance that there are going to be issues. If your convention does not give you that kind of information in advance then don't patronize them. <snip> I can just not go, and I would never plan to go to a convention that didn't give me the information I need to make that judgement in advance. Great. So we shut down the conventions? There aren't, to my knowledge, ANY conventions that use warhorn in my region. Let's take a step back here. People are talking about giving up on conventions and shutting down tables to avoid negative repercussions with this new rule. My own group has already lost one table to it, and I don't doubt that more will follow. We are talking about a minor social problem: Some players spoiling a game for others by using their higher level at the table to lord it over other players. I've never actually seen mismatched levels cause a problem on any table I've run or played in since year 1 of the campaign, but I'll take people's work for it that it happens. Fair enough. The solution involves shutting down all tables with mismatched levels. Even where this is the only way to muster a table. I don't want to stop people playing games they would otherwise enjoy. I don't want to shut down cons. I don't want to make organiser's life any more of a misery than it already is. These people jump through hoops already to ensure I have fun, so why make it worse for them? All this just to eliminate a tiny fraction of the ways in which people can irritate eachother. I've played with my fair share of jerks - you don't need a higher level character to spoil someone else's day or get their character killed. Bottom line - It's just not worth it. One of our local organisers pointed out another problem. Take a table of 5, 5, 5, 10. Not ideal, but hardly unusual towards the end of the year, when TUs are running low. Under the old rules, they could play down to APL 6, which is probably where they should be. The high leveller gets half xp from a lower band than he's used to, but at least everyone can play. Under the new rules, APL 8, no choice. Most of the table is on half xp, and they may well all die. H Who doesn't want to turn up to a con to find himself twiddling his thumbs because the rules stop him from playing a viable table.
Madfox11 03-15-07, 08:39 AM	Does Living Greyhawk really need to place so many restrictions on play? Shouldn't we be allowed to freely choose our APL, with rewards scaled by either character level or APL played? But let's take it further. Does this campaign really need to restrict the amount of times a person can play with forced retirement and Time Units? Is there any reason why we would actually want to limit someone's play opportunities? Is there a point to saying "Sorry, you've played too much, you have to stop now?" Is it really that bad that someone else will get to play his character more than you will because he gets to play more than you do? So what if he goes from 1st-14th in one year; why do you care? As others have said: players can play as often as there are adventures and they have time. It are the PCs that are limited to a set amount of adventures. In any event, the reason people care about TU is because of suspension of disbelief. There are only so many adventures you can do in one year. Shouldn't we be about letting people have fun? I'm starting to realize it's ludicrous that the current LGCS includes rules that penalize keeping your level down (multiclass penalties to gold) as well as rules that penalize levelling up (APL+4 rule). The multi-class xp penalties are core rules and beyond our ability to control. The gold penalties have been added because xp:gp ratio is an intrensic part of game balance. They have nothing to do with APL let alone in keeping your level down. The APL +4 rule also has nothing to do with penalizing levelling up. It has to do with people (players and especially DMs) complaining about high level PCs being forced upon a table regardless of their ideas of fun. Of course, they could walk, but DMs cannot (at least not without serious repurcusions) and why should the good buy give in to the jerk? Obviously, in a perfect world such a rule would not be needed, but apparently the world is far from perfect.
JamesMaissen 03-15-07, 08:49 AM	The APL +4 rule also has nothing to do with penalizing levelling up. It has to do with people (players and especially DMs) complaining about high level PCs being forced upon a table regardless of their ideas of fun. Of course, they could walk, but DMs cannot (at least not without serious repurcusions) and why should the good buy give in to the jerk? Obviously, in a perfect world such a rule would not be needed, but apparently the world is far from perfect. Doesn't this just change who the jerk can be? And now instead of just making a wierd APL or possibly trouncing combats now the new jerk can deny the character to play entirely. What does this achieve? It attempts to put a bandaid on the APL system. Do away with that system and most of this problem disappears. Let players have more freedom and social pressures will achieve this while allowing wierd fringe cases where everyone is otherwise happy. -James
Mattastrophic 03-15-07, 10:37 AM	The APL +4 rule also has nothing to do with penalizing levelling up. It has to do with people (players and especially DMs) complaining about high level PCs being forced upon a table regardless of their ideas of fun. Of course, they could walk, but DMs cannot (at least not without serious repurcusions) and why should the good buy give in to the jerk? Obviously, in a perfect world such a rule would not be needed, but apparently the world is far from perfect. You are assuming that all people who with higher-level PCs and wish to play them are jerks, and you are saying that wishing to play a certain PC classifies jerk behavior. You are also assuming that the very presence of a higher-level PC at the table will, 100% of the time, deny the five other players the ability to have fun. These assumptions are all wrong. Instead, lower-level players are the jerks, standing behind this rule to force the APL they want. I myself have been forced out of two tables so far due to this rule. But I guess it is incorrect behavior for me to want to play the same character in a storyline. I had no idea that I would apparently deny the other five players of fun by sitting back and buffing the party. So the Circle listens to the minority who complain about characters playing down and decide to just not let tables go off at all. I am very surprised that the Circle would rather kick people out of their tables than allow everyone to play. -Matt
kenobi65 03-15-07, 10:45 AM	So the Circle listens to the minority who complain about characters playing down and decide to just not let tables go off at all. I am very surprised that the Circle would rather kick people out of their tables than allow everyone to play. I'm surprised it's taken you this long to realize that that's the way rules in LG work. A particular rule, or loophole, gets abused by a minority of the players, some other players complain, and a rule gets changed. Very few rules in LG are there because *everybody* abused something...the rules are there because a minority did (or would). On one of these threads, Pieter noted that the Circle was keeping tabs on the effect of this rule change. My advice to you is to document actual cases (not just hypothetical situations) where the new rule affected who could play at a table (or whether it caused a table to not go off at all), and send them to your Triad POC and your Circle member.
taylorj 03-15-07, 11:01 AM	On one of these threads, Pieter noted that the Circle was keeping tabs on the effect of this rule change. My advice to you is to document actual cases (not just hypothetical situations) where the new rule affected who could play at a table (or whether it caused a table to not go off at all), and send them to your Triad POC and your Circle member. This is probably the best thing you can do if you don't agree with this rule - considering that people documenting the opposite is most likely why the rule was put in place to begin with. I admit I don't personally see the APL+3 limit as a problem, and I've never really run into that situation, but if it can be shown that it's causing issues for a large number of people then by all means get rid of it. The reason I don't run into that situation locally is that nobody can seem to stick to one character. Someone having only one high level is almost unthinkable. It's more like "play one character up to level five and then-- ooh shiny let's try this class now!" But I'm willing to concede that some people are less easily distracted by shiny things. :P
Jay_Ibero_911 03-15-07, 11:21 AM	While the rule will likely not effect me directly, as I have a decent stable of PC's, I disagree with the rule because it limits play opportunities, and anything that limits play opportunities is bad. It contradicts the rule that players are not allowed to turn away other players, especially at a convention where people payed money for the explicit purpose of playing mod X with character Y, and suddenly, despite having payed to attend, they are no longer guaranteed that play opportunity. I think the rule really needs a clause allowing it to be put to a table vote whether to boot the high level character and play low, or low level character and play higher, assuming the both the low and high level players are adamant about playing that particular PC. Automatically booting a high level character is level discrimination!
Cardinal Teplin 03-15-07, 11:30 AM	On one of these threads, Pieter noted that the Circle was keeping tabs on the effect of this rule change. My advice to you is to document actual cases (not just hypothetical situations) where the new rule affected who could play at a table (or whether it caused a table to not go off at all), and send them to your Triad POC and your Circle member. That's what I'm doing at the moment. I'm running at roughly 1 per 20 tables, or about 5% of games, being disrupted to the point where mustering the table is impossible as originally formulated, despite the players themselves wanting to play. I strongly suspect the eventual average will turn out to be far below that, but then it's not like the rule has even been in place that long. However, I play with people who for the most part keep very careful records. In most cases gathering this kind of data is impossible. It's also highly situational. It doesn't include situations where people do manage to find a table solution, just not with the characters they wanted to use. It doesn't cover convention organisers managing to finesse their way around the limitation by taking extra time or effort they could ill-afford, tables where someone simply walked away without complaining when they couldn't make table, events that didn't happen in the first place because a table couldn't be made for the game people wanted to play, and so on. And of course, it can't possibly cover the reverse situation, unless you can think of way of telling whether a game where someone got excluded from playing a high level character would have necessarily been spoiled by that person being a jerk. So what we're going to compare this data to is a mystery to me. But if the real question is, does this rule _actually_ cause problems, then the simple answer is yes, yes it does.
MatteBlack 03-15-07, 12:52 PM	Automatically booting a high level character is level discrimination! I know many of us come from cultures where discrimination is illegal or at least frowned upon but, this is more a matter of preparation than an unavoidable condition to be discriminated over. The simple fact is that we are very able to have a stable of characters at different levels if we put our minds to it. The level range formally allowable was being abused and that window needed to be closed a bit. Thinking ahead or making a new character at the table are both options that can help provide more options to play. If I decide not to put snow or all level tires on my car, I am on pretty shaky ground to complain about not being able to drive in a blizzard. If I put all my eggs in one basket and can't play my only high-level character at a table, I am the main person to blame. Maybe there are ways to make this rule more palatable but the ball is in our court now. Create a selection of characters. Lee
bitznarf 03-15-07, 01:01 PM	If I decide not to put snow or all level tires on my car, I am on pretty shaky ground to complain about not being able to drive in a blizzard. If I put all my eggs in one basket and can't play my only high-level character at a table, I am the main person to blame. Maybe there are ways to make this rule more palatable but the ball is in our court now. Create a selection of characters. Lee And if a mod is suited to one character in particular for whatever reason, be it a story arc, metaorg connections, or something else. Simply 'making a new character' doesn't work all the time. Unless you are suggesting that if I can't play a level 14 at a APL 10 table, I should make a level 1 character and insist that everyone accommodate that choice. And if I pull the APL down to 8, whoops there go the level 12s. But thats fine, because the rules say I can do this. What I am getting at is that the problem, as I see it, with the APL+3 level rule isn't about having a character at the appropriate level, its about playing the mod with the *right* character. Something I have yet to see addressed by those who support the APL+3 rule.
Sieylianna 03-15-07, 01:33 PM	Maybe there are ways to make this rule more palatable but the ball is in our court now. Create a selection of characters. Actually, the solution is to make the rule unpalatable to conventions and organizers. If a significant convemtion was innudated with complaints, they're going to go the RPGA coordinators and tell them to get their act together. One occurrence like that will have as much impact as 50 gamers posting about a problem they had on this board. The other problem with this is because LG uses Even APL's and the rule is based on an Odd number. They've had that problem in the past, but it just cost people XP and GP. Now it's costing peoplel play opportunities. Ed
Jay_Ibero_911 03-15-07, 01:45 PM	And if a mod is suited to one character in particular for whatever reason, be it a story arc, metaorg connections, or something else. Simply 'making a new character' doesn't work all the time. Unless you are suggesting that if I can't play a level 14 at a APL 10 table, I should make a level 1 character and insist that everyone accommodate that choice. And if I pull the APL down to 8, whoops there go the level 12s. But thats fine, because the rules say I can do this. What I am getting at is that the problem, as I see it, with the APL+3 level rule isn't about having a character at the appropriate level, its about playing the mod with the *right* character. Something I have yet to see addressed by those who support the APL+3 rule. You bring up a good point. For those mid-level tables, the new rule opens up a whole new type of level bullying. If the APL doesn't support the high level character, he CAN make up some random level 1 character to forcefully drag the APL below what the other players preferred PC's can play. For instance, a player REALLY wants to play his 15th level PC for a particular mod, but the rest of the players refuse to go higher than APL 10. 15+12+12+8+8=55/5=11, majority chooses APL 10, booting 15th, 15th then turns around and pulls out a 1st level character, 12+12+8+8+1=41/5=8.2, booting BOTH 12th level characters, and breaking the table.
Madfox11 03-15-07, 02:45 PM	It's also highly situational. It doesn't include situations where people do manage to find a table solution, just not with the characters they wanted to use. It doesn't cover convention organisers managing to finesse their way around the limitation by taking extra time or effort they could ill-afford, tables where someone simply walked away without complaining when they couldn't make table, events that didn't happen in the first place because a table couldn't be made for the game people wanted to play, and so on. Funny. When I am a senior DM I always try to finesse my way around the limitations simply because the majority of players and DMs really dislike such a situation. So even without the rule I would get complaints about lack of fun and people walking away... something somebody actually adviced people to do. I am always pleasently surprised about the willingness of enough players to compromize to make it fun for more people... The fact is that it the open mustering of big conventions have left me with a bad taste many times because I ended up with bad players that all the other locals avoided. For this reason and the balanced table rule I really prefer the pre-mustering method - the downside of spending more time on tableforming and the difficulty to find a table for imprompto arrivals is something I can live with...
MatteBlack 03-15-07, 02:57 PM	And if a mod is suited to one character in particular for whatever reason, be it a story arc, metaorg connections, or something else. Simply 'making a new character' doesn't work all the time. Unless you are suggesting that if I can't play a level 14 at a APL 10 table, I should make a level 1 character and insist that everyone accommodate that choice. And if I pull the APL down to 8, whoops there go the level 12s. But thats fine, because the rules say I can do this. I'd suggest you start playing a secondary now and get some levels on him to avoid that situation in the future and help span the gap. Lee
bitznarf 03-15-07, 03:28 PM	And if a mod is suited to one character in particular for whatever reason, be it a story arc, metaorg connections, or something else. Simply 'making a new character' doesn't work all the time. Unless you are suggesting that if I can't play a level 14 at a APL 10 table, I should make a level 1 character and insist that everyone accommodate that choice. And if I pull the APL down to 8, whoops there go the level 12s. But thats fine, because the rules say I can do this. I'd suggest you start playing a secondary now and get some levels on him to avoid that situation in the future. Lee It has nothing to do with having secondaries or not. It's about playing a mod with the right character. Why should lower level PCs get preference over higher level ones? P.S. I have secondaries. The situation above is hypothetical. Running out of TU's with secondaries, due to things like Red Hand of Doom this year, does make the above problem more likely however.
MatteBlack 03-15-07, 03:54 PM	Why should lower level PCs get preference over higher level ones?. I haven't played tons and tons of LG specifically but, I haved played alot closed campaigns from online to tabletop to LARP. Campaigns are healthier if they are more accessible to new players. This means giving the benefit to lowerl evel players. Higher level players have the advantage of having more abilities , better understanding of the campaign and plot and probably recieving more in return from the game due to the considerable amount of time they have invested. By the time you get to those upper reaches, a player who has treated other players decently should have developed at least a few other near-level characters to play with and be willing to adapt to make the game they enjoy work a bit better. After my next adventure, I will have a 4th and 5th level character. I have my third designed and plan to play out the 5th level as much as possible to create a spread. I have adopted a similar plan in my online, tabletop and LARP experiences as well. You have your newbie helper character, your high-level "main" and your mid-level characters that are insurance against death and retirement. Luckily, I have a good home group and some of them make cons but, I have never had a problem finding a group of like characters to do multiple adventures with at a con I have attended alone. Sure it is an effort to be prepared and cultivate a trusted group of players but, far less planning than most spend on their build designs. Ideally, the level and adventure you want would always be available but, unfortunately, a few players have played down badly enough to cause a problem. The old system had a chance and has been found lacking. In all honesty, the problem is probably inconsiderate players but, that is a much stickier problem to legislate against. Lee
solbergb 03-15-07, 03:57 PM	Why should lower level PCs get preference over higher level ones? r. Well, for one practical reason. Tables that are weak and forced to play up because of one strong character have a disturbing tendency to have deaths, TPK's etc when the one strong character is incapable of protecting the weak and pulling the weight of several characters by himself. It is rare that the strong character is the one who pays the price either...he's usually the survivor. Tables that are strong and forced to play down because of one weak character still tend to succeed, and if anyone dies, it is likely the weak character who caused the situation. There is also the 6 person rule, which magnifies the effects of adding a 6th high level character and minimizes the effects of a 6th low level character. You're getting +6 levels added to the character just because of that bump (each of the 6 people are treated as one level higher). So a L2 joining an already APL8 table is extraordinarily unlikely to force it to APL6, since he adds +8 levels to the table and only decreases it by 5/6. Whereas a L12 joining an APL8 table effectively adds 18 levels to the table and only decreasing it by 5/6. This is almost guaranteed to bump it to APL10. (5x8=40+12=52/6 = 8.6777 +1=9.677=APL10. 5x8=40+2=42/6=7+1=8.=APL8) Given the choice of one or the other, I'd rather have low level "bullies" any day over high level "bullies". Neither is better. If you have a high level and need to play him in a specific mod, round up your high level buddies and make a table. If you can only play at a convention, use the convention mailing lists to help organize it. If you have 6 people at roughly your APL, you are pretty much immune to bullying in either direction. The square peg will be the one who doesn't muster.
bitznarf 03-15-07, 03:59 PM	In all honesty, the problem is probably inconsiderate players but, that is a much stickier problem to legislate against. Lee So instead, we legislate in a broad, sweeping manner, that just creates new issues instead. The solution doesn't lie in making another rule. Or at least I don't think it does. Do I have a possible solution to the problem of inconsiderate players? Not really. That doesn't mean that the APL+3 rule is the solution.
Grantor 03-15-07, 04:08 PM	I find it really interesting to read all of the comments denegrating the restriction against characters three levels over the APL are very black and white. Many of the justifications for its removal sound like preventing the character from playing at a specific table is also preventing that character from ever playing that mod. Or that your character is entitled to play ever single mod. If you get bumped at a convention, and don't want to play another character, play something else, like a different mod; or even a non-RPGA game. It's not like you were told to go home. If you are playing at a Game Day, then insist that the organizers collect the character levels and deal with the mustering of the tables before the event happens. The 3+ level rule does not prevent your character from playing the mod. It only means you can't play it with these players. The rule also does not mean that the player cannot play, there are always other choices (although that choice might be to stay home if you know that all the other players at the Game Day are low level characters). Mods are available for at least an entire year (if released in December, more if earlier). If it's a Home game, then perhaps you should metagame for a moment and determine the likelyhood of further invites for your high level character when no one else can be appropriately challenged when they play with you. If I were the low level player, my tactic when faced with the insisting APL +4 character would be to convince at least one other player to drop out of the game. Then the table does not form at all and no one gets to play. Fifteen minutes later, with the "open slot", I convince the GM to run something, because I can probably find 3-4 more low levels players that have an "open slot". If the GM or the other players say "not interested", then fine. This is just as legal as having the high level player muscle his way into my APL 4 or 6 game. I would admit that this is just as selfish. But here four or five players get their desires fulfilled, with only one player having a less than satisfactory experience.
Japangirl 03-15-07, 04:59 PM	Oftentimes, especially when mods are about to retire, only one or two tables will form, so it is a "now or never" experience. And while no one has a right to play every module, people do have an expectation that signing up with similar APL people will get them a chance to play. The APL +3 rule does prevent last-minute and midnight madness tables from forming, thus it prevents people from getting to play mods. It also makes sense that people who have played previous mods will wish to complete a series with the character who played the previous ones. It gives a sense of continuity to a very episodic campaign, and a lot of times there are benefits and downsides to having played previous modules. I was recently assured that even if I died, my body would not be carried off by a very nasty thing because before he turned evil, I had helped him out. If I had played a different character in that mod, I wouldn't have had that extra insurance. People show up. People no-show. People try to bring out different characters because they didn't realize the mod was part of a series. High level characters playing down don't have to be jerks (been the low playing with a high and the high playing down, we all had fun both times), that is a personality issue. My bard died because a person playing down chose not to overshadow our party, and didn't blast something. I am not at all upset by this, I'm just saying discretion is possible. Don't blame high-level people for wanting to play or being upset when they can't. Before, playing down because the APL was odd so there was a choice was an option. Now, it isn't a choice anymore, and the party has to play up. To me, this is unacceptably limiting.
Mommy was an Orc 03-15-07, 05:17 PM	Before, playing down because the APL was odd so there was a choice was an option. Now, it isn't a choice anymore, and the party has to play up. To me, this is unacceptably limiting. What? Where does it say that? I don't see that in the new LGCS...
bitznarf 03-15-07, 05:30 PM	You bring up some good points solbergb. I'll have to think about this. As for Grantor, this ground has been covered already. Turn the situation around and look at it from that direction. Ie. the low level should use one of the options you presented.
Japangirl 03-15-07, 05:48 PM	What? Where does it say that? I don't see that in the new LGCS... It's inherent in the new rule. If the high was level 10, and the APL came out at 7, the group could decide they were too weak for APL 8 and choose APL 6 instead. Now, if the 10 is to be able to play at all, they must choose APL 8 even if they all feel the table is too weak for that level of challenge.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-15-07, 05:52 PM	It's inherent in the new rule. If the high was level 10, and the APL came out at 7, the group could decide they were too weak for APL 8 and choose APL 6 instead. Now, if the 10 is to be able to play at all, they must choose APL 8 even if they all feel the table is too weak for that level of challenge. Not necessarily. If the APL works out odd, the players get to choose APL. If majority voted APL 6, the level 10 just gets booted...
bitznarf 03-15-07, 06:22 PM	Not necessarily. If the APL works out odd, the players get to choose APL. If majority voted APL 6, the level 10 just gets booted... And if it a table of 4...?
Jay_Ibero_911 03-15-07, 06:27 PM	And if it a table of 4...? Well, then they're screwed...unless someone bites the bullet and uses a different character. Just another potential undesirable scenario caused by the new rule...
Cardinal Teplin 03-15-07, 07:11 PM	Many of the justifications for its removal sound like preventing the character from playing at a specific table is also preventing that character from ever playing that mod. At the present stage in the year this is unlikely, but as we get to the close of the year, it becomes more and more likely If you get bumped at a convention, and don't want to play another character, play something else, like a different mod; or even a non-RPGA game. It's not like you were told to go home. If it's a one-day games day, or if the negotiations over tables took long enough that the other games for that slot have already started, then yes, it is exactly like that. Less likely in a large con, but entirely predicable in a small one. It happened to me at the last con I went to, for example. If you are playing at a Game Day, then insist that the organizers collect the character levels and deal with the mustering of the tables before the event happens. Ok, now I'm beginning to undertstand. You're used to very different set up, presumably because we're from very different regions. For increasing numbers of cons, pre-mustering is either frowned upon, or outright banned. A certain proportion of the slots must be available to attendees on the day. This is to make sure the event is catering to newcomers, and to ensure the convention isn't simply exploited as a handy venue for what becomes a private pre-booked event. For a large games day, you can have fully pre-booked events, or you can have people turning up on the day. You won't have fully-prebooked tables on any event I organise, because it's too discouraging for newcomers and people unfamiliar with our group. We want to spread the hobby, yes? For single games, you have an even bigger problem. Not getting a table together means the event doesn't happen. At present I'm trying to get some players together for a table in my local region, in an effort to start an LG group in a town that doesn't have one, in conjunction with a new games store that has never hosted LG before. If I can't sort out a table, it's not 'better luck next time', because there may not be a next time. Yes, if you have an effectively limitless supply of players and infinite time to sort a solution, then you can get around the problem. At a smaller con, the people you have are the people you have.
copper_wyrmling 03-15-07, 08:06 PM	I find it really interesting to read all of the comments denegrating the restriction against characters three levels over the APL are very black and white. Many of the justifications for its removal sound like preventing the character from playing at a specific table is also preventing that character from ever playing that mod. Or that your character is entitled to play ever single mod. If you get bumped at a convention, and don't want to play another character, play something else, like a different mod; or even a non-RPGA game. It's not like you were told to go home. If you are playing at a Game Day, then insist that the organizers collect the character levels and deal with the mustering of the tables before the event happens. The 3+ level rule does not prevent your character from playing the mod. It only means you can't play it with these players. The rule also does not mean that the player cannot play, there are always other choices (although that choice might be to stay home if you know that all the other players at the Game Day are low level characters). Mods are available for at least an entire year (if released in December, more if earlier). Just to present some counterexamples: My only experiences with people playing down that far were both instances of a L14 cleric playing down to APL 10, in a module with high minimum APL. In the first case, I was playing the L9 cleric who you'd think would've been "overshadowed" by the L14 guy, but I just enjoyed getting L7 buff spells and seeing what my character would be able to do in five more levels ;) He was playing with us because everyone else of his level in the area had already played it, and the player wanted to bring his high-level character who'd played the linked modules and was immersed in the metaregional plotline (the module was Dorakaa, an Iuz's Border States game from Year 3 or 4 iirc). In the second case, I was playing the L14 cleric who helped out a bunch of L8-9 people who wanted to play the minimum APL 10, reputedly very dangerous scenario before it retired. When the marshal first suggested it, I was very reluctant, since I was worried the other players would feel unchallenged (my cleric's Will save is in the mid-20s, so dominate / confusion was unlikely to be a problem, and she's quite capable of soloing combats when playing down that far). I did have a L11 character, but she was out of TUs, since it was late November (my current PC levels are 15/12/8/4 plus some L1s, at that point it was 14/11/4/2 plus some L1s). The GM said that it was a very tough scenario and it would be good to have a high-level cleric helping out, the other players all wanted me to play my cleric (since the alternative was nobody playing at all), so I played. We had a fantastic time (I overheard some of the other players telling their friends about that game, later in the convention), and it would've been a real shame to miss it due to the APL+3 rule. If you're wondering why I hadn't played the mod earlier, I'd just moved to the region and was playing at my first convention. The others were locals who hadn't played it because their PCs had only just reached a high enough level: they HAD played most of the other games on offer in that convention slot. Basically... I've never had any problems due to people playing a long way down. The penalties are severe enough that most people I know avoid it like the plague (in Eye of the Storm, my cleric felt kinda annoyed by the fact that fighting a CR-14 advanced cadaver collector solo while her party freed the NPC prisoners gained her all of 675XP and 1150gp: she probably would've been safer in a proper APL 14 table and would've gotten 3x as much XP and 6x as much gold). I do accept that other people have had difficulties because of it: I hadn't thought of the problems that could arise if a high-level person bumped the APL and then couldn't pull their weight. I just don't feel that imposing a hard-and-fast rule that prevents some previously legitimate (and enjoyable) tables from forming is a good way of dealing with the problem.
Grantor 03-15-07, 08:12 PM	Ok, now I'm beginning to undertstand. You're used to very different set up, presumably because we're from very different regions. I'm used to cons that lump all of the tables into one, unsorted muster; which at least gives you an idea if there is anyone in the same APL that has pre-registered. I agree that you have no idea what sort of characters that will just drop in unannounced. But you have an idea of the range. With three tables it would take some sort of weird split of just high level PCs and low level PCs. If there were a mid-level table, how would anyone get booted and not get to play? For a large games day, you can have fully pre-booked events, or you can have people turning up on the day. You won't have fully-prebooked tables on any event I organise, because it's too discouraging for newcomers and people unfamiliar with our group. We want to spread the hobby, yes? Good point. So you would shepherd the first timers with a 10th level character as a means of encouraging newcomers. If I can't sort out a table, it's not 'better luck next time', because there may not be a next time. How is this is fixed by removing the APL +3 restriction? That's a problem of insufficient range of players in the pool. Also, what about Mods for which the high-level character was never in the APL range. Should he still get to join if the APL +3 rule is removed? Also, we are talking about less than half of the characters (at any given time) ever having problem with this. With a table of six, and at least second level characters (except the high-guy), it would it would take an eigth-level character to get bumped. That's half way to retirement. A party of all first level characters should be playing an Intro. In fact, this case shows that it would be better to mix-up the high and low level tables, instead of segregating. [2,2,2,2,2,8] and [8, 8, 10, 10, 12, 12] would be better off as [2, 2, 2, 8, 10, 12] and [2, 2, 8, 8, 10, 12]. Ending up in a situation where the cut off does not exist and parties are not mixing, indicates a big breakdown in sportsmanship with all of the people mustering.
solbergb 03-15-07, 09:04 PM	As a side note, I'm less down on allowing high level chars at a table if it doesn't bump the table to 6 characters. The dynamics of low playing up vs high playing down aren't as severe without the +1 level bump, and the table may not be viable or even legal without the high level guy joining. From the petition stuff on the other forum, there is a significant number of people who really hate the 3lv over rule and a larger number in the board community that like it or are indifferent to it. While these are self-selecting samples with bad statistics (demographic of board folks is not representative of LG as a whole, and sample sizes are small) the numbers are big enough percentagewise that even bad statistics shows a problem. Some people are being affected negatively by the rule. Some people have been affected negatively by not having the rule. Many people have never ever been at a table where the +3 level rule would have mattered. All groups are large enough that they are not insignificant. In my mind this means something like this rule probably needs to exist, but the implementation should be modified a bit to handle the most common edge conditions whereby people are being negatively affected. That would shift the numbers to something more like this: A few people are negatively affected by the rule. Most people aren't affected one way or the other Some people are affected negatively by not having a rule like this in place, so like the rule. That's the best you can do. Some people will always be unhappy.
solbergb 03-15-07, 09:07 PM	In fact, this case shows that it would be better to mix-up the high and low level tables, instead of segregating. [2,2,2,2,2,8] and [8, 8, 10, 10, 12, 12] would be better off as [2, 2, 2, 8, 10, 12] and [2, 2, 8, 8, 10, 12]. Ending up in a situation where the cut off does not exist and parties are not mixing, indicates a big breakdown in sportsmanship with all of the people mustering. Actually what usually happens in this mix: 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8 8 10 10 12 12 is that one of the 8s, 10s or 12s doesn't care what character he plays with and joins the low table with a level 1-4 guy. You need 7 people heavily invested in playing with this exact character to cause a situation where you have to mix the high and low levels. I've been in situations precisely like this dozens of times and have never seen somebody not switch characters. Only once did it have to be me (I often play with my wife, which means 2 chars would have to shift, meaning a lowbie would have to bring a higher char blah blah. It could happen, but someone else always did something less complex)
MatteBlack 03-15-07, 09:45 PM	Perhaps there needs to be an option for players to take on negative levels for the duration of the adventure. It could be chalked up to a random undead attack or some such just prior to the adventure. Then the high level player would have the option of powering down to fit into the mod. This would allow greater flexibility in mustering groups while still disallowing an overpowered character for the mod. As long as items were similarly scaled down, I don't see much opportunity to abuse it.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-15-07, 09:51 PM	Perhaps there needs to be an option for players to take on negative levels for the duration of the adventure. It could be chalked up to a random undead attack or some such just prior to the adventure. Then the high level player would have the option of powering down to fit into the mod. This would allow greater flexibility in mustering groups while still disallowing an overpowered character for the mod. As long as items were similarly scaled down, I don't see much opportunity to abuse it. I like the spirit of the idea...but that would just be needlessly complicating matters. The easiest solution is to just remove the level limit. And c'mon, sometimes it is fun to watch a higher level character obliterate everything.
Mattastrophic 03-15-07, 10:28 PM	Let's roll with that for a moment... I believe Arcanis has a system where your cohorts can go on adventures of their own? That's an idea. I also heard once that Spycraft has a system where every player has a "stable" of characters, based on the level of the highest? (Example: I could have a 13th, a 7th, and a 1st, then if the main makes 14 it becomes 14/8/2) Though I've become of the opinion that this campaign is really beyond APL calculations and TUs as restrictions, I would be open to a more "fun" solution. -Matt enjoys throwing out random crazy ideas to make the game more fun.
Timlagor 03-16-07, 12:18 AM	No one has yet mentioned what happens when the out-of-APL character meets the 'lets see how much we can split the party' module.
GreatSiron 03-16-07, 12:51 AM	No one has yet mentioned what happens when the out-of-APL character meets the 'lets see how much we can split the party' module. Oh I'm pretty sure it's NTPK. (Near total party kill). As in everyone but the high level dies. I guess while I'm at it I'll throw in my two cents. As shown on the anti-pention, I really couldn't care about the rule. (I actually didn't even notice it the first time). This may be because I don't have a character above 7th, and the rule won't affect me unless I'm playing with a bunch of lvl 1's or 2's (in which case I will pull out one of my level 1 concept characters, of which I have half a dozen at least). Now with that said, it does seem that this bothers a lot of people for several reasons, the biggest being story arcs. For them I have this advice: try to keep the story arc character towards the lower part of the APL range. ( I know that this means you won't get to play him as often, but you should always have on hand at least 3 characters you like playing in order to avoid this problem). Does that mean you can't have a high level main? Absolutely not! But try to keep him in arcs with high APL minimums, (like the story arc that Real Hero Blues and Story For Another Day came from). Keep him out of low APL arcs like Window to the Serpents Soul and Blight on Bright Sands. Play these with a lower level character that you like. Now there are some mods that appeal to certain types of characters, and you only have one kind of this character. This is a bit harder, since you can't plan ahead for this kind of thing, and if your con doesn't premuster,or a low lvl shows, you could miss out. The best thing to do here is to play at a local gameday with people you know will be able to accomdate you, or play online, where we are really good about mustering tables, for some reason. As it has been said before, you should really have a stable of characters at all APL's (not all right at APL, but able to cover a 2-3 APL spread). An Example: (my characters) Spike: Rogue/Ranger/Thief Acrobat: Lvl 7 APL's 6-8 Soveliss Xiloscient: Wizard : Lvl 4 APL's 2-4 Aberk C. Morgart: Fighter: Lvl 2 APL 2 By the time Spike hits 9th and can't play APL 6 any more, I have Soveliss up to 6th, where I will feel comfortable playing him in Spike's old APL (he's a low armor class, low HP wizard, while Spike can generate at least 30 AC if he feels like it) And by that time Aberk will be at least 3rd or 4th, and can fully take over APL 2-4, while one of the concepts begins to move up the ranks, thus continuing the cycle. (In this case I think it will be my Greyhawk cleric of Istus, which his EWP: Net and mad detective magic).:) The point is once Spike hits a certain level, I will keep him out of story arcs that begin at 2 or 4, and give them to Soveliss or Aberk. This is traded off by the fact he will be able to do the higher APL stuff, (which is all I plan to do with him, since a lot of my metaregionals have an insane min APL of 10 or more, but if a chance presents itself I'll take it). And that's my two cents on the matter.
gomeztoo 03-16-07, 03:30 AM	For increasing numbers of cons, pre-mustering is either frowned upon, or outright banned. A certain proportion of the slots must be available to attendees on the day. We have a game day 4 days a year (Ducosim) which serves on a 'first arrived, first played' basis. We offer one (sometimes two) scenarios. when you arrive, you put down your name and the PC(s) you wish tio play, with their levels. Shortly before the gamne starts, the con organiser then musters the tables using what is available, asking Pcs to switch PCs when needed. In rare cases, you still get an APL+3 PC (happened to me once), but normally it works out. As an aide: most people bring more PCs and write up their ranges (often two or three). Only in certain cases (series played with a specific PC) people insist on one PC.
gomeztoo 03-16-07, 03:36 AM	Perhaps there needs to be an option for players to take on negative levels for the duration of the adventure. This happened to me once. Played 3 levels down and accidentally* triggered a trap in the adventure that gave me 4 negative levels. The combat that followed did'nt go so smooth, with a -4 on everything... Gomez *) which, in the case of Nesalia means: - "What does THIS do?" *KABOOOM*
Cardinal Teplin 03-16-07, 09:56 AM	We have a game day 4 days a year (Ducosim) which serves on a 'first arrived, first played' basis. We offer one (sometimes two) scenarios. when you arrive, you put down your name and the PC(s) you wish tio play, with their levels. Shortly before the gamne starts, the con organiser then musters the tables using what is available, asking Pcs to switch PCs when needed. In rare cases, you still get an APL+3 PC (happened to me once), but normally it works out. Oh, yes, that's largely how we do it. APL+4 situations are rare, no matter how you slice it. The question is what to do when they come up. Simply banning the table from happening isn't really a solution. Sure you can just assume that people could find another table, or create a new PC, but where that isn't a viable option, you end up either with people just not being able to play to even though everyone wants to, or a table dangerously playing up because they aren't allowed to play down. At a large multi-day con it's a few people missing a slot, and maybe they can find something else to do. At a small event of 4-10 players it's more of a problem. All this to stop a few situations in which someone might have slightly more leeway to be a jerk than normal. Tables of 8, 6, 4, 4, 2, 2 may have been banned, but 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 7 is still, under the new rules, perfectly legal. Assuming that the problem of a single higher level player spoiling the mod is actually widespread, as comments on this list have suggested, then maybe we could go for a solution that actually targets the problem? The present solution doesn't seem to stop the problem, and causes unecessary collateral damage.
Sieylianna 03-16-07, 10:00 AM	As it has been said before, you should really have a stable of characters at all APL's (not all right at APL, but able to cover a 2-3 APL spread). One of the problems is RHOD. I have a bunch of PCs from 1st through 12th and could theoretically cover every APL from 2 through 14. However, if I dedicate my 7th level to Red Hand of Doom for the year, all of a sudden I have a gap: one of my fourth levels could play APL 6, but I don't have anyone who can play APL 8 because of this rule. Ed
taylorj 03-16-07, 11:26 AM	This happened to me once. Played 3 levels down and accidentally* triggered a trap in the adventure that gave me 4 negative levels. The combat that followed did'nt go so smooth, with a -4 on everything... Valuable safety tip: Never play up in a mod with Enervation traps. Something that's just painful for a level 10 is a likely no-saving-throw death for a level 5. :eek: Not that I know this from experience or anything. :rolleyes:
Mommy was an Orc 03-16-07, 11:50 AM	One of the problems is RHOD. I have a bunch of PCs from 1st through 12th and could theoretically cover every APL from 2 through 14. However, if I dedicate my 7th level to Red Hand of Doom for the year, all of a sudden I have a gap: one of my fourth levels could play APL 6, but I don't have anyone who can play APL 8 because of this rule. Ed In a sense, that's a problem, but in case anyone hasn't noticed, this is the year of 'start up another PC' Scourge of the Howling Horde, Greyhawk Ruins - my region(Keoland) even just came out with a new 3 rounder intro - which I ate to balance out some of the new players. Any of those are going to get you a character capable of covering APL 2-4 and if you get your 4th to 6th, that closes the gap. If someone is one of those players who has to play every mod, then they're going to have options because they played those mods. Sure, the 1st two aren't out yet, but they'll be out before you have to play RHoD. Heck, you might even have the TUs and time to get your 4th up to 6th. In any case, even if the event isn't mustering until the point in time of the game, that doesn't stop you from doing any of the following: Politely emailing the person in charge of mustering before the event, explaining that you have a character who has played mods X, Y, and Z, he's level N, and if he could please try to put him into mod A at that APL, you'd really appreciate it. If the response is less than suitable, then you'll know going in to either schedule a different mod or have your options open. If it isn't possible to do this prior to the event, find him when you have a moment way before the actual muster for the game. Try to organize a table on the appropriate group before the event. Seriously, if you're only willing to play at a particular APL, you should try to do this. Bring along a friend or two who are in the same spot you are and have the same level characters. -------- I think the change in the rule I'd make, if any, is the following: If a particular mod has less than a month before retirement, and all the players in a secret ballot are okay with it, you can ignore the APL+3 rule.
MatteBlack 03-16-07, 12:28 PM	One of the problems is RHOD. I have a bunch of PCs from 1st through 12th and could theoretically cover every APL from 2 through 14. However, if I dedicate my 7th level to Red Hand of Doom for the year, all of a sudden I have a gap: one of my fourth levels could play APL 6, but I don't have anyone who can play APL 8 because of this rule. Ed The whole RHoD procedures are a fiasco and are likely exacerbating this 3+ issue. If anything needs to be fixed, I'd start there. I think playing 3 levels over can be bad with an insensitive player and largely unchallenging when everyone is on the same page. I think reviewing how players are "bumped" from tables allowing characters to powerdown is where the solution could lie.
GrahamWills 03-16-07, 02:21 PM	I agree with Alma's asessment of the rule being crap. I can understand blocking the level 2 PCs from playing APL8, but it does not make sense IMO to block a level 8 from playing APL2 at half xp/gp reward. At APL 2, climax fight is a nasty fight against young black dragon. CR5 creature. Nasty. Should be fun for all ... Warmage 8 casts split empowered scorching ray doing 12d6 * 1.5 + 7. Next round a regular scorching ray kills it. Did everyone have fun?
Jay_Ibero_911 03-16-07, 02:26 PM	At APL 2, climax fight is a nasty fight against young black dragon. CR5 creature. Nasty. Should be fun for all ... Warmage 8 casts split empowered scorching ray doing 12d6 * 1.5 + 7. Next round a regular scorching ray kills it. Did everyone have fun? That's a good question. One that's impossible to answer. There are times when it's fun to watch a higher level character walk all over something. Let's you relax and absorb the mod more, rather than being terrified of a combat and then hating a mod for being too hard. Of course, this is only "fun" once in a while, but given the infrequency of very high level characters playing down, I don't see the problem here.
kenobi65 03-16-07, 02:29 PM	That's a good question. One that's impossible to answer. There are times when it's fun to watch a higher level character walk all over something. Let's you relax and absorb the mod more, rather than being terrified of a combat and then hating a mod for being too hard. Of course, this is only "fun" once in a while, but given the infrequency of very high level characters playing down, I don't see the problem here. Obviously, many people (yourself included) don't have a problem with it, at least "once in a while". OTOH, obviously, some other people have a big problem with it, and don't find it to be fun even "once in a while". They had a big enough problem with it that their complaints led the Circle to change the rule.
Cardinal Teplin 03-16-07, 07:42 PM	At APL 2, climax fight is a nasty fight against young black dragon. CR5 creature. Nasty. Should be fun for all ... Warmage 8 casts split empowered scorching ray doing 12d6 * 1.5 + 7. Next round a regular scorching ray kills it. Did everyone have fun? Why are you using an example 6 above the APL, rather than 4? And how are you getting 12d6 damage from an 8th level caster? And how are you getting an 8th level character onto an APL 2 table? Of course now with the new rule you'd instead have a perfectly legal 7th level wizard casting the same empowered spell, only now the table is forced to play APL 4 instead. Is that actually an improvement?
Grantor 03-16-07, 07:55 PM	I'd actually like to see a one-month sample of the characters being played. Currently, in the Duchy of Urnst, the Game Day sign-ups are not populated by ANY characters over 6th level. Either we have a huge influx of new players, who would need to have their play experiences "protected" from high level players who would have no choice but to play well below their APL at these events, or we have a lot of players that could not find enough high level characters to play with and decided to start over again. But that is an imperfect snapshot of play in the region. I'd like to see a real comparison and see if there is a real concern on the part of the low-level or the high-level players, or if this is really just a bunch of people worked up about the travesty of the rare cases that this occurs.
JamesMaissen 03-17-07, 03:36 AM	That's the best you can do. Some people will always be unhappy. Again I think that the 'solution' is social and not hard legal. Work it within the gaming society to be frowned upon and this will only occur with proper extenuating circumstances. Look at the lack of rules or perhaps trust that LG puts on judges. Are there bad judges? Yes. What do you do in response to them? Do you make rules that limit and punish tables that would otherwise not be affected by these bad judges? Or do you, instead, create an atmosphere and society where it is strongly discouraged? As an aside, again my solution to the majority of this is to remove APL calculation entirely. Have 'APLs' for mods be level 1-2, 3-4, etc instead of APL 2, APL 4, etc. Let the party look at their makeup and decide where they belong, then let rewards follow the lesser of tier played and PC level. You may run into wierd tables where players are equally tied to playing a mod with specific characters that may result in a table mismatch, but with good sportsman ship and proper attitude it should be able to make the best of an less than optimal situation. -James
Mattastrophic 03-17-07, 12:38 PM	I'd actually like to see a one-month sample of the characters being played. Currently, in the Duchy of Urnst, the Game Day sign-ups are not populated by ANY characters over 6th level. You sure about that? There've been a ton of APL 12+ games down here in Portland going off. I admit I have been a main proponent of them. Duchy conventions, however, I haven't attended a single one as anything but a judge yet. APLs are too low, and it's really strangely low, like people signing up their tertiaries for that naval interactive last Septemberish. -Matt