Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lenardschmidt 01-10-07, 12:12 AM	I originaly posted this in the RPGA forums, but was told it'd be better here, so here it is. I have been playing LG for just over a year now, and i find that the game is not as exciting of fun as it should be, some of the problems i've found i'll list below in the hopes that someone somewhere will try and fix the problems before more ppl leave. 1. DM's, ever played a game where the DM was more interested in winning, ie killing off the players than providing a good game? I have had a character sold into slavery because a DM accidently transposed the first and last encounters in a mod, i've seen a DM coup de grace a player simply because in their oppinion the played didnt seem to care about it's fate, while other targets were available, i've watched a an entire party was TPK'd and the DM cellebrated the fact and told everyone else playing around the room how they'd gotten their first TPK. 2. APL's, the APL system needs some work, too often i've been forced to play up with lv2-5 lv characters simply because there were higher lv pc's in the game, this makes the game almost unplayable, content removed due to spoiler in active modThis was not a problem of us "wanting " to play up, but the fact that with the players available there was a coupe of higher lv's that pushed it up....too bad for us. Which brings me to the last item. 3. #'s of creatures in mods. Mods are written for 6 players, if you have 6 of the correct lv's your usually fine, though at times that's not always possible. I've been in games where due to losses of characters, low TU's available lower lv character we left with very few options and had to play in 3,4 and 5 character games. since there is no function of the mod to reduce the number of creatures you face in the mod player death can come swift and fast, this should be changed, surely DM's should have the availabilty to add just the numbers baised on the group, surely Writers should have the option in their mod's to allow for that, and surely Triad's should be able to adjust those mods that exist so that this can happen. we dont live i na perfect world so why write a mod that requires a specific number of playeres to survive. On the whole, i've enjoyed playing LG, with the exceptions listed above, i've had alot of DM's that make allowances for accidental deaths, the -9 and staballized, but then i've lost at least 1 character that was in an unwinable fight with no way out..try getting around a CR6 large creature with reach to get to the door at lv 2 and see what i mean. I cant bethe only one that's had problems like this and it seems to me that these things would be negitive for the game at a whole. i hope that others will speak up about similar event and that the game as a whole will benifit from it. Cheers
solbergb 01-10-07, 12:32 AM	1. Bad GM's suck. This isn't a problem of LG, it is a universal problem. Read "What's a Player to Do" forum sometime. 2. APL tiering can suck if players aren't adults when mustering and try to muster stuff more or less in APL. This usually means most long time players have low level characters rolled up to fit into low level tables, rather than shoehoring an uninvited high level char in. I've had almost no trouble with this, but then I keep chars of multiple levels myself - but only once or twice have I really had to play a game with a char I wouldn't have chosen to make a table work. 3. LG is designed for FIVE characters of ICONIC capability. I have empirical proof of this from prepping > 100 modules and testing all APL ranges 3 times with randomly mustered parties of 4-6 iconic, single-classed, PHB-only feat/spell characters. However if the players behind the character aren't skilled, or the build is in an especially bad part of its progression, or the monsters are totally unsuitable for one or more characters, your 5 person party may REALLY be a 2-3 "contributing" person party, with everyone else not good for much. Player skill matters more than build here. On the plus side, the vast majority of LG players who have a char in APL6+ range have learned something in their 12-18 months of play, and most tables, even at low levels, have plenty of seasoned players who know what they're doing. My experience is that more than one noncontributor in any given fight is very rare (but this is why 4 person parties are seen as fragile, because even one bad apple makes the party MUCH less powerful. He's not noticed as much in a 6 person party) LG does better in areas of higher population, which allows for easier mustering, a larger pool to draw Judges from (and more odds that good judges will replicate themselves, instead of everyone putting up with a few bad judges because nobody else will run) and of course, a larger pool of experienced players to share their tricks and strategies with the newbies (usually by example). In areas where there are only about 5-10 players and one-two judges, you're stuck with what you've got and the weaknesses of the system become much more obvious. But it still can work. I recommend online play in those situations to get exposure to other styles of judging and play.
garyjohnson 01-10-07, 01:01 AM	Hi! 1. One thing you can do is refuse to play with particular people as DM. You don't have to play if you think you're not going to have (enough) fun because X is in the game, regardless of whether or not X is another player or the DM. 2. Again, if you think the table isn't viable because of the mix of characters and levels, refuse to play. In general, I think front-line characters shouldn't play up, which means if the party's APL is being pulled up by a higher-level back-liner and that back-liner can't turn themselves into a front-liner, the table shouldn't play. For example, my secondary character Nazari is light infantry (scout/swashbuckler/dervish) - but if I'm playing at a table where I'm the highest level melee character, I tend to play as a front-liner role instead. Particularly if we're playing at APL 6 because my character is 8th level and everyone else is 4th level - the tough opponents are going to be CR 9 creatures, which is level+1 for me but level+5 for the 4th level "tank". 3. In theory, the number of opponents in LG is right for a 4-player team, not a 6-player team. What a 5 or 6-player team does is give the group more capacity to absorb inefficient character designs, suboptimal play, and bad luck with the dice. If you're playing a game with more than one person who's got one of the "problems" listed above, the impact is bigger when there's fewer other characters to "carry" the team through a combat. Hope this helps, Gary Johnson
Lupo 01-10-07, 02:39 AM	I originaly posted this in the RPGA forums, but was told it'd be better here, so here it is. I have been playing LG for just over a year now, and i find that the game is not as exciting of fun as it should be, some of the problems i've found i'll list below in the hopes that someone somewhere will try and fix the problems before more ppl leave. 1. DM's, ever played a game where the DM was more interested in winning, ie killing off the players than providing a good game? I have had a character sold into slavery because a DM accidently transposed the first and last encounters in a mod, i've seen a DM coup de grace a player simply because in their oppinion the played didnt seem to care about it's fate, while other targets were available, i've watched a an entire party was TPK'd and the DM cellebrated the fact and told everyone else playing around the room how they'd gotten their first TPK. not a LG problem just a problem of con organisation. avoid those DMs, they are no fun, not in LG nor somewhere else. tell the con organisator about it and spread the word under your fellow players. be nice, reasonable and not isultive (this is the hard part, to keep calm with such a b********* :P). 2. APL's, the APL system needs some work, too often i've been forced to play up with lv2-5 lv characters simply because there were higher lv pc's in the game, this makes the game almost unplayable, SNIP This was not a problem of us "wanting " to play up, but the fact that with the players available there was a coupe of higher lv's that pushed it up....too bad for us. Which brings me to the last item. when there is a choice of APLs just insist on playing the lower one. without knowing what the rest of the levels were and what the character classes distribution was, just some general remarks. a single player pushing up an APL to the next tier is almost always a bad idea, no matter what super-munchkin he may bring to the table, he will not be able to do both, keep the lower levels alive AND kill the BBEG. the problem is, not this charcter will be killed but one or several of the low level characters. avoid such players, those are the kind that try to always play highest possible APL and then complain like hell when they get handed their backsides ;). and not willing to switch to a more suitable character for the rest of the table is another sign of munchkiness :rolleyes:. 3. #'s of creatures in mods. Mods are written for 6 players, if you have 6 of the correct lv's your usually fine, though at times that's not always possible. I've been in games where due to losses of characters, low TU's available lower lv character we left with very few options and had to play in 3,4 and 5 character games. since there is no function of the mod to reduce the number of creatures you face in the mod player death can come swift and fast, this should be changed, surely DM's should have the availabilty to add just the numbers baised on the group, surely Writers should have the option in their mod's to allow for that, and surely Triad's should be able to adjust those mods that exist so that this can happen. we dont live i na perfect world so why write a mod that requires a specific number of playeres to survive. most modules are playtested with 5 characters (or at least should be) of different levels, usually a distribution around the actual APL, i lately run a playtest with only 4 players without problems, but i am not one of those authors who combine the most hilarious templates in a way that minimize "technical" cr but have unbeatable abilities. On the whole, i've enjoyed playing LG, with the exceptions listed above, i've had alot of DM's that make allowances for accidental deaths, the -9 and staballized, but then i've lost at least 1 character that was in an unwinable fight with no way out..try getting around a CR6 large creature with reach to get to the door at lv 2 and see what i mean. I cant bethe only one that's had problems like this and it seems to me that these things would be negitive for the game at a whole. i hope that others will speak up about similar event and that the game as a whole will benifit from it. Cheers as a DM i am generous when a character is killed or ner to death without having any chance and without any reason. if the player is causing the death by his own silly actions, it's just what he asked for ;) sometimes one is just at the wrong spot at the wrong time . . . . ok, deaths at level 3 and below are especcially ugly, as the chances for having enough money for a "raise dead" at the table or via overcap gp is low.:weep: unrecoverable deaths should be an exeption and not the rule, as some DMs seem to think.:confused: ciao martin m.
Bogjob 01-10-07, 07:37 AM	1. I always ask around about DM's to see if anyone knows them and what they are like. We have one who sometimes DM's here for us and loves killing PC's yet when he got an item broken *****ed about it for months, result he does'nt Dm or play with us anymore. 2. Playing up at a table of 5 or 6 where you are the only one playing up is usually OK but if more than half of you are don't do it as collateral damage can kill you let alone a main attack. 3. Mods with 5-6 players should cope with most things at their APL unless you are in a party of 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 character class eejits. I have played a couple of mods with 4 players and it can be a bit hairy if you dont have the base classes covered tank, healer, aracne, rogue. Always remember though that unless your corpse is unrecoverable all it means is that you get to play your character for longer. :)
budleiser 01-10-07, 08:12 AM	I originaly posted this in the RPGA forums, but was told it'd be better here, so here it is. I have been playing LG for just over a year now, and i find that the game is not as exciting of fun as it should be, some of the problems i've found i'll list below in the hopes that someone somewhere will try and fix the problems before more ppl leave. 1. DM's, ever played a game where the DM was more interested in winning, ie killing off the players than providing a good game? I wish I could find more DM's like this. They are the best! This way you know your going to get a real challenge from the mod and play it the way it was intended. Not some sissy softball DM who messes it up. I have had a character sold into slavery because a DM accidently transposed the first and last encounters in a mod, And did you report this to your triad? If not this type of mistake or cheating is YOUR fault for letting it happen. i've seen a DM coup de grace a player simply because in their oppinion the played didnt seem to care about it's fate, while other targets were available, Hey we CDG the bad guys, they CDG us. It's life (and death) you live with it (or die) and go on. I mean 90% of the time you just buy a "raise dead" so it's not like its a big deal if you die. i've watched a an entire party was TPK'd and the DM cellebrated the fact and told everyone else playing around the room how they'd gotten their first TPK. He won! Of course he's celebrating. You don't have to be such a poor loser and a party pooper. Don't you celebrate when your happy about winning? Why is it that only "PCs" can have fun? God man let the DMs have some fun for once. 2. APL's, the APL system needs some work, too often i've been forced to play up with lv2-5 lv characters simply because there were higher lv pc's in the game, They FORCED you to? Wow thats amazing. Those are some hardcore serious roleplayers that they actually kidnap people tie them up and force them to roleplay. We need more enthusiastic mustering like that around here. (Sillyness aside I think you could have just opted not to play right?) this makes the game almost unplayable, to take the instance above with the TPK, SNIPTPK. It would not have been a TPK if you ran away. Sometimes fighting to the death is not the best play choice. Sometimes "run away fight another day" is the right strategy. Then you could have gone to town, hired a random bunch of adventures and sent them in to collect the bodies, kill the monster and bring back the magic book. This was not a problem of us "wanting " to play up, Oh right the whole "forcing" you to play thing. but the fact that with the players available there was a coupe of higher lv's that pushed it up....too bad for us. Which brings me to the last item. 3. #'s of creatures in mods. Mods are written for 6 players, !? wha? How do you figure? If you have 6 players at a table they add 1 level to your APL calculations because you have more players than usual. if you have 6 of the correct lv's your usually fine, though at times that's not always possible. I've been in games where due to losses of characters, low TU's available lower lv character we left with very few options and had to play in 3,4 and 5 character games. A 3 character game? Wow that's awesome I wish I could play in a 3 character game. since there is no function of the mod to reduce the number of creatures you face in the mod player death can come swift and fast, this should be changed, surely DM's should have the availabilty to add just the numbers baised on the group, surely Writers should have the option in their mod's to allow for that, and surely Triad's should be able to adjust those mods that exist so that this can happen. we dont live i na perfect world so why write a mod that requires a specific number of playeres to survive. On the whole, i've enjoyed playing LG, with the exceptions listed above, i've had alot of DM's that make allowances for accidental deaths, the -9 and staballized, but then i've lost at least 1 character that was in an unwinable fight with no way out..try getting around a CR6 large creature with reach to get to the door at lv 2 and see what i mean. I cant bethe only one that's had problems like this and it seems to me that these things would be negitive for the game at a whole. i hope that others will speak up about similar event and that the game as a whole will benifit from it. Cheers In case it's not dripping with obviousness I completely disagree with the problems you listed. I think DM's are too easygoing. I think mods are too easy (see the thread in the parent forum). I think the APL issues listed above were your own fault because you certainly had the option of leaving before the game started. Not to mention you chose to go on fighting even when things were hopeless. Either this means the group tactics were wrong. Perhaps you should have flanked and assisted to hit instead of trying to roll a 20. You should have used disposable items like tangle foot bags and such to even the playing field. Either way you chose to stay, you took the risk of playing at a higher APL so dieing was your own fault. Just because you play up when you shouldn't doesn't mean mods should be written to accommodate these kinds of mistakes. If you want a cake walk RPG where you win every fight despite player ineptitude go play a home game. LG is going to have tough fights, if you don't have a capable party walk away. I've seen a table where I was completely comfortable playing, and a character with higher level than mine walked away because he didn't want to die. And theres nothing wrong with that, he knew it was going to be a challenging mod and he made his choice not to risk it. If you risk it, live with the outcome.
CrystalBlue 01-10-07, 09:04 AM	budleiser: Wow...I want nothing to do with you...at all. You have such a wrong and skewed perception of D&D that it makes me sick to think about it. People...this is not a game of DM vs. PC. It's a game of fun. Have fun. Let's not start quoting how we all need to be challanged all the time or that getting raised from the dead is no big deal. DM's celebrating: This is very, very bad sportsmanship and should be discouraged. If I was a senior DM at a convention or gameday and this happened, said judge would be ejected from my convention. This is NOT something you celebrate. It's not a win, it's not a good time, and it's not fun. It's wrong. A TPK should only happen when people are very unlucky or the party just isn't that smart. A DM's job...JOB...is to avoid this kind of thing. Their duty is to avoid killing PC's and make the game fun. I'm not saying softball it. Death happens in game and it's no fun. But the DM needs to gauge when and how this happens. No DM should ever go for blood. Getting raised: Getting raised isn't as easy as you think. More and more I'm seeing unrecoverable deaths and deaths that just shouldn't happen. You lose levels, gold, and valuable time. It should never be taken lightly and never talked about like it's a fact of life. Yes, we're adventurers and we have a much easier time of getting back from fatal conditions. But it's not the norm and shouldn't be thought of as if it was. I think budleiser needs to go play something else. He obviously doesn't have fun with D&D. Hey, I heard they have a game for you...it's called WoW. Play on a PvP server for a few days. You die all the time, you work your ass off for little or no reward, and all you do is hack and slash. You don't like 'easy' games, you don't like RP, and you certainly love to kill people unfairly. It's the perfect game for someone like you. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time. *shoos*
Madfox11 01-10-07, 09:25 AM	budleiser: Wow...I want nothing to do with you...at all. You have such a wrong and skewed perception of D&D that it makes me sick to think about it. Keep it nice people. Remember CrystalBlue, it is a game and each and everybody gets his enjoyment out of this game from different things. His perception of D&D is not wrong, just different from yours. I would advice not to play on the same table since neither of you would have fun, but he is still playing D&D regardless of whether you like his style or not. Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
lenardschmidt 01-10-07, 09:27 AM	Hey all, Nice to see this is getting people interested, though some of the comments are a little over the top....Budleiser...... The whole reason in my posting this was to see if this was a problem with the LG system or just a couple of people.....looks like it's partialy me and a couple of ppl. when i said "forced" that's probably not the correct word to use...what would you call it when you have the choice of either playing or packing up your bag and leaving. I only get to play a couple of times a month on 2 days for a few hrs, and this is the only RPGing i get so i want to make the best of it. To say that DM's can have fun too.....ofcourse they can, i've had some great laughs in groups with the DM, strange things happen......for instance...i DM'd once and had the npc cleric cast "confusion" on the party, 2/3's of them failed and though they won the battle easiy, 2 of them were at each other for the entire fight, the fun part was that neither of them could actually hit the other.......all i'm saying is that the DM's shouldnt go at it as if their honor is on the line if they dont kick 9 colours of hell out of the party. Some do....some dont. So i gather that in future i'd be best for me to just leave a game that's not going to be fun...... Cheers Btw, wow is great game...speaking as a player with 6 lv 60's......though avoid PVP servers......shudder
gomeztoo 01-10-07, 09:30 AM	Let's all be civil and realize that we expect different things from the game. The actual problem here is that the player has the unluck to get mustered into parties that are a bd combo of classes/levels, and ahs a DM with a style of play (or behavior) he dislikes. There is little w ecan do about that, except toa dcise him to eb more sleective in hwo he plays with. More specifically, I would advise to find a few friends and form parties with them, from scratch if need be. Also see if you can find a selection of DMs in your area that have a good rep. A bit of getting to know who plays and how they play can help you a great deal. Even then, we occasionally get mustered into bad APLs at Cons, or get in way over our head when we least expected it. That is part of the game though. If you feel pressured to play up (due to whatever reason), it is not bad to make known that you feel uncomforatble. It may not make other players pull out an alternate, but it is generally best to let know you don't fdeel very confident. people may have tips to get you boosted up with magic, etc). We recently had a game with 3 lvl 9s, a lvl 10, a lvl 14 and a lvl 15 at APl 12. I wasn't eager (as I was one of the two 9th lvl frontline fighters), but we played anway. Turned out fairly allright in the end (we lost the battle, but all survived), becauseteh higehr levels supported us, and we found ways to share items and boost some of the lower PCs' AC/hp etc. Of course at APL 12 that is a tad easier than at, say, APL 4 or 6. Still, in the end, through teamwork you can help each other to survive. This is what makes it important to know the people you play with, and the PCs they play (and, in another vein, their quirks). As to dying: I never concider the death of a PC something trivial. Though one PC of mine never noticed she was dead (happens when you die on Acheron), it is not like you cut yourself shaving or something. In game terms, it is often 'recoverable'. But I wouldn't say it is trivial. And yeah, I AM aiming to retire my PCs at lv 16...
Madfox11 01-10-07, 09:46 AM	DM's celebrating: This is very, very bad sportsmanship and should be discouraged. If I was a senior DM at a convention or gameday and this happened, said judge would be ejected from my convention. This is NOT something you celebrate. It's not a win, it's not a good time, and it's not fun. It's wrong. A TPK should only happen when people are very unlucky or the party just isn't that smart. A DM's job...JOB...is to avoid this kind of thing. Their duty is to avoid killing PC's and make the game fun. I'm not saying softball it. Death happens in game and it's no fun. But the DM needs to gauge when and how this happens. No DM should ever go for blood. Be very careful before you kick out the DM, and see whether he is really celebrating. Me and my friends like to joke about the death lists we have as a DM, or the death rates we generate, but it is all a jest and the players know it (or I assume so because they keep coming back asking me to run games for them). In reality we never go out of our way to kill PCs, let alone that we derive pleasure from it. Still, if a situation arise in which the death is really unavoidable because of IC reasons, that PC is going to die on my table. In fact, I hate doing so. Granted, I tend not to make these jokes around strangers or when dealing with people who I know take them much too serious. Some people are not that sensitive, or simply do note somebody is listening in. One thing to keep in mind though, is that if you think a DM is being unfair, especially when it leads to the death of a character or the loss of an expensive item, you really should ask for a 2nd opinion from the Senior DM. The few times I was asked to come, the simple fact that both player and DM had to tell their side of the story was enough to resolve the conflict. Sometimes the DM realized he had made a mistake which only makes them human, and in the other cases the players realized it was their own fault (or that of their fellow PCs or just shear bad luck) that the character died. The mere fact that they both took a step back, and were both forced to go over the whole situation by telling an independend person the story was enough. Just don't expact the senior DM to always rule in your favor. When you think you can single handedly deal with an ancient black wyrm at APL 2 just because you didn't expact untiered encounters that is your own fault [assuming you were the one initiating the conflict of course and the DM had not made up the dragon out of spite].
CrystalBlue 01-10-07, 11:35 AM	Well then, you judge and run very nice and friendly games. The one's that I'm at, and the ones that budlieser are talking about are slaughter fests where it's, more often then not, DM vs Players. And DM's take pride in their kills. I know of at least one DM that made a habit of stamping deaths onto his DM screen to show you how many kills he's got. That's not good sportsmanship. That's putting the DM in conflict with the PCs. The DM and PCs should be working together to have fun and get through an adventure. Not celebrating a TPK...that's not right. I don't care how you word it or twist the meaning. It's not right. Period. And if you think it's fair for a DM to brag that's he's TPKed so many tables in his career, then I'll make sure I steer clear of you. Sorry...
pedr 01-10-07, 12:03 PM	I do think that LG could do with a bit placed in the boilierplate text about the role of the DM. I know there's a section in the LGCS but it doesn't necessarily do much to alter the behaviour of some judges who seek kills above all else. There are, I think, three possible attitudes a judge can have, two of which are (in my opinion) acceptable for a shared campaign, one of which isn't. The acceptable ones are: 1) The judge treats the NPCs and monsters under his control as real creatures with real motivations and a level of knowledge, undertanding and tactical ability appropriate to their stats, abilities and situation. He directs them in such a way as to create, as far as is possible, a sense that the PCs are in fact encountering the opponents as written in the module. This is the attitude I believe is currently encouraged (mandated?) for LG. 2) The judge sets out to create an entertaining challenge for the PCs. He seeks neither to overwhelm them nor present a walk-over encounter, but modifies tactics (and possibly, in extremis, other aspects of the encounter) to meet this goal. This is the attitude which operates in the D&D Campaigns (MoH and XE) and is stipulated by the boilerplate text. The unacceptable attitude is: 3) The judge treats the NPCs and monsters he controls as tools with which to attempt to defeat the PCs. Regardless of their in-game knowledge, aims, tactics or abilities, he ensures that every aspect under his control and every decision which he is empowered to make favours the PCs' opponents. In short, he plays to 'win' and sees PC death as the ultimate victory condition. This is more akin to the role of a player in a game of D&D Minis than a DM or judge for D&D and, I submit, a misunderstanding of the job of a LG judge. I don't mind which of 1) or 2) the campaign chooses. In a sense, the first attitude is best-suited to an immersive campaign such as LG, although it will result in more PC death than alternative 2, despite the fact that the repurcussions of death are possibly more severe in LG than in the D&D Campaigns. But alternative 3 strikes me as vindictive and unnecessarily adversarial and completely inappropritate. Judges such as this ought to be weeded out, where possible.
trollbill 01-10-07, 12:30 PM	1) As has been pointed out, this is not a problem specific to LG. We are fortunate in my area that we have responsible Head Judges, i.e. the guys who actually organize the events. They usually test out new judges before letting them loose on the masses, and if they have obvious problems, like you mentioned, they are not invited to DM again until they learn better. Which isn't to say these things never happen, but they are minimized by Head Judges who pay attention to their judging pool. I realize, however, that not everyone in LG has enough judges to get away with this. 2) While it would be nice if the APL system were a little smoother, you have to remember that most of the work on this is done by volunteers. So rather than ask them to change the systems, it might be best to find a solution within the system. Again, our Head Judges try to avoid musters with such disparity. Players with high level characters should always have a backup lower level to cover such contingencies. Anything else is being inconsiderate. I've seen a few people shoehord in their higher levels and it usually ends badly. The Head judges realize this too, and avoid such things whenever possible. They do still occasionally happen, but no one should expect anyone to play their character more than 2 APLs above their level. Which isn't to say there aren't people who would do this. Just that you should never expect them to, and don't get upset when they don't. 3) This is a considerably difficult problem. Not the least of which is that there are people who claim LG mods are too easy to begin with. The main problem is the shear number of variables that can make a mod easy or difficult. In a home game, the DM has the luxury of customizing the challenge level to his idividual group. That's not possible in any form of organized play. So this isn't strickly an LG problem either, but it is an organized play one. Again, our Head Judges try to minimize this problem by how they muster tables. Not just making balanced parties of roughly equal levels, but also taking into acount the skill and abilites of the individual players. LG is a very large organization. The larger the organization, the less they can customize things at an individual level. That's why the best solution is usually a local one rather than an across the board one. Talk to your local area Head Judges and see if you can come up with your own solutions.
cycloptic_squirrel 01-10-07, 02:04 PM	A PC death should not be seen as a 'win'. Death happens, and should usually be due to player incompetence, a miscalculation, or just a string of bad luck. When running a game, I usually claim a win if 1) the players enjoyed themselves 2) I've enjoyed myself and 3) I made the players sweat a little. I'm not out to kill the PCs, but at the same time I don't ignore plot lines or an NPC's motivations. There are good DMs and bad DMs out there. Heck, there are some DMs I think are spectacular at some aspects but could really use work on other areas. But be patient, DMs usually improve over time, especially if they receive feedback or suggestions after the mod is over (try and keep the criticism constructive!) Also make sure you're part of the solution and not the problem. Take a look at your own DMing style and see if it matches what you enjoy as a player. And by all means, volunteer to DM if you can! It's much easier to avoid certain DMs if the DM pool is larger. Other people are also usually more willing to DM if they know they can count on you to return the favor at some point in the future. A player can and should take risks, whether that means taking a level 1 to an APL 4, continuing on a table with reduced numbers, or deciding that a duck is the weapon of choice when up against an orc mob; but they should realize that there are consequences for doing so, a TPK being one of the possibilities. If you're on a good table that has your back, such actions do become less risky. 2. APL's, the APL system needs some work, too often I've been forced to play up with lv2-5 lv characters simply because there were higher lv pc's in the game, this makes the game almost unplayable, to take the instance above with the TPK, SNIPTPK. This was not a problem of us "wanting " to play up, but the fact that with the players available there was a coupe of higher lv's that pushed it up....too bad for us. Which brings me to the last item. I sympathize with your situation, but at the same time if you're playing up, you have to realize that there are some situations in which you can do little but play cheerleader. Mustering can always force uncomfortable situations, and yes, sometimes a walk might be the wise choice. In this case in particular, if half the table or more was uncomfortable in playing APL 4, you could have forced the high level guy to pull out a brand new level 1 bringing it to APL 2. If he threatens to walk, let him. It's a bit of a heavy handed, sleazy move, but so is adamantly refusing to switch characters. If you are are the one in the minority as to APL, then the choice does become risk or walk. If you choose the risk, you're accepting that as the low level, you'll have a diminished impact on your success rate. Don't lose heart though! As soon as your character hits 6, play options really start to open up. Although you'll still occasionally be 'forced' to play up, usually you'll have more options than 'up or walk', especially if you have a secondary 3-4 levels behind your main. On another note: Bud, we welcome your opinions (I particularly value your input because it differs from mine), but I think it'd be appreciated if your comments weren't so... caustic.
CrystalBlue 01-10-07, 02:35 PM	What about my opinions? I'm pretty caustic myself. :P
solbergb 01-10-07, 02:51 PM	You're getting better :) It's cool to have strong opinions as long as you recognize the right for others to disagree with you. I think that LG encourages the DM to treat the bad guys as folks with real motivations and abilities and the adventure is what it is. PC's can cakewalk it or struggle depending on how their capabilities intersect with that of the badguys and the situation as presented. I like that, both as a player and a Judge. Bad guys can react INCHARACTER to capabilities PC's display, or in higher levels might make Kn local or gather info or divinations against the PC's to guess at their capabilities and make minor adjustments based on that information (and it isn't infallable. In a recent module, a ray-specialist spellcaster refused to target my character, because he'd learned by prior research that he was a powerful monk with a little arcane. He assumed that meant sky-high touch-AC. He was wrong :). The same caster also targeted the party clerics first worried about a particular spell they are capable of casting. Unfortunately for him, they'd happened to cast the exact defense for his opening boom earlier and not only were they unhurt...but neither had the spell he was worried about in either prepped or consumable form. Sometimes it is better to NOT have information heh.) What the bad guys CAN NOT do is recruit different or more thugs, or gain a few levels. Presumably they've already tapped out their ability to hire bad guys before the PC's got involved, or the encounters already represent their most vigorous possible response to PC interference.
budleiser 01-10-07, 02:51 PM	What about my opinions? I'm pretty caustic myself. :P lol you just went up a notch in my book. Yea my reaction was caustic. While I agree with 90% of what others said to defend LG. I wanted to showcase a completely opposite side of the argument. Funny enough I think Crystal had a more severe reaction than the thread starter. (Then again Crystal freaks out if you tell him he can't carry a bow into Greyhawk City) I hope the thread starter didn't take me to harshly. I just don't try to be as cajoling as others are on the forums. Everyone who has a gripe with LG being too hard, DMs being mean, or PCs dieing comes running to the board to rant and rave. So I've taken up the complete opposite. I feel LG mods are too easy. DM's wrongfully feel pressured to softball encounters. And the reality of harships isn't from the LG system, the mods, or the DM's but rather from player ineptitude.
CrystalBlue 01-10-07, 04:24 PM	Hey now...it's bows OR two handed weapons. Get it right, there! And if I'm caustic...does that mean I'm immune to acid? Or just have acid resistance?
Some_call_me_Tim 01-10-07, 05:17 PM	He won! Of course he's celebrating. You don't have to be such a poor loser and a party pooper. Don't you celebrate when your happy about winning? Why is it that only "PCs" can have fun? God man let the DMs have some fun for once.He Won?!? I must have missed the part in the DMG where it said DMs 'win' by killing characters. :rant: I don't care if you think LG modules are too hard or too easy, whether DMs are too soft or too hard, but thinking that DMs 'win' by killing PCs is the WORST possible flaw for a DM. Winning as a DM is providing the players an enjoyable experience while they are at your table. Did the players have fun playing the game; regardless of whether their PCs triumphed? If the players did, then kudos to the DM. If not...
clannagh 01-10-07, 05:52 PM	LG tends to attract more roleplaying oriented players then the other Living games ... though traditionally it has a 28 point build becasue the combat is meant to be challenging. Nevertheless there are sufficient power gaming groups out there who see it as a "competition" (and see non optimised role play character as "pathetic" and useless") for the mods to need to be written at a reasonable difficulty. Locally I tend to avoid running games for the power gamers (one guy in particualr) basically only going out of my way to let them know about the odd dungeon crawl mod with continual combat because they just **** off the whole table in any mod with investigative and role play components. Typically they will insult in all the other PC's before charging into combat flattening everything and then spend the next week telling everyone the "mod was really easy though those the pathetic losers in my party were lucky I was around". Some mods are just broken for some parties. A high DR massive grapple reach monster is going to pound a party of rogues clerics and bards but be a walk over for the party with a high level druid and a ranged mega-caster. other mods .. without the rogues you are banshee wailed to oblivion. A well balanced party that works together is the key. As far as the original poster goes .. its slight metagaming but learn to recognise the authors and/or region/series. Its not appropriate to post here but some perrenland and iuz series just are written harder then others and key regular writers ... Patrick Wes Bruce for example all have a "style".
Sieylianna 01-10-07, 05:59 PM	LG tends to attract more roleplaying oriented players then the other Living games ... though traditionally it has a 28 point build becasue the combat is meant to be challenging. I think you misspelled roll-playing. I find that Living Death, Living Kalamar, (formerly) Living Arcanis and Blackmoor all have far more role-playing than LG. Ed
JohnduBois 01-10-07, 06:40 PM	I have had a character sold into slavery because a DM accidently transposed the first and last encounters in a mod In my experience, it is extremely difficult to "accidentally" transpose the first and last encounters unless you're on your fifth Midnight Madness slot of the weekend. If the DM was, then you might want to advise said DM to get some sleep. If he was not, then you should report the incident to both the convention coordinator and the local Triad. Odds are that if the mis-running of the adventure was intentional, that DM has done such in the past and will do so again in the future; only by reporting him will the appropriate actions (which probably start with a long conversation about why such behaviors are inappropriate) be taken.
WizO_Shadow 01-10-07, 08:58 PM	Ok, thread cleaned. If anyone notices a missed quote that details out info in an active mod, let me know please. To keep in mind for the future, please think twice before detailing out information in an active mod. It kind of ruins the surprise that others are looking forward to. Thank you for your consideration! Renee Shadow
paigeoliver 01-11-07, 07:51 AM	I often run into the people refusing to drop down to lower level characters even when it would mean half the table would be getting half XP. They have always eventually relented, but it always delays mustering by a significant amount of time. They usually seem to be convention-only players who have been playing for years, but only play at a few conventions per year. At least I assume they are convention only, because they often have 8th and 9th level characters but don't seem to be all that familiar with the rules (of D&D or LG). I went to one convention in the Yeomanry where they pre-assigned all the tables based on the warhorn signups and I must say it was the best mustering experience I ever had. No arguments from people wanting to play their 13th level bard at the APL 2 table, no whining from the people who ALWAYS want to play up to the next APL about not being able to be at the higher table. I really think more conventions should try to do this. One mild problem that I encounter a lot is people setting up really young players with really complicated characters. Usually girl children with various archers and spellcasters and male children with barbarians who two handed power attack. The casters rarely understand what their spells do, the archers rarely understand the archery rules, and the barbarians usually have trouble juggling the numbers with barbarian rage and power attack and all that. I will also note too that I have seen some young kids with complicated characters who knew them inside and out (thinking of a certain son of a certain Dyvers triad member). My personal suggestion to give to child players is simple fighters with simple feats. If they REALLY want spellcasters then a sorcerer, preferably with simple spells, ones that EVERYONE knows what they do (magic missile, mage armor, etc).
CrystalBlue 01-11-07, 08:15 AM	Or, you know....this is just a suggestion but...don't allow children at game days and conventions anymore. ^.^ It's not fair to everyone involved. I've seen the best and worse of child gamers. I've seen the one's that can't keep their intrest in the game for more then 10 minutes, and I've seen the ones that out-class the veterans at the table. All in all, though...I don't like it at all. Most of the time, these players and characters are inlisted by their parents to play the game just so the parent can make and run more characters. Don't believe me? Come to where I play some time. We've got multiple players here that think it's a good idea to let their kids play. When, in reality, their kids just want to play their game boy or draw or run around instead. I'm sorry, but there should be an age limit for children in RPGA. Something like...13 and over. And if someone younger wants to play, then they have to have a guardian over their shoulder at all times...and not playing another character. /rant I'm sorry...but it burns me up. If you've been in the same situation, you'd know how I feel about this. Children SHOULD NOT be allowed (or forced, rather) to play D&D if they don't want to or can't. And don't even get me started on giving 2-year-olds RPGA numbers. *sighs*
pedr 01-11-07, 08:25 AM	Heh, you'd hate NASCRAG, the (non-RPGA) team tournament at GenCon then ... a good chunk of their judges are pre-teens :D
CrystalBlue 01-11-07, 08:26 AM	Hey, if the kids are good enough and intellegent enough, I got no problem. Really. I'd be more then happy to have a 13 year old judge us if he's competent enough. All I'm saying is that we have too many parents around here that force their kids to play. These kids don't want to play D&D, and it's obvious. So don't let them.
budleiser 01-11-07, 08:50 AM	Alright Paladin CrystalBlue we meet again. Or, you know....this is just a suggestion but...don't allow children at game days and conventions anymore. ^.^ Or old people. Ugly people. Dorky people. Loud people. I think everyone who plays D&D should have to go through an American Idol-esque try out. This way not only will D&D players be known as dorks, we'll also be renowned for being complete............ It's not fair to everyone involved. I've seen the best and worse of child gamers. I've seen the one's that can't keep their intrest in the game for more then 10 minutes, and I've seen the ones that out-class the veterans at the table. OH my fricken god that is so wrong! A 10 year old should NEVER ever be allowed to out-class veterans. My god man I was against you before but now I agree. Children must be sold into slavery!!! All in all, though...I don't like it at all. Most of the time, these players and characters are inlisted by their parents to play the game just so the parent can make and run more characters. Don't believe me? Come to where I play some time. We've got multiple players here that think it's a good idea to let their kids play. When, in reality, their kids just want to play their game boy or draw or run around instead. I'm sorry, but there should be an age limit for children in RPGA. Something like...13 and over. And if someone younger wants to play, then they have to have a guardian over their shoulder at all times...and not playing another character. /rant I'm sorry...but it burns me up. If you've been in the same situation, you'd know how I feel about this. Children SHOULD NOT be allowed (or forced, rather) to play D&D if they don't want to or can't. And don't even get me started on giving 2-year-olds RPGA numbers. *sighs* Your right, the RPGA should have rules to enforce good parenting. I'm tired of seeing these kids eat candy and having fun. The RPGA the greatest power in the world should step in and tell these kids and parents how to live, how to think, and what to do! CrystalBlue for RPGA president!
Madfox11 01-11-07, 08:58 AM	So you want to forbid the significant others to play as well? Because just as often as kidds that just tag along to please the parent, I have run across girlfriends doing the same. Hack, I have seen middle-aged players play like the kids you mention... my two worst gaming experiences was with a group of adults actually. My most proudest was with a kid... (it gives a real good feeling when you run a beginners tournament with a 12 year old kid, and at the end of the convention the parents thank you because since that kid played on your table he actually actively participated at other games instead of hiding and apparently was incredibly happy about the way how I run that game*). * There is all this talk about mentioning to the DM when you are unhappy with how they ran things. Please, don't forget to compliment your DMs either. It is equally important, if not more than critizing ;)
RedKnightofKet 01-11-07, 09:57 AM	Or old people. Ugly people. Dorky people. Loud people. I think everyone who plays D&D should have to go through an American Idol-esque try out. This way not only will D&D players be known as dorks, we'll also be renowned for being complete............ You forgot smelly people. Seriously, they can be the worst... taking that Improved Odor feat can be a killer :yuck: :yuck: Anyway, as far as players trying to shoehorn themselves into a table, I feel that it is encumbent upon the judge to make a ruling. I ran a table a con (5 tables of the same mod in the slot), and I was directed to take the APL 4 table. After hearing from the 3's and 4s around the table, I had one character who wanted to play their 7th level centaur (to say nothing about the fact I cautioned him against the use of a large character). He would have bumped the APL, but was trying to get someone else to play even further down, so he could play his centaur for half! Rather than put up with a lengthy debate, and knowing he had a 3rd level character, I told him that he could not play the centaur - end of story. My rule of thumb is that if your choice is pushing the APL up (particularly if others would take half), I won't allow it without the consent of the player(s) affected.
CrystalBlue 01-11-07, 10:10 AM	Ignoring budlieser, because he's being a jackass... If you'd see the conventions and the gamedays that I'm at, and play at the tables I do, you'd understand what I mean. We have one player here that signs up his kid all the time. He made the kid the character and he makes him play it. He doesn't even teach him how to play the character. And when the kid gets bored, because he really doesn't like D&D, the parent yells at him for not paying attention and playing the game. It's not the kids fault! He doesn't want to be at a big convention, playing a game he doesn't like! And this just makes everyone at the table upset and makes us all want to get up and leave. And the other mention I have...a guy has also made his son a character. Now, the kid wants to play (or it looks like it) but you can tell that he's not interested. Most kids have very short attention spans, and D&D isn't a great game for that. So you see the kid running off with other kids, not paying attention, and generally disruptive. And even though he wants to play, the character that his father made him is a complex damage-dealing mutt. So there's so many variables the kid has to calculate, and it takes minutes for him to make one attack in a full attack. And this isn't a one-time occurance. I play with these two regularly at game-days, convetions near me, and at home games that they want me to run. You might not think this a problem, but it is. So please try to understand this. And please shut up, budlieser...you don't help...
trollbill 01-11-07, 10:16 AM	Or old people. Ugly people. Dorky people. Loud people. I think everyone who plays D&D should have to go through an American Idol-esque try out. This way not only will D&D players be known as dorks, we'll also be renowned for being complete............ No, if we put those kinds of restrictions on playing D&D, the only thing D&D players will be known for is being extinct. OH my fricken god that is so wrong! A 10 year old should NEVER ever be allowed to out-class veterans. My god man I was against you before but now I agree. Children must be sold into slavery!!! If I sell my kids into slavery, who am I going to get to do the slave work in my own household? Your right, the RPGA should have rules to enforce good parenting. I'm tired of seeing these kids eat candy and having fun. The RPGA the greatest power in the world should step in and tell these kids and parents how to live, how to think, and what to do! Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't mind a few rules of etiquette regarding children at the table even though I have kids that play myself. I have gone to effort to make sure my kids behave. That's part of my job as a parent. So I don't have a lot of sympathy for parents that don't think they should have to. I got a lot of compliments about my 15-year-old daughter’s DMing at a recent Con. So I am not particularly worried about this sort of problem. Though I do have to keep an occasional eye on the 13-year-old’s dice rolls. She hates rolling badly just a little too much.
budleiser 01-11-07, 10:23 AM	Ignoring budlieser, because he's being a jackass... If you'd see the conventions and the gamedays that I'm at, and play at the tables I do, you'd understand what I mean. We have one player here that signs up his kid all the time. He made the kid the character and he makes him play it. He doesn't even teach him how to play the character. And when the kid gets bored, because he really doesn't like D&D, the parent yells at him for not paying attention and playing the game. It's not the kids fault! He doesn't want to be at a big convention, playing a game he doesn't like! And this just makes everyone at the table upset and makes us all want to get up and leave. And the other mention I have...a guy has also made his son a character. Now, the kid wants to play (or it looks like it) but you can tell that he's not interested. Most kids have very short attention spans, and D&D isn't a great game for that. So you see the kid running off with other kids, not paying attention, and generally disruptive. And even though he wants to play, the character that his father made him is a complex damage-dealing mutt. So there's so many variables the kid has to calculate, and it takes minutes for him to make one attack in a full attack. And this isn't a one-time occurance. I play with these two regularly at game-days, convetions near me, and at home games that they want me to run. You might not think this a problem, but it is. So please try to understand this. And please shut up, budlieser...you don't help... Your suggestions of what the RPGA should do are ridiculous, im just going along with you no reason to get upset. It is in no way a responsibility of the RPGA to tell parents what to do ever in regards to their parenting. And that is what you are complaining about and suggesting. There are rules for Disruptive play. I suggest you read them, and if they come up inform a DM, Senior DM, or Con Organizer until your complaint is acknowledge. But to suggest a broad sweep of rules for the RPGA to enforce, just so parents don't force their kids to play is ridiculous!
CrystalBlue 01-11-07, 10:41 AM	Again, you have no clue what I'm talking about, because it's obviously not happened to you. I can't bring these problems up to the Senior DMs at these game days and cons...because the senior DMs are the ones doing the blasted thing! >.< It's the senior DM's kid that's not paying attention, and he doesn't have a problem with it. What now? I can't take my complaint anywhere else. And I don't tell the direct DM, cause then I **** off the senior DM/Con orginizer...and then I don't get to play at a con anymore. Fun fun for me, huh? Just because I want a non-disruptive game...I get kicked out of a con for bringing a complaint to his son. That's much more fair then what I was suggesting, isn't it?
kenobi65 01-11-07, 10:51 AM	If you'd see the conventions and the gamedays that I'm at, and play at the tables I do, you'd understand what I mean. We have one player here that signs up his kid all the time. He made the kid the character and he makes him play it. He doesn't even teach him how to play the character. And when the kid gets bored, because he really doesn't like D&D, the parent yells at him for not paying attention and playing the game. It's not the kids fault! He doesn't want to be at a big convention, playing a game he doesn't like! And this just makes everyone at the table upset and makes us all want to get up and leave. And the other mention I have...a guy has also made his son a character. Now, the kid wants to play (or it looks like it) but you can tell that he's not interested. Most kids have very short attention spans, and D&D isn't a great game for that. So you see the kid running off with other kids, not paying attention, and generally disruptive. And even though he wants to play, the character that his father made him is a complex damage-dealing mutt. So there's so many variables the kid has to calculate, and it takes minutes for him to make one attack in a full attack. This sounds like issues with particular kids and, more importantly, their fathers who are dragging them along. It certaintly doesn't warrant a blanket ban of children. (And, I'd note I've seen more than a few adults who don't pay attention, or don't know how to play their characters, too.)
smerwin29 01-11-07, 11:03 AM	If I may be blunt, I wish you two would grow up and quit sniping. Between the attention-seeking behavior and the inability to ignore obvious trolling, I'm sure I'm not the only one getting fed up. It is terribly ironic that people are complaining about immaturity at the table, and we have to deal with both of you at each other. Take it off list or ignore each other, because the rest of us don't want to hear it. The RPGA has done everything it is going to do in terms of policing player behavior. I have been at tables where immature people (minors or otherwise) have lessened the enjoyment of the game for everyone. There are steps you can take to try to fix the problem. Start with the DM, asking him if there is anything he can do. If that doesn't work, you move to the Senior DM. If that doesn't work, you move on to the people running the convention or who own the game store. Even if they are the ones causing the problem, you can still attempt to talk to them and explain your concerns in a mature manner. But you know what? Sometimes there just isn't anything you can do. Sometimes the people in charge are the ones causing the problems. You can report this directly to the RPGA, but there isn't much they can do about it. They are working under the assumption that the people running games, as well as the people playing, are mature enough to handle their own problems. They've created and published their policies, and that's about all they can do, and that's about all they want to do. It may come down to the hard decision of "is the aggravation I am feeling worth it to play a game?" You can run your own game days and invite only those people you want at the table. You can talk to the other players at the table and see if they want to join you in an environment more suited to your personality. Is it fair or just that this happens? Probably not. But unlike those people who are forced to be at the table, we have a choice. It may not be a choice we want to make, but it is there. Shawn
trollbill 01-11-07, 11:03 AM	Again, you have no clue what I'm talking about, because it's obviously not happened to you. I can't bring these problems up to the Senior DMs at these game days and cons...because the senior DMs are the ones doing the blasted thing! >.< It's the senior DM's kid that's not paying attention, and he doesn't have a problem with it. What now? I can't take my complaint anywhere else. And I don't tell the direct DM, cause then I **** off the senior DM/Con orginizer...and then I don't get to play at a con anymore. Fun fun for me, huh? Just because I want a non-disruptive game...I get kicked out of a con for bringing a complaint to his son. That's much more fair then what I was suggesting, isn't it? I sympathize with the situation, but unless you think your Senior GM is a total jerk, you should still bring the complaint to him. As a parent, you get used to kids being annoying and often forget that others are not used to it. And if everyone else there has been afraid to bring it up to him, then that just reinforces his belief that everything is okay. It is entirely likely that he will take the complaint legitimately. If you do get kicked out simply because of lodging the complaint, that would be a violation of the RPGA rules and you can escalate the issue. But in general, I don't think this would be likely. In the end, making RPGA rules regarding children wouldn't help you anyway. If this guy is too big a jerk to listen to legitimate complaints about his kid, he is too big a jerk to let RPGA rules disuade him.
MatBlack 01-11-07, 11:57 AM	Well then, you judge and run very nice and friendly games. The one's that I'm at, and the ones that budlieser are talking about are slaughter fests where it's, more often then not, DM vs Players. And DM's take pride in their kills. I know of at least one DM that made a habit of stamping deaths onto his DM screen to show you how many kills he's got. That's not good sportsmanship. That's putting the DM in conflict with the PCs. The DM and PCs should be working together to have fun and get through an adventure. Not celebrating a TPK...that's not right. I don't care how you word it or twist the meaning. It's not right. Period. And if you think it's fair for a DM to brag that's he's TPKed so many tables in his career, then I'll make sure I steer clear of you. Sorry... my skull stickers disturb you that much? :) i thought that you'd note that i've only got 4 from all the years i've been judging LG.
CrystalBlue 01-11-07, 12:12 PM	4? Last I counted, it was around 8. *whimpers* And I'm pretty sure, after Red Hand of Doom...you'll be adding 6 more...
Sieylianna 01-11-07, 12:34 PM	I went to one convention in the Yeomanry where they pre-assigned all the tables based on the warhorn signups and I must say it was the best mustering experience I ever had. No arguments from people wanting to play their 13th level bard at the APL 2 table, no whining from the people who ALWAYS want to play up to the next APL about not being able to be at the higher table. I really think more conventions should try to do this. Warhorn has problems too. It only has room for one PC and I have a choice of 10. A lot of times the module blurbs and even APL ranges are not available in Warhorn (or at all). PCs can gain or lose levels in the meantime. Warhon is a nice tool, especially for smaller conventions, but it can't handle scheduling by itself. Ed
Mommy was an Orc 01-11-07, 12:43 PM	I sympathize with the situation, but unless you think your Senior GM is a total jerk, you should still bring the complaint to him. I'd agree with this. The thing is not to make it personal. You're not trying to get the kid banned(or you shouldn't be - odds are those parents have little choice - either the kid participates in D&D or they don't go to conventions) - you're trying to make your gaming experience enjoyable and the kid is interfering with it. So talk to the parent, offer to help write up a crib sheet for the kid to make the kid's role easier. There's the complicated melee fighter, but odds are most of the complication is based on what happens with Power Attack. A simple chart detailing what happens when they put X amount of Power Attack into BAB would likely speed up combat. If you do have a kid at your table, sit next to them. Okay, that sounds painful, but if you see the kid start trying to figure out what's going on, you can quietly offer suggestions and/or point at things written down without looking like you're yelling across the table at the kid. That's a big deal at tables - I've seen plenty of gamers start offering friendly advice to other gamers who seem confused. That's great if they're an adult, but when 3-5 adults start telling a kid what to do, all that is going to happen is the kid is going to get overwhelmed. Some of these things might look like they're taking up your time, but just think of it this way - you spend an hour or so of your time helping the kid out and in return, you get a better 4 hour convention slot...
MatBlack 01-11-07, 12:57 PM	4? Last I counted, it was around 8. *whimpers* And I'm pretty sure, after Red Hand of Doom...you'll be adding 6 more... actually, after pulling out the screen, it's 6. 1 was solique getting hit by a bolt of slaying and tanking the save, 1 was grandelf running out into the open during a mounted combat and getting run down with a lance. one was vadania getting completely abandoned by her invisible party after getting surrounded by wolves and orcs. the three in one was a very unfortunate session in which the part tanked init, and got charged and ripped apart by a few dire wolves and pounded by giant-flung boulders. in each case, lessons were learned, usually by me, and the marks serve to keep reminding me. and as for red hand... i'm sure you'll be fine, even with a blinded spellsword-in-training as a liability.
CrystalBlue 01-11-07, 02:01 PM	Yes...thank you so much for reminding me about that...my wizard's confidence just boosted straight through the roof. *groans*
Xippendollom Krakenwarren 01-11-07, 03:04 PM	I see that this thread has managed to kind of take a diversion from the OPs complaints to complaints about children playing at tables (which I haven't experienced and so I don't have much of an opinion on it), but I wanted to make a point about the responses to budleiser's earlier comments. The idea that's coming across to me is that people are thinking that, because the game shouldn't be DM versus Player (which it shouldn't), the death of a PC is unacceptable. I couldn't be more opposed to that thinking. The example was used of a coup-de-grace on a PC. My example to the contrary would be this - if you had a BBEG that had been getting hammered by a fighter, and that fighter went down to -1, but had two clerics closing in on him ready to heal him back up, why would the BBEG not coup-de-grace the character and then grin evilly at the two clerics that were trying to come in to heal him? He's finally vanquished the main threat, and now he'll see if the rest of them can put up a fight. It makes sense. Now, to be coup-de-graced by a wolf or something would make no sense and be offensive to me. It's all situational. DMs need to be able to take a look at a block of stats and put life into that character. That life doesn't cease to exist and go back to being a set of numbers when combat begins. Not every bad guy is going to coup-de-grace a character when he's down, but some of them sure will. I'm completely against DMs celebrating character death and I'm against having DMs thinking that their goal is to kill PCs. DMs should get into the heads of their NPCs (BBEGs included) and try to do what that character would do. If that's "try to kill the PCs", then that's what they should be trying.
Lord Yod 01-11-07, 03:10 PM	Why would you treat children at the table any different from adults? They are still playing the same game, right? (I'm not talking about toning down descriptions and whatnot) Where I play, we've got a couple players that aren't entirely up on what their characters can do. There's the guy that always brings a riding dog, but doesn't know the handle animal rules; there's the two-handed power-attacking barbarian that doesn't know the charge rules, etc. Whether they are an adult or a minor doesn't make a difference - if they don't know how their character works, take some steps to enlighten them. (When I judge, if someone doesn't know charge rules beyond '10+ feet away=charge' I make sure to walk them through it, same thing with handle animal/summon monster/anything else complex) Offering to help with a 'cheat-sheet' seems like a good idea - especially as this may get the player more interested in finding out how to make their character more enjoyable. If there's a problem with a player(any age) being disruptive, there are RPGA guidelines for dealing with it. If the problem is that somebody doesn't actually want to play D&D, but is just along for the ride, maybe you should suggest a solution to the guy who brings that person? (Having gotten my girlfriend to play LG once(!), I know it's not fun to play with someone who doesn't want to be there.) You're talking about playing at cons - do they have some sort of activity for children to do? At a recent con in my area, there was a room dedicated to 'younger players', and I hear it was a blast. (They played the same mods, but most of them were 12-15) It sounds like you have a problem with a particular player - why not ask the senior DM/event organizer to put you at a different table?
CrystalBlue 01-11-07, 03:19 PM	Again, to clarify, I don't mind children being there. And I don't mind other people that don't have a full grasp of their character being there. I help anyone at the table that needs it. I'm talking about using a son or daughter as a proxy through which you are able to build more characters...and then force these kids to play these games. That's what these people are doing and that's what I can't stand. If a 13 year old wants to sit down at my table and play a character they made, wheither they understand if fully or not, I have no problems. But when said player is whining, not paying attention, and just being disruptive, that's my problem. Yes, it happens with adults the same as kids. But an adult you can tell to leave. Most kids, you can't tell them to leave. Tell them they're kicked out of the table. Unless you're their parent, that's not going to do much. You can't reprimand them, pull them from the table, nothing. They'll just continue to make everything disruptive while their parent is at another table, too busy to be bothered. I'm convinced that these parents bring their kids to cons for convenience, not because the kid wants to play the game. And so, the kids shouldn't be allowed to play.
clannagh 01-11-07, 05:45 PM	Again, to clarify, I don't mind children being there. And I don't mind other people that don't have a full grasp of their character being there. I help anyone at the table that needs it. I'm talking about using a son or daughter as a proxy through which you are able to build more characters...and then force these kids to play these games. That's what these people are doing and that's what I can't stand. If a 13 year old wants to sit down at my table and play a character they made, wheither they understand if fully or not, I have no problems. But when said player is whining, not paying attention, and just being disruptive, that's my problem. Yes, it happens with adults the same as kids. But an adult you can tell to leave. Most kids, you can't tell them to leave. Tell them they're kicked out of the table. Unless you're their parent, that's not going to do much. You can't reprimand them, pull them from the table, nothing. They'll just continue to make everything disruptive while their parent is at another table, too busy to be bothered. I'm convinced that these parents bring their kids to cons for convenience, not because the kid wants to play the game. And so, the kids shouldn't be allowed to play. I tend to agree ( at least with the sub 12 age group) ... I also have seen children used as defacto cohorts with odd builds they cannot understand. Though I must say there are some younger players who are right on top of their build and are actually very very good. We actually encourage younger players to come to our games day but unless they show a distinct preference for something like a wizard I steer them towards strength fighter tanks with tower shields for their initial characters (though early teenage girls do tend towards ranger or druid ).
Lupo 01-11-07, 06:21 PM	the problem isn't children specific, it always occurs when one player drags along another player and basically plays this player's character as well. it is a cheap and mean way to have a 28-point cohort :rolleyes: always bad, bad, bad sportsmanship :( any DM who sees something like this happening should have a talk with the "main" player, in case the "main" player refuses to stop the behavior it would be possible - but extreme - to ban him from the table. i had no problems with young players so far, ok our youngest player started at 15 ;), but even some elders are somehow unreliable with the rules :rant: after years of gaming. unexperienced players are best assigned with simple character choices (and that is one of the reasons for the dreaded third-level-rule). frontliner types, sorcerers, archer (archer is VERY simple the first few levels, when you have gotten a grip on ranged combat rules once) but the character should at least have the option to end up at par level to others ;) (unlike some of the "fastplay characters", anyone with THREE odd stats, odd str, odd con and odd wis ????? for a ranger???? TWO odd stats, odd dex and odd con AND TWO save bumping feats???? for a druid??? :rolleyes:) ciao martin m.
paigeoliver 01-11-07, 09:41 PM	I was the one who mentioned children first and the conversation quickly turned to disruptive children. I honestly haven't played with any disruptive children. Just children who didn't really understand their characters, which sometimes caused for very dangerous situations at the table. In particular what I have found dangerous are a frequently encountered adult/child pair I like to call "Don't forget to power attack". This isn't two particular players, but just something I have run into many times, the faces change but the situation doesn't change all that much. The parent will play a character capable of healing. The child will have a high CON fighter/barbarian with power attack, about half the time they will also have a tower shield. The fighter character won't have a terribly high STR because they have a maxed out CON. The adult of the pair will often remind the child to power attack for full, which will usually result in them rolling to hit at +2 (tower shield penalty and lowish STR not helping here), and of course missing. The adult healer characters are a wild card. Sometimes they are great and helpful at the table. But it can go the other way too. I have seen a healer parent run past characters who are bleeding out to heal the child character who still has more hit points left than anyone else at the table started with. The tower shield dwarf is actually a GREAT character for young boys, but it doesn't need to be a max HP build. A simple 16 STR, 18 CON build with weapon focus and weapon spec will be welcome at any table and will be anything but squishy,
clannagh 01-11-07, 11:55 PM	i had no problems with young players so far, ok our youngest player started at 15 ;) . We have a GM who is 10 .. though he only gets to run intro's with GM qualified players in the party supervising .. but he actually GM's very well. One of our best local GM's started running games when she was 16 and is now barely 18. Our games days attract a lot of 9-10-11 year olds.
MatBlack 01-12-07, 12:13 AM	what younger kids get out of the games is often very different than what we old farts tend to get out of it, and sometimes we have trouble remembering those long weekends of locking ourselves in a basement and trying to figure out all these complex rules that were, frankly, probably quite bevond our full comprehension at the time. it's usually best for a young player to start out with a fighter or a barbarian. it lets them get up into the meat of the combat, and really feel like they're an important part of the action. this also works with archers, depending on the player. however, let's not ignore the fact that a lot of kids are just going to zone out during the more role-playing intensive parts of the game. i don't think it's fair to begrudge them a wandering attention span once everyone starts talking plot lines and politics that can, frankly, just outright lose them. gamer kids aren't much different than other kids, and a raging troll barbarian rampaging its way through the countryside is infintely cooler than political and diplomatic intrigue over a dinner for Lord Stuffypants and his attendant court. but give em time, they'll eventually come around.
katrick 01-12-07, 07:31 AM	In respect of the slavery question, that is a "Had to be there " joke which still circulates because the guys that got sold were on there LG virgin experience and still turn up ie we played Relief Mission with them. (and yes he laughs all the time but not at winning, just at the way it turned out. Remember Relief Mission same DM) PS we nearly copped it at APL12 and said DM was a player. In defence of Patrick, Wes, Bruce, they all write great mods as all the Old Ones Border States and all of Rary's Patriots should know (and most of them have been toned down after playtesting by the Mighty 1sts lads). To Lenard speak up more i have enjoyed many games with you and your Cleric has saved my butt many times (out of APL i feel you brother) keep up the good work. Check out Aid Another (running is frowned upon in Brisvegas but only when you went first) To Budleiser get your ass to Brisbane and we'll enjoy some POWERGAMING To Crystal as per previous, i was very happy when in Tusmit casting from prone in an open field, the only Cleric kept healing me while i fought the two Manticores, whom flayed me with spikes from a 180ft circle(no ranged) and she was SIX and very happy to be there and played her character magnamously.( treat them as a newbie and try to Ingratiate them into the best gaming system in the world) But to everyone else in case you haven't played Living Kalamar it says there, to Grade the the Encounter to the APL(not Kalamar terminology) though the point is a good DM never has to fudge dice or recall an action. Note I am not a good Dm but i don't fudge dice, I just have 2nd Ed dice ie high to attack and low on saves(hence many character deaths i mean mine) This is not a computer game, people get involved and one bad experience, even from a long term gamer can change perspective.(ie they no longer play yes i know of three) You can't just reload, and some people have tried to shrink my head If you want to know pain just ask Ingamaar Vortekker.(sorry Captain) As an aside i really thought the Knowledge Checks for Baddies was awesome. I don't mean to contrive others OPINIONS, i am simply providing my point of view, Limited though it is. marty
CrystalBlue 01-12-07, 08:08 AM	I'll stop ranting now. *sigh* Children can be very fun to play with. I've had some good times with some children that very very well what their characters were and how to play them. I just have to have two players in my region that have to break the rules like this and make thier kids play. Ok...I'll shut up now.
kenobi65 01-12-07, 10:37 AM	I just have to have two players in my region that have to break the rules like this and make thier kids play. I think we all understand that, and even empathize with it. The issue was when you said, "I think children under a certain age shoudn't be allowed to play," and then your reason-why for it was the behavior of a couple of parents.
Dragon9 01-13-07, 01:02 AM	DM's celebrating: This is very, very bad sportsmanship and should be discouraged. If I was a senior DM at a convention or gameday and this happened, said judge would be ejected from my convention. This is NOT something you celebrate. It's not a win, it's not a good time, and it's not fun. It's wrong. A TPK should only happen when people are very unlucky or the party just isn't that smart. A DM's job...JOB...is to avoid this kind of thing. Their duty is to avoid killing PC's and make the game fun. I'm not saying softball it. Death happens in game and it's no fun. But the DM needs to gauge when and how this happens. No DM should ever go for blood. I have to respectfully disagree with you. While a DM shouldn't be looking at killing PCs as job #1, and yes their job is to make the game fun, at the same time their job is to run the bad guys. And believe me, the bad guys don't want to die any more than the PCs. And define "going for blood." For example, in my region their is a recently raised Triad member who is great at giving a fun gaming experience, but he is smart and crafty and runs the intelligent bad guys as intelligent. He can figure out how to maximize their abilities and put them to good use against the party. Is this going for blood? Is that lich he's been running, who has probably lived for hundreds of years and is extremely intelligent, suddenly supposed to be stupid in the face of the PCs so they don't get killed? I know you say you aren't suggestig softballing, but what to do when softballing is the only option so PCs don't get killed? I ran a game where I almost TPK'd the table because the entire party was made up of squishies. It was all monks, bards, and a cleric. Being faced with 3 1st level fighters they were nearly all killed. Was I out for blood? Should I had the bad guys pull their punches? I believe it's a DMs job to make sure the player's have fun... but I don't think their job description involves softballing. if the bad guys act stupid... that just cheats the players.
zigspatty 01-13-07, 04:21 PM	And define "going for blood."..... I know you say you aren't suggestig softballing, but what to do when softballing is the only option so PCs don't get killed? I ran a game where I almost TPK'd the table because the entire party was made up of squishies..... Being faced with 3 1st level fighters they were nearly all killed. Was I out for blood? Should I had the bad guys pull their punches? I believe it's a DMs job to make sure the player's have fun... but I don't think their job description involves softballing. if the bad guys act stupid... that just cheats the players. You can hint to the players that there are opportunities to flee. The party of squishies should KNOW their chances of failure are higher, and you should let them know when their Don Quixotes are heading out to tilt against real giants. There should be opportunities to run. Sure, they may fail to rescue the princess, but they live to fight another day. Character death isn't usually fun for players - but some players thrive on the possibility that their squishy will beat the unbeatable foe. So give them that chance while still playing the baddies in a reasonable manner. If they're metagaming that you can't/won't kill them, they'll learn soon enough. Just make sure that you do so while remaining within the rules and the spirit of fun. Sometimes the baddies should run (especially if their boss is dead) or not employ optimal tactics. (Baddies are often selfish so that they don't work well as a team....) Patty
Dragon9 01-13-07, 08:01 PM	You can hint to the players that there are opportunities to flee. The party of squishies should KNOW their chances of failure are higher, and you should let them know when their Don Quixotes are heading out to tilt against real giants. There should be opportunities to run. Sure, they may fail to rescue the princess, but they live to fight another day. Ah, but as a judge, is it our responsibility to tel the player's what to do? Isn't the decision to run up to the characters? The PCs in my case knew darn well they were facing a mercenary company, so they would be facing fighters. I have to say I have never seen a module where there was never an opportunity to run (Well okay, there was that one where you were inside a cube with a Bone Devil and couldn't get out until it was defeated...).
zigspatty 01-13-07, 10:30 PM	Ah, but as a judge, is it our responsibility to tel the player's what to do? Isn't the decision to run up to the characters? The PCs in my case knew darn well they were facing a mercenary company, so they would be facing fighters. I have to say I have never seen a module where there was never an opportunity to run. As a judge, it's our responsibility to try and run a fun & fair game. If the players are in a spot where they really should consider running, reminding them of the option to run/surrender/give up the mcguffin is a good way to ensure that they don't feel treated unfairly. PCs usually win because challenges are tiered to their APL, but a bad party mix, unlucky rolls, foolish actions, or poor writing can doom some groups. I've played/judged numerous mods where running was NOT an obvious option (Especially those mods involving planar travel... or played in a noisy room.) Players make their own decisions, and they'll be happier if they KNOW they were made aware of all the options and that you've kept withing the letter and spirit of the rules.
smerwin29 01-13-07, 11:06 PM	This is always a tough call for both the DM and the author. For example, you might have an adventure where in the beginning the PCs learn that to defeat the BBEG, they have to place the Ring of Power on the Altar of Ultimate Doom. Four hours later, the PCs are fighting the BBEG and it's not going so well. As a DM, is it fair to rule that the characters are smarter and more attentive than the players were and remind them? Or should they pay the price because they weren't paying attention? You can see how this is just one overly simplified example, and there are various degrees of decision that could come up. As the DM, you are presenting the world to the players, and they cannot make the right decisions if they do not have all the variables. However, if those variables were given to them and the players just failed to see or remember them, what do you do? This is always going to be a judgment call for the DM, and everyone's judgment is going to be different most of the time. Shawn
Vamroc 01-13-07, 11:55 PM	I wouldn't call it a problem. But the balance between what the writers can put in to a mod and what a player can have access to is completely unfair. I can understand restrictions on spells but NPCs should not have there own spell, feat, class or prestige class list. They are NPCs they were made to die in battle. If a writer want his or charactor to be more than that suck it up and play him in a mod. Otherwise players and writers should have the same resources. Why should writers have all these extra books to delve into that players can't. If LG doesn't want players to have a spell limit it, restrict it, or ban it,. But they shouldn't allow writers to continue to make NPCs with feats, spells, classes, or prestige classes, no one else can use.
JohnduBois 01-14-07, 12:14 AM	I wouldn't call it a problem. But the balance between what the writers can put in to a mod and what a player can have access to is completely unfair. I can understand restrictions on spells but NPCs should not have there own spell, feat, class or prestige class list. They are NPCs they were made to die in battle. If a writer want his or charactor to be more than that suck it up and play him in a mod. Otherwise players and writers should have the same resources. Why should writers have all these extra books to delve into that players can't. If LG doesn't want players to have a spell limit it, restrict it, or ban it,. But they shouldn't allow writers to continue to make NPCs with feats, spells, classes, or prestige classes, no one else can use. I disagree. There are a significant number of items that are absolutely fine for NPCs to have that no PC should be running around with (Vile feats, Dirgesinger, other things involving being/manipulating the undead or being evil). Many NPCs have an ethos and a goal that no PC can have, given that LG characters are inherently heroic and many NPCs are not. I also disagree that NPCs are "made to die". When I design NPCs, they are not designed to necessarily die in combat (and I sometimes intentionally design adventures so that it is almost impossible for one of my bad guys NOT to get away - all Critical Event summaries for mods I write ask if certain NPCs were able to escape or live). Many NPCs are supposed to be more powerful than PCs (thinking of a certain Furyondian blackguard vampire as I write this), and others are built to provide a unique challenge to PCs that would not be appropriate for PCs to make extensive use of.
Vamroc 01-14-07, 12:58 AM	John du Bois Furyondy Triad, Plots and Editing An actual Triad member WOW. Evil PC charactors, feats, classes and some spells are not permited in LG. I was speaking strictly about those feats, and class and spells that aren't evil but are on the NPC list. Because for whatever reason LG doesn't want to ban them out right but doesn't want PCs to use them either. I should have been more clear and that's my fault. I'm just saying some material should just either be banned or fodder for everyone and there shouldn't be this void.
Britt 01-14-07, 01:43 AM	An actual Triad member WOW. That sarcasm was soooo appropriate... There are plenty of feats, PrCs, etc. that are inappropriate for PCs for reasons other than being evil. There are rules items that are difficult to track or adjudicate for PCs, but do not carry the same problems for NPCs. The only time it is inappropriate is if the rules item is not Core because of power level. Then it should be Restricted, not NPC Only.
Dragon9 01-14-07, 03:34 AM	I wouldn't call it a problem. But the balance between what the writers can put in to a mod and what a player can have access to is completely unfair. I can understand restrictions on spells but NPCs should not have there own spell, feat, class or prestige class list. They are NPCs they were made to die in battle. If a writer want his or charactor to be more than that suck it up and play him in a mod. They were made to die in battle? lol... come on now... Has D&D become that Existential? That badguys only exist when the PCs open their room in the dungeon? If that was the case, then NPCs would be tougher because they'd be designed around the fact that only exist in that one particular moment. As a result all their Feats, spell selection, etc. would be geared toward maximizing themselves in battle. NPCs had a life before you opened their dungeon room. They would also like to continue living after they run into you.
Hand_OF_Mystra 01-14-07, 09:56 AM	Regarding young people in LG. I refer to LG as "pickup D&D" (though I guess the D&D Campaigns are more that way). As a result,ou cannot control who you play with at a game day. This is part of the LG situation. It has been my experience that less than 50% of the people I play with are enjoyable to play. There are 20% whom I would not let into my home. I have never played with another parent/child team, so I have never seen the "way to play with a 28 point cohort" problem. I have played with kids who have chosen to come to gamedays and could not pay attention to a whole mod (I do wonder why they came). That said, there are adults who are awful to play with as well. As a counterexample, my son has played LG with me since he was nine (he just turned 11). I have limited him to builds that he can play. His main is an archer; he decided on his own to roll six dice when he rapid shots at level 6 (he bought different colored dice just so he could do this). He is not an independent reader yet so I do need to remind him of his ranger spells; more often than not those two 1st level spells are not used. I will not let him play characters that need to prepare spells until his reading is better. he also has a warmage; he has memorized his spell selection. He is also going to be a life-long D&D player. I once asked him if he would like to play something with simpler rules (I was thinking like C&C), he told me, "I like all the rules, it is like I am learning something new everytime I play." Modestly, I would say this si teh kind of player that you want in the game. Does he get bored with role-play? Yes, most LG mods are not as well written as The Hobbit. Does he like to power-game, yes. But we live in Keoland, so powergaming fits right in. You play with who you play with in LG. If you want to know that you are playing with people that you like, set up a home game. Parents do not have as much opportunity to play as non-parents. I think the hobby benefits from having a big tent. I think players benefit from getting feedback. This a form of feedback that use when teaching conflict resolution: "When you do X, I feel Y, because of Z". The X is a objective action, such as "bring children to the table who obviously don't want to play" or "you APL+4 barb just Greater Cleaved the entire encounter". The Y is a feeling (not a opinion) such as "uncomfortable" or "disappointed". The Z is a reason or personal value, such as "I hate seeing a player named into a servant of another player" or "I want to play too."
Dragon9 01-14-07, 11:36 AM	I refer to LG as "pickup D&D" (though I guess the D&D Campaigns are more that way). As a result, you cannot control who you play with at a game day. This is part of the LG situation. It has been my experience that less than 50% of the people I play with are enjoyable to play. There are 20% whom I would not let into my home. This a form of feedback that use when teaching conflict resolution: "When you do X, I feel Y, because of Z". Wow. No really, I am flabbergasted... When you say less than 50%, I assume that means it's not much less than 50%. I'm starting to feel I'm in the minority here when I say that I think playing with different people is one of the BEST aspects of LG. I would say in my LG experience I could count on one hand the number of people I wouldn't play with again. And I have been playing since 2002. The thing is, you aren't the first person I have heard this from. Heck, one of my former gaming buddies tried LG and hated it because he was playing with people outside his own group... and in his words, "Gamers annoy him". This is something I'm hearing more and more often. Now I'm not trying to pick on you here, you just happened to post about this, so i will occasionally reference back to things you said as an example. :) Have we as gamers become that elitist? Have we got to the point where if someone doesn't play the game our way we just don't want to deal with them? It's like the arguments between the role-players who want to spend an entire session discussing regional politics with an NPC or describe their character down to the fibers his clothes are made out of and the over-the-top powergamers who just want to smash like Hulk by exploiting every single loophole in the rules. Those two sides have become irreconcilable. What is it about D&D where we miss out on the social aspect of the game anymore? Where how someone enjoys playing the game has becomes a means to discard them as someone to share a game with? At least in that many numbers. I can see having a problem with a few people... but almost HALF of the people you have played with? I'm sure there are people who would make that percentage higher as it pertains to themselves. I know there's the stereotype that gamers are reclusive, anti-socials... they usually wouldn't go to a Con or a gameday outside a dedicated home group. Is organized play in general bringing out the ones that just aren't reclusive? How have we, as a group, in a game that is social in nature, become so seemingly anti-social? This is just compounded by the fact that I have tried to organize the folks in my area to do something fun non-gaming related, and it fell flat every single time. One of my gaming friends laughed and said, "You do realize you're trying to make gamers socialize." As I said, playing with such a diverse group of people, I find it a very enjoyable aspect of LG, and D&D as a whole. Sure, there are the poeple who are regulars at the local gamedays, some of them I enjoy gaming with more than others, but I would never say I don't enjoy gaming with any of them. And when I go to a Con, both as a player and a judge, I enjoy meeting and gaming with new people. Different play styles, different perspectives, different ideas. Sure, there are the people who will whine no matter what happens; they find something disagreeable in everything unless they get a total victory and never get touched in combat. There are the people who are there, but not "there", if you know what I mean. There are the game hogs who need to be the center of the DMs attention all the time. Etc. And yes, we get annoyed by those people. And those examples are somewhat understandable. When did the standards of exclusion (and by exclusion I'm talking of one's personal perspective, not actually excluding someone fromt he game) come to encompass players who weren't at the extremes? I guess I just fail to see how anyone could find nearly half the people they game with not worthy of their time to share a game with. That would mean that every full LG table you play at, 2 or 3 of the players you wouldn't want to play with again. I just find it incredible. In a similar vein, I never understood the groups of players that go to out-of-region cons, or the big cons, as a whole group of 6 players and never muster with anyone outside of their group. In that instance, you not only miss out on playing with different people, but in LG you miss out on the regional flavor by playign with character who are in region and know what's what. With all the negative stereotypes and poor attitudes people have about gamers, do we really need to bash on ourselves? D&D is a social game, one of shared storytelling. Have we gotten to the point where whether you are worthy of socializing with depends on whether you have an optimal build or not? Or whether or not you can detail your character to the tiniest minutiae? Or whether or not you can role-play as a classicly trained Shakesperean actor? So, to sum up with the feedback template above: "When gamers seem to be exclusionary, I feel sad, because the social aspect of the game is what D&D is all about."
trollbill 01-14-07, 12:37 PM	Dragon9, I couldn't agree with that sentiment more. Unfortunately, I have to report to you that elitism is hardly a new problem with gamers. I have been playing D&D since it first came out in 1974 and the problem has always been there. In fact, it had, for a long time, been one of the primary reasons I never joined the RPGA. You'd think someone as avid a gamer as me would have joined a long time ago. But every time I dipped my toe in to test the waters, I was confronted with elitism. So I would step back. Last year I finally said, "To Hell with it. Surely there must be something more to the RPGA than the surface of elitism I keep encountering every time I set foot in it," and I plunged in. I am happy to report that there is more to it. While there is still elitism, it seems mostly confined to the younger, newer members. The leadership (with a few exceptions) seems to have figured out that you cannot maintain a thriving growing community by use of an exclusionary phylosophy. Maybe this is an inevitable result of Wizards Marketing having greater influence in the organization (exclusivity is not something you want when you are attempting to expand sales), or just a maturing of the gaming leadership. But I am happy with most of what I have seen. That said, I still find gamer elitism to be the single biggest disruptive force in the RPGA. But it is one that seems to have become a lot more managable recently, as I find more people who want the RPGA to be one big happy family rather than one small tight nit one.
LGMoses 01-14-07, 09:06 PM	yes, I dream that one day all gamers will be able to roll d20's under the banner of the RPGA.
kenobi65 01-14-07, 09:34 PM	That said, I still find gamer elitism to be the single biggest disruptive force in the RPGA. What I find sadly humorous about this is that it goes both ways. Go over to a non-RPGA board like EN World. When the topic of the RPGA comes up, you invariably get a number of posts by people who hate the RPGA, think it's totally munchkinny and filled with ludicrous rules, that no "real roleplaying" goes on there, etc., etc.
trollbill 01-15-07, 12:42 AM	What I find sadly humorous about this is that it goes both ways. Go over to a non-RPGA board like EN World. When the topic of the RPGA comes up, you invariably get a number of posts by people who hate the RPGA, think it's totally munchkinny and filled with ludicrous rules, that no "real roleplaying" goes on there, etc., etc. Oh, that's definitely not something I would argue with you about there. I never said the RPGA had a monopoly on elitism. Just that it was a major disruptive force.
_m_ 01-15-07, 12:50 AM	Oh, that's definitely not something I would argue with you about there. I never said the RPGA had a monopoly on elitism. Just that it was a major disruptive force. and besides, world of warcraft has a monopoly on elitism (which is kind of hilarious, since every character actually ends up exactly the same), so rpga isnt alowed any.
Hand_OF_Mystra 01-15-07, 11:02 AM	Gosh, I had no idea that I would elicit such a response with my post. I don't think I am elitist at all. The poeple I do not like are overbearing or sexist or boring. There is a pair that I have seen at cons where one ignores the games to talk about past gaming experiences and build while the other does the same to the a smaller extent and is always badgering the first like he is a child. I do not want to deal with their interpersonal stuff at my tables. There is the guy who talks about sexually exploiting women even when his girlfriend is at the table. There is the guy who cheats. There is DM who acts like he enjoys killing players (though it may be an act, it freaks my son out and he does not want to play with him). The only time, "the way people play" bothers me is when experienced people do not play by the rules and cannot be "bothered" to learn them. I think that I have pretty normal standards that way. I am a new active D&D player (only about 2 years). I do feel that there are some people who are more experienced (well almost everybody is more experienced) who are less than friendly, which is disappointing because they know so much more about playing and the campaign than I do.
trollbill 01-15-07, 11:20 AM	Gosh, I had no idea that I would elicit such a response with my post. I don't think I am elitist at all. The poeple I do not like are overbearing or sexist or boring. There is a pair that I have seen at cons where one ignores the games to talk about past gaming experiences and build while the other does the same to the a smaller extent and is always badgering the first like he is a child. I do not want to deal with their interpersonal stuff at my tables. There is the guy who talks about sexually exploiting women even when his girlfriend is at the table. There is the guy who cheats. There is DM who acts like he enjoys killing players (though it may be an act, it freaks my son out and he does not want to play with him). The only time, "the way people play" bothers me is when experienced people do not play by the rules and cannot be "bothered" to learn them. I think that I have pretty normal standards that way. I am a new active D&D player (only about 2 years). I do feel that there are some people who are more experienced (well almost everybody is more experienced) who are less than friendly, which is disappointing because they know so much more about playing and the campaign than I do. Wasn't accusing you of elitism necessarily, but if you group is a standard representation of the gaming population, if you enjoy playing with less than 50% of them, then something is wrong. The LG group in my area has around 30+ members. Needless to say, they run a wide gammot. Now I hear comments from various members about various other members. Everyone has a preference for which players they like to play with. But I think almost everyone can find the game enjoyable regardless of the makeup. There are a couple of members who like creating strongly independent RP based characters that are not especially team oriented. This occasionally creates a little hostility, but I still think the game is enjoyable even when people are forced to play with them. And if you actually pay attention to their RP concept, you can usually find a work around to their independence.
UMiskatonic 01-15-07, 11:35 AM	THEN DON'T PLAY WITH THEM. It's not that hard, is it? This is a huge organization, with thousands of players. They won't all be your best friend. It's okay. Other people won't always play the way you do. Some are interested in politics, others in combat, others in method acting. Find the ones you agree with, and play with them.
trollbill 01-15-07, 11:50 AM	THEN DON'T PLAY WITH THEM. It's not that hard, is it? This is a huge organization, with thousands of players. They won't all be your best friend. It's okay. Other people won't always play the way you do. Some are interested in politics, others in combat, others in method acting. Find the ones you agree with, and play with them. Either that, or find ways of enjoying the game with all the various play styles. I don't think I would have been playing the game for 32 years if I hadn't found some way of doing that.
CrystalBlue 01-16-07, 09:00 AM	I agree with the anti-social behaviours of some D&D players. Since it first came out, D&D has been looked at through many glasses. Fun game, boring waste of time, devil worship, nerdy obsession, ect. But most of these have been the negitive aspects of D&D. Players were labeled from the get-go as nerdy, pasty white kids and adults that pretended they were mythical figures doing battle with evil monsters. They were put down, segregated, and made fun of. And this, I think, is why we have the elitism that we do now. More then 30 years of this game has made players paranoid but brave. They've grown up in more ways then one and have claimed this game as theirs. And anyone that wants to play the game has to meet their approval first. And now, since the late 90's and early 2000's, we've seen D&D run the gamut of player types. Normal people, jocks, business men, and even *gasp* women! They bring variety and flavor. But the elite (read 'nerds') don't want their games tainted by these outside sources. So they ridicule, scrutinize, and generally abuse these other gamers in an attempt to make D&D less yummy and appatising and more of a headache. Those are just my observasions, at least.
Puggle Halfwine 01-16-07, 11:17 AM	and besides, world of warcraft has a monopoly on elitism (which is kind of hilarious, since every character actually ends up exactly the same), so rpga isnt alowed any. You mean my female night elf hunter called Leggylass isn't unique?!? The devil you say!
CrystalBlue 01-16-07, 11:30 AM	Games like WoW take on a whole new type of elitism. If you're not level 60 and have the best items for your class, we don't want you in our party, guild, raid, or even the same server. WoW players are very rude and very unfriendly...but then again, most of them are 12 or 13 year old l337 haXX0z that just reached puberty. *sighs*
_m_ 01-16-07, 06:11 PM	Games like WoW take on a whole new type of elitism. If you're not level 60 and have the best items for your class, we don't want you in our party, guild, raid, or even the same server. WoW players are very rude and very unfriendly...but then again, most of them are 12 or 13 year old l337 haXX0z that just reached puberty. *sighs* excuse me, i kind of take offense to that. i'm a ex-wow player. played for nearly 2 years, (hit gm twice, for those who care). yeah, theres alot of tools playing, but dont mark us all evil. now PERENDERS... thats a different story. mark away :D
Bob_the_Theurge 01-16-07, 06:38 PM	I disagree. There are a significant number of items that are absolutely fine for NPCs to have that no PC should be running around with (Vile feats, Dirgesinger, other things involving being/manipulating the undead or being evil). Many NPCs have an ethos and a goal that no PC can have, given that LG characters are inherently heroic and many NPCs are not. And what, precisely, is wrong with manipulating the undead? (Undead are not a playable "race" as such, so we'll concede that point). If I'm a cleric of a Neutral deity like Wee Jas, what's wrong with me pointing my holy symbol at the first undead in a module and saying "guess what, you get to be the front line for the party now."? If I'm a Neutral wizard who specializes in Necromancy, what's wrong about me taking the bodies of the first encounter and raising my own little army with which to battle the Forces of Evil? What's wrong with using their own numbers against them? Well? This is one of the things I've had the biggest problem with DM's who don't understand the system. It's not the DM's right to pull your character for "Evil Acts", even under the nonsense we recently got from Britt about how casting an "evil descriptor" spell is an "evil act" just for the casting. If you commit an "evil act", all the DM's allowed to do is note it on your AR and report it to the Triad. And if the Triad decides you're committing too many Evil Acts, you have to "explain yourself." The point is not that you're committing Evil Acts, it's whether you are keeping a balance; for instance, some DM's (arguably insane ones) would argue that killing a "helpless captive" who happens to be the cleric of a chaotic evil demigod is an "evil act", while most of us recognize that killing him, cutting out his tongue and smashing the jaw so that Speak with Dead won't work is more a bit of Common Sense. I mean, sure they could Raise him or Resurrect him or something, but at least they have to put a modicum of effort into it then. But regardless, if you're a Neutral character, Evil acts should be expected sometimes, and the same thing with Good acts. Heck, even a Good character might sometimes have to pick from The Lesser Evil (tm) instead of always having the chance of a truly "good" act, dependent on the situation. If I raise a crop of undead from the highwaymen who tried to ambush me, and then use the undead to help destroy a temple of Vecna, was that a good or an evil act? Hmm? I certainly put them to a usage that would be the same end that a Paladin would go for.
jstorrie 01-16-07, 06:43 PM	I believe the problem with raising undead starts somewhere around the point where you forcibly bind someone's soul to agonizing, lifeless slavery...? Most of the source texts make it fairly clear that when you cast Animate Dead, you're not just telekinesising the body around to hit people. You're pulling the soul back from the dead and enslaving it, which is pretty heck of evil.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-16-07, 06:53 PM	I believe the problem with raising undead starts somewhere around the point where you forcibly bind someone's soul to agonizing, lifeless slavery...? Most of the source texts make it fairly clear that when you cast Animate Dead, you're not just telekinesising the body around to hit people. You're pulling the soul back from the dead and enslaving it, which is pretty heck of evil. So if I take the soul of an Evil creature or person, which would undoubtedly burn in hades for all eternity or wherever the souls of Evil critters go, and I pull it back and put it into service committing Good acts until such time as the Skeleton or Zombie I created was destroyed (e.g. the End of the Module), then what's the problem? I just gave them a chance to redeem some of their evil acts from their previous life. Besides, if I'm a Cleric of Wee Jas, or a Wizard/Necromancer who happens to worship Wee Jas, she's the one who owns those souls anyways. I'm just getting a loan of some helpers from my patron deity, now aren't I? Again, the whole "Evil Act" think is taken WAY out of proportion by a lot of DM's, and that's the point I'm trying to illustrate. Especially for those of us of Neutral alignment, the idea that "Good people only do Good acts, and Neutrals only do Good or Neutral acts, and only the NPC's can do Evil acts ever" is something we need to break certain DM's of.
Britt 01-16-07, 06:55 PM	Problem with your hypo is that Wee Jas hates undead. She is a goddess of death, not undeath.
jstorrie 01-16-07, 07:05 PM	Moreover, a skeleton or zombie does not really have any chance to 'redeem itself,' since you are overriding its free will by virtue of locking it into a mindless being. Creating intelligent undead doesn't get around that either, as the process twists their psyches with built-in evil. Seriously, guy, this stuff is in like Libris Mortis and BoVD and it is spelled out explicitly that in the D&D cosmology, creating undead is almost always one of the most evil actions you can perform.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-16-07, 07:10 PM	Problem with your hypo is that Wee Jas hates undead. She is a goddess of death, not undeath. Funny that she lets her Clerics walk around and command undead (except of course the Chaotic ones that she hates just for being Chaotic, being that WJ is Lawful Neutral). Greyhawk source also disagrees with you on this - WJ has no big problem with the creation of undead, provided that the remains they are created from are acquired in a lawful manner. "She can summon groups of lawful undead … to do her bidding, but the tasks she sets for them must not be in violation of their alignment… she is highly lawful … Chaotic undead avoid her, but must obey her if she commands them into service." - Dragon #88, Page 11.
Britt 01-16-07, 07:53 PM	Sorry, "hate" was too strong of a word choice, but it's not far off. Check the Dragon magazine article that discusses her and the LGG. She is obviously focused more on death and the protection of souls than on creation of undead. That's the reason she was given the repose domain instead of death. You can create undead, but it has to be willing and follow any legal rules. She definitely doesn't advocate going around animating corpses to use as you will, as you seem to indicate. That's what I was trying to get across. This is a wee bit off topic though :)
_m_ 01-16-07, 07:58 PM	Sorry, "hate" was too strong of a word choice, but it's not far off. Check the Dragon magazine article that discusses her and the LGG. She is obviously focused more on death and the protection of souls than on creation of undead. That's the reason she was given the repose domain instead of death. You can create undead, but it has to be willing and follow any legal rules. She definitely doesn't advocate going around animating corpses to use as you will, as you seem to indicate. That's what I was trying to get across. This is a wee bit off topic though :) there was a topic?
RanielK 01-17-07, 01:26 PM	* There is all this talk about mentioning to the DM when you are unhappy with how they ran things. Please, don't forget to compliment your DMs either. It is equally important, if not more than critizing ;) Yes, and I also find a nice tip (usually done before the game starts ;) ) is a good idea as well. And as far as too young? My daughter turned one last weekend and has an RPGA # and a character. Her character's stats are on her onsie (I kid thee not). Not that she'll play any time soon mind you (though she does have giant fuzzy dice that are larger than her head and knows how to roll/toss them). She usually only shows up for games because a) she refuses to be seperated from mommy and b) she's great as a visual demonstration for how tall a halfling really is topping out at a whopping 24 inches tall. :D
RanielK 01-17-07, 01:56 PM	.... The thing is, you aren't the first person I have heard this from. Heck, one of my former gaming buddies tried LG and hated it because he was playing with people outside his own group... and in his words, "Gamers annoy him". This is something I'm hearing more and more often. .... What is it about D&D where we miss out on the social aspect of the game anymore? Where how someone enjoys playing the game has becomes a means to discard them as someone to share a game with? At least in that many numbers. I can see having a problem with a few people... but almost HALF of the people you have played with? I'm sure there are people who would make that percentage higher as it pertains to themselves. I know there's the stereotype that gamers are reclusive, anti-socials... they usually wouldn't go to a Con or a gameday outside a dedicated home group. Is organized play in general bringing out the ones that just aren't reclusive? How have we, as a group, in a game that is social in nature, become so seemingly anti-social? This is just compounded by the fact that I have tried to organize the folks in my area to do something fun non-gaming related, and it fell flat every single time. One of my gaming friends laughed and said, "You do realize you're trying to make gamers socialize." A friend of mine who is a parent of an autistic child and a gamer, noted it was striking how many of the behaviors of "boderline" autism and other associated social disorders were similar to the behaviors seen in your average gamer. It led us to wonder if a large number of gamers weren't autistic to some degree. :P * *Sadly, the above is only slightly tongue-in-cheek. I took the "test" myself, while I don't rate, it was close.
RanielK 01-17-07, 02:19 PM	for instance, some DM's (arguably insane ones) would argue that killing a "helpless captive" who happens to be the cleric of a chaotic evil demigod is an "evil act", while most of us recognize that killing him, cutting out his tongue and smashing the jaw so that Speak with Dead won't work is more a bit of Common Sense. I mean, sure they could Raise him or Resurrect him or something, but at least they have to put a modicum of effort into it then. Then of course, there are guys like Lareth the Beautiful. He just begs the question, "he's been killed and res'ed soooooo many times, can he truely die now?":confused:
solbergb 01-17-07, 06:06 PM	Lareth doesn't hold a candle to Markessa. nothing like having a million independent clones of yourself running around to sew confusion. Of course it backfires sometimes. I was in a party that wasted a "good" Markessa when she rounded the corner, before she could say anything, after we'd been victimized by many other Markessas. We didn't know we did anything wrong but of course we didn't get THAT favor :)
rockondon 01-17-07, 08:25 PM	1) LG has problems because your DM is bad? That's makes as much sense as saying LG has problems because my brother has a runny nose. Don't point the finger at LG when the problem is elsewhere. 2) Sounds like there aren't enough players in your area. That or they stick to their main character rather than start up new ones to play more mods and with more players. Again, not really LG's fault. If you play up, play defensively. 3) Yes the mods/DMs/writers/triads do address differences in the strength of the party and what encounters to throw at those strengths. This method is called...APL. Its simple and it works. I wouldn't want to burden the writers who volunteer to write these mods with some unnecessarily complex system for designing combats when what they're doing now seems to work just fine. I haven't read all of this thread so I don't know how all of you feel about it, but around here the consensus is that determining combats by APL is fine. *offers a big thumbs up to LG. Keep up the good work guys :thumbsup: *
katrick 01-19-07, 01:50 AM	A friend of mine who is a parent of an autistic child and a gamer, noted it was striking how many of the behaviors of "boderline" autism and other associated social disorders were similar to the behaviors seen in your average gamer. It led us to wonder if a large number of gamers weren't autistic to some degree. :P * *Sadly, the above is only slightly tongue-in-cheek. I took the "test" myself, while I don't rate, it was close. Most of us were called Hyperactive because Autism, ADHD and Aspergyus Syndrome weren't invented\prolific enough at the time. And just like autistic kids today we were presented with a barrage of "remedies " in an attempt to deal (there is still no funding in Oz) Please post the test so we can find out? marty(ex girlfriend worked with autistic children and she reckons i am severe)
Japangirl 01-19-07, 02:38 AM	Sadly, I may be one of the most "normal" gamers I've met. I display very few Aspergers symptoms and am perfectly fine with change, public speaking, meeting new people, etc. I don't handle huge crowds over long periods of time very well, but that's just because I get tired. I did, and do, fine in school and have no problems focusing. I can even focus on things I really dislike, like math homework. Yes, please post the test. It would be interesting to see.
Britt 01-19-07, 02:59 AM	I'm borderline OCP, schizoid, and Aspergers. I get along great with people; I'm just like House, only 15 years younger, law instead of medicine, and not quite as cynical yet. Oh, and I filter what I say a bit more than he does :) And he gets on great with people!
CrystalBlue 01-19-07, 07:26 AM	So Britt...when's the Vicadin addiction going to kick in for you then? :O On an unrelated note, House rocks the socks.
RanielK 01-19-07, 11:43 AM	Most of us were called Hyperactive because Autism, ADHD and Aspergyus Syndrome weren't invented\prolific enough at the time. And just like autistic kids today we were presented with a barrage of "remedies " in an attempt to deal (there is still no funding in Oz) Please post the test so we can find out? marty(ex girlfriend worked with autistic children and she reckons i am severe) I just go with NIMH's Autism Spectrum questions, wherein it asks basic do you? questions and if you score x out of y then you're borderline/full blown/down right not good. Truth be told I am at worst borderline (drumming fingers, taping objects, zoning out to hold an internal dialogue). It took me a few years to get etiquette in business and personal conversations (the hi how are you stuff, then get to business and a thanks, see you later at the end vice this is what I want, give it to me). OCD is my real problem (counting objects for three hours at a time is not good and I stay away from the hard core rules arguement threads) and even then I self regulate fairly well.
RanielK 01-19-07, 12:01 PM	Sadly, I may be one of the most "normal" gamers I've met. I display very few Aspergers symptoms and am perfectly fine with change, public speaking, meeting new people, etc. I don't handle huge crowds over long periods of time very well, but that's just because I get tired. I did, and do, fine in school and have no problems focusing. I can even focus on things I really dislike, like math homework. Yes, please post the test. It would be interesting to see. I hate public speaking. It's why I do it on a regular basis. Weekly I brief anywhere from 5 to 100 people at a time. Back in the day I would do three to five such briefings with up to 350 people in one place. All of it extemporaneous and with questions at the end. Don't ask where my heart rate was during any of it though. As I said earlier, I just used NIMH's standards. A lot of this came out of some of the LJ conversation ("do you watch the lines on the road or telephone lines to watch them move?" yes, still; "do you tap your foot, drum your fingers, click a ballpoint pen when distracted/nervous without realizing it" yes, still; "do you hold an internal monologue/dialogue" of course I do, no you don't, yes I do; as a child I would straighten things and line up my toys, but I also played with my toys, so maybe yes/maybe no. Is that autism or OCD? I was really good at focusing on one point. Sometimes it was for no reason. Other times it was to "cloudbust.") Unfortunately, I can't get back to the NIMH site where I found the "official" questions from an adult point of view. So, "no link for you" he said in his best "soup nazi" voice.
RanielK 01-19-07, 12:04 PM	and not quite as cynical yet. You mean we haven't broken your spirit yet? We aren't doing our job as players dealing with a Circle Member! Damn! We gotta get on that. I figured Iuzians would be able to do that. My Texans are fallin' down on the job. :P
Japangirl 01-19-07, 12:54 PM	No, see, Britt led the way as Triad member. Now that he's a Circle member, he's seen us at our worstest and our bestest, and knows that we probably can't break him unless we really really try. And then he couldn't be our Circle member anymore, so that would be self-defeating.
Britt 01-19-07, 03:18 PM	As House once said "we both know my pride far surpasses my instinct for self-preservation." You can't break me, even if you try :D I've dealt with far worse than any of you can dish out when I was admin of a web/forum site a long time ago. Some of them tried to break me, and I quickly cracked them into shape :)
CrystalBlue 01-19-07, 03:58 PM	I've noticed a lot of D&D people love House. It must be a great show. And as for Britt... "For all the bad things he is...I seriously believe he's a positive force in the universe." So, there you go, Britt. ^.^