Post/Author/DateTime	Post
UMiskatonic 02-02-06, 02:43 PM	Hey, Is there any way to get around the 7-person issue? If you are running a con or a home game, and have seven people left after mustering the tables, you're stuck. Can't divide into a group of three and a group of four. Can't let all seven play together. So, you basically have to pick a person and tell them to go home. That seems against the spirit of the RPGA, which is to encourage people to have fun. Legitimizing either three or seven person tables would do the trick. My preference would be to legitimize the three person table, it's tidier to run, and requires nothing other than a note saying "this is legal". Seven people requires an adjustment for a seventh person, and I can see that might be hard to agree on.
jboerj 02-02-06, 02:49 PM	Con mustering is always a pain but in that case there's nothing that prevents you from finding a table of 6 of the correct level and asking them to let you reseat one of them so you can make two tables of 4. It's messy but then so it the letting 7 or 3 people seat as a table.
crimsonsky 02-02-06, 02:58 PM	Con mustering is always a pain but in that case there's nothing that prevents you from finding a table of 6 of the correct level and asking them to let you reseat one of them so you can make two tables of 4. It's messy but then so it the letting 7 or 3 people seat as a table. Sure, but those extra tables don't always exist at a con. I've seen some mods only run one table during a slot. If 7 want to play, 1 is SOL.
UMiskatonic 02-02-06, 03:07 PM	And what if it's not a con, but a home game? You might only have those seven people. What happens in reality is that you get an RPGA number for your 80-yr old grandmother, and report her as a player, so you can report two tables of four. Can't we do better than that?
Greyson 02-02-06, 03:31 PM	I think this concern is better addressed in the RPGA General forum. it is beyond the scop of Living Greyhawk, and certainly beyond the current discussion of the LGCS 5.0. RPGA General forum (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=459) I support the 4 to 6 player table, by the way. The games are designed for at least four players for any given encounter. It is easier and more manageable to mandate table numbers that are uniform across every RPGA campaign, rather than have hundrdeds of unstandardized adventure scenarios out there.
rook1138 02-02-06, 03:53 PM	I support the 4 to 6 player table, by the way. The games are designed for at least four players for any given encounter. It is easier and more manageable to mandate table numbers that are uniform across every RPGA campaign, rather than have hundrdeds of unstandardized adventure scenarios out there. They should allow 3 player tables though, provided a fourth character can attend via cohort. This would also allow those who have invested in the leadership feat more chances to actually use it, since right now they are reliant upon a table only having 4-5 PCs, which isn't a lot of tables from my experience. Matt Thompson
UMiskatonic 02-02-06, 04:04 PM	I don't see that allowing three people would "unstandardize" anything. The writing would not have to change at all, and mods would remain as balanced as they are now. Running through an adventure with three people is very dangerous, but if a group of players wants to do it, I don't see why they should be forbidden.
RanielK 02-02-06, 04:11 PM	Game days are open to the public as a con is, but limited in tables. So what happens there when you get a 7 person table? At home games you are allowed to limit participation ("sorry, but this table is full. We're running another one in two days.") Cons tend (tend mind you) to draw a decent player base, with the potential to redirect people (ah the wonders of walk ups messing with premustered tables). But Game days are that wonderful inbetween place. Not enough people/tables to shuffle folks like mad, but you don't have the right to turn people away at the door (all who enter get to play). Miles
Mattastrophic 02-02-06, 04:14 PM	Myself, I am a firm believer in "3 PCs and 3 cohorts make a table." Thus, all three PCs get to use their Leadership feat, and often enough, let's face it, 3 PCs plus cohorts are often stronger than, say 4 or 5 PCs. So there's really no dangerous-mods issue to worry about there. Also, it allows a group of four gaming buddies play. Four is a much easier group to get together than five. And thus, more games mean a more successful RPGA. -Matt
Britt 02-02-06, 04:27 PM	but you don't have the right to turn people away at the door (all who enter get to play). Miles AFAIK, this isn't true. If you can't seat people legally, you can't seat people legally. I am unaware of two RPGA rules that create the contradiction you are stating.
RanielK 02-02-06, 04:51 PM	AFAIK, this isn't true. If you can't seat people legally, you can't seat people legally. I am unaware of two RPGA rules that create the contradiction you are stating. Granted, if someone is the odd man out, then they're out of luck. I've been the guy marshalling the special and had to tell an angry mob (well irrate grouping) that the con oversold tickets and we have not of the judges (even if we pressed random passersby to run cold). That's was a not fun experience. Now, with that being said, you can't just point at Skippy and say "gee, Skip, you ain't playing cause I said so." Cons and game days are (or at least were) listed as venues that according to the RPGA are "open to the public" and thus must accept those who show up to play. Now that being said, (and back to the top of the post) the odd man out is SOL. But then that was what triggered this whole thread to begin with. What do you do with that odd guy when there's no way else to accomodate him? Miles
Greyson 02-02-06, 06:11 PM	Okay, then in five or six years we can argue for a legal table to be two players at a minimum. Then where will it end? I think the four to six rule is fine and we should think of creative ways to make it work instead of circumventing it. Anyway, happy gaming.
Moryath 02-02-06, 06:15 PM	Okay, then in five or six years we can argue for a legal table to be two players at a minimum. Then where will it end? I think the four to six rule is fine and we should think of creative ways to make it work instead of circumventing it. And I think you're dead wrong. We have a minimum number to make table, supposedly. That number is four people. We have a maximum number right now (supposedly). That number is six people. The seventh-man scenario is one I've seen quite often at a convention - organizers rushing madly around to try to find "one more person" to play a module so they can run two tables of four, rather than leaving someone sitting with nothing to play after having paid good money. And it doesn't need to exist. Past a certain point, there's the possibility that people will have a cohort, or two. Since Cohorts take up a "player" slot, I see absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to fill a "Player" slot for purposes of making table!
AmIonyet 02-02-06, 08:20 PM	AFAIK, this isn't true. If you can't seat people legally, you can't seat people legally. I am unaware of two RPGA rules that create the contradiction you are stating. __________________ Britt Frey IUZ Metaregional Representative If this is true then why did I have to sit a table with 12 I reateat 12 people at BK con Queso last fall. With my 4th level char and play APL 10(way over my char head danger wise). And then only get EXP as if it where 4 APL. :confused:
garyjohnson 02-02-06, 08:48 PM	If this is true then why did I have to sit a table with 12 I reateat 12 people at BK con Queso last fall. With my 4th level char and play APL 10(way over my char head danger wise). And then only get EXP as if it where 4 APL. :confused: That sounds like it could have been an interactive event, which are exceptions to the rule. Cheers, Gary Johnson
Britt 02-02-06, 10:12 PM	If this is true then why did I have to sit a table with 12 I reateat 12 people at BK con Queso last fall. With my 4th level char and play APL 10(way over my char head danger wise). And then only get EXP as if it where 4 APL. :confused: That was the interactive and, as stated above, interactives do not follow the normal rules. 12 turned out to be too many, but we probably would have still done 10 in retrospect. On the danger issue, how many people died at your table? Britt Frey, who wrote that interactive
Bob_the_Theurge 02-02-06, 10:29 PM	Con mustering is always a pain but in that case there's nothing that prevents you from finding a table of 6 of the correct level and asking them to let you reseat one of them so you can make two tables of 4. It's messy but then so it the letting 7 or 3 people seat as a table. Actually, plenty of things can prevent it: 1 - The table of 6 doesn't want to split up, because they're friends or agreed to play it together. 2 - The person who'd be able to split, has already played the mod in question. 3 - Splitting the sixth person off makes them woefully underpowered for the mod's minimum APL. 4 - The only one who can play it off of that table of 6 happens to be their healer or tank or some other role they don't want to play without. 5 - They "could" play it, but have heard bad rumors of it and therefore want to pass on it until they level up. Those are just off the top of my head.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-02-06, 10:36 PM	Trying to bring the discussion back on topic, the problem seems to be as follows: Up to 6 people makes a table. 8 people makes 2 tables of 4. Seven people makes a hole. Someone mentioned earlier that if we allowed tables of 3 to form, then someone would demand tables of 2, and "Where would it go"? Theoretically speaking, it could only go as far as tables of 1, which doesn't make much sense even if you're a Druid who has both an animal companion and a Cohort. But that's not the issue. Nobody is currently suggesting allowing a 2-player table to form, and they'd probably get slapped down if they did. The problem in question is how to split up when 7 people are all presumably the same level and signed up for a given table. In this case, and assuming that the APL calculations do not drop below the lowest APL for the module, I'd be alright with allowing a 3-player table (plus one Cohort) to form a "Table" if they are okay with taking on the added risk. It makes more sense to me than sending someone home unhappy that they were blocked out of the module.
Sieylianna 02-03-06, 08:05 AM	This is an RPGA rule and not subject to the LGCS. Ed
Timlagor 02-06-06, 10:37 AM	Does the RPGA specify the Cohort rules?
kenobi65 02-06-06, 11:22 AM	Does the RPGA specify the Cohort rules? No; the Cohort rules are for LG, since not every RPGA campaign has cohorts. However, the RPGA floor rules state that you have to have at least four "real" players (not characters) to make a table, and so the LG rules for cohorts are written with that in mind. If nothing else, without four RPGA numbers for players at the table, it can't be reported as a legal table in the RPGA event system. Thus, for LG to modify their cohort rules to allow the cohort to make the "fourth" for a table would then violate the RPGA rules.
SYB 02-06-06, 01:15 PM	Not that this is really the place to discuss this, but it seems the best solution would be to allow a 7-man table. A 3-man table is definitely too small, but a 7-man table can just implement the 6-man rule (+1 APL), except as a +2 APL. The rule for 7-man tables should be: Only when necessary. Thus, a convention can't sell more than 6*tables tickets, but, if they have two tables available and only 7 people show up, then a table of 7 can be run. -SYB
kenobi65 02-06-06, 01:28 PM	Not that this is really the place to discuss this, but it seems the best solution would be to allow a 7-man table. A 3-man table is definitely too small, but a 7-man table can just implement the 6-man rule (+1 APL), except as a +2 APL. That might be a little too extreme...the "rule of thumb" I've always read is that 4 PCs is the baseline for EL calculations, and every two PCs above that number effectively raises the party's APL by one. So, a 7-PC party isn't really "APL+2", in the same way that a 5-PC party isn't "APL+1". The rule for 7-man tables should be: Only when necessary. Thus, a convention can't sell more than 6*tables tickets, but, if they have two tables available and only 7 people show up, then a table of 7 can be run. Actually, the RPGA used to allow 7-person tables in extremis, and it got pretty seriously abused. I remember going to GenCon in 2001 (my first RPGA experience), and every single table the entire weekend was 7 players. Con organizers and marshallers want to seat everyone they can, and they'll do what they have to in order to do that. I think that, while what you're proposing is a nice idea, it'll never get enforced properly, and we'd be back to those 7-person tables as a matter of course at bigger conventions. Ian Richards has said repeatedly that the RPGA feels that more than 6 players at a table creates a suboptimal play experience for everyone (though he acknowledges that it does create the "odd man out" in some situations). I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this policy to change.
Sieylianna 02-07-06, 07:20 AM	Actually, the RPGA used to allow 7-person tables in extremis, and it got pretty seriously abused. I remember going to GenCon in 2001 (my first RPGA experience), and every single table the entire weekend was 7 players. Con organizers and marshallers want to seat everyone they can, and they'll do what they have to in order to do that. I think that, while what you're proposing is a nice idea, it'll never get enforced properly, and we'd be back to those 7-person tables as a matter of course at bigger conventions. I recall playing at a nine person table at Origins in Ft. Worth (96?). The rules may say that tables must be 4-6 players, but I've seen 3 person tables, a lot of 7 person tables, and an occasional 8 person table. Convention coordinators want their players to be happy and people who are sitting out aren't happy. Ironically, while a larger than normal table means reduced rewards for most living campaigns, the AR system means it doesn't matter in LG. (Excluding the very rare times when there is a unique item). Ed
Britt 02-07-06, 11:51 AM	Ironically, while a larger than normal table means reduced rewards for most living campaigns, the AR system means it doesn't matter in LG. (Excluding the very rare times when there is a unique item). Ed Other than the fact that it violates the RPGA rules and is an illegal table. If anyone that cares finds out, the table will be invalidated and everyone will lose their ARs. I'd say that matters.
RanielK 02-07-06, 03:40 PM	Other than the fact that it violates the RPGA rules and is an illegal table. If anyone that cares finds out, the table will be invalidated and everyone will lose their ARs. I'd say that matters. And that is different from them being told to take a hike, not playing, deciding LG isn't worth and leaving the campaign, how? Miles PS For the record, there's a guy in my normal play group who started back in year 3. He went to a con and was constantly bumped from tables because their were too many players and not enough judges. It wasn't until some of the folks in my group coaxed him back that he started playing again. And he only did so because at home games you know you've got a seat. Now in all fairness, he was chosen to get bumped every time because the coordinator was an a-hole and was only setting up games for his friends. But that definitely didn't help maters.
SteveMND 02-07-06, 09:48 PM	"And that is different from them being told to take a hike, not playing, deciding LG isn't worth and leaving the campaign, how?" Umm, in the one case, only one person might not be able to play a particular mod, and can always try and get it again later, and in the other case, seven people have their ARs (and rounds) invalidated? Sounds pretty significantly different to me. Still, that says more about our gamer culture than the campaign itself. Too many people are used to home campaigns and the like. When someone new wants to get involved in LG, I let them know right off the bat that it is nothing like what they are used to in a home campaign, but if they give it a little time and learn to work within the rules, they can probably have a great time. Same thing when a friend goes to a convention for the first time. I remind him that there is no guarantee you'll be able to get the mod you want, when you want it. But be flexible, and give it a go, and you'll probably have a good time at the end of it all. I would never suggest to anyone that their first RPGA game should be at a convention. That's just trouble waiting to happen.
UMiskatonic 02-08-06, 03:52 PM	Actually, LG (meaning the RPGA) used to allow 3 person tables. There's a precedent for it. Living Spycraft, which has a slightly different status, also allows 7 person tables, so that no one has to be turned away. Greyson, some arithmetic will show where it ends. 1-player can't do it 2-players can't do it 3-players dangerous, but legal 4-players legit 5-players legit 6 players legit 7 players divide into 3 and 4 8 players divide into 4 and 4 9 players divide into 4 and 5 10 players divide into 5 and 5 11+ players can always be broken into some combination of 3, 4, 5, and 6 person tables. It doesn't matter how many you have. Currently, the system works for 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9+. I run home games, and find this hugely inconvenient. With the inevitable last-minute cancellation, my players have the disadvantage of playing short-handed. I'd invite a 7th to compensate, but then I'd have to send someone away if they all somehow make it. Ed, I realize that LG can't contradict RPGA rules and remain part of the RPGA. However, RPGA rules do not come down from the mountain on stone tablets. They were invented by people and are subject to change. If LG is unhappy with one, maybe that would be enough to change it? Besides, this foolish rule actually encourages the breaking of rules. Seven person tables -do- occur with less-scrupulous players, and the RPGA has no way to monitor or enforce it. We rely on people to self-police themselves, and that requires that the community assent to the rules. I don't think that's the case for this rule. However, I'm hopeful that it could work. We need to convince the Circle that three person tables are needed, so they can push for it with the RPGA powers-that-be.
RanielK 02-08-06, 04:01 PM	Besides, this foolish rule actually encourages the breaking of rules. Seven person tables -do- occur with less-scrupulous players, and the RPGA has no way to monitor or enforce it. We rely on people to self-police themselves, and that requires that the community assent to the rules. I don't think that's the case for this rule. Considering there is actually a "mechanic" for determining APL for a seven person table, that should show you how often it has been done. By this I mean, you figure out the APL for AR purposes (Total Levels/players, +1 for six or seven) then play at that APL +2 for actually encounters. More danger, less rewards. I've heard this being applied more than I can count. Seven person tables do happen because three person tables can't. And drawing lots or having the senior gm determine who gets the shaft just doesn't work. That being said, if you're talking about 15 or 20 such folks who don't have a table (happened because of overselling of tickets at a convention) and there just aren't the judges to run the event. Well, folks go home empty handed because 20 person tables just don't work. ;) Miles
Sieylianna 02-08-06, 05:26 PM	Besides, this foolish rule actually encourages the breaking of rules. Seven person tables -do- occur with less-scrupulous players, and the RPGA has no way to monitor or enforce it. We rely on people to self-police themselves, and that requires that the community assent to the rules. I don't think that's the case for this rule. However, I'm hopeful that it could work. We need to convince the Circle that three person tables are needed, so they can push for it with the RPGA powers-that-be. The people in charge like to think that outlawing 7 player tables made a difference. I think some cons used to plan for 7 player tables, so this has stopped that ploy, but I still see it done as a last resort. If you're running a convention, that 7th person may represent $40 in entrance fees plus two motel room nights. Make too many people unhappy and you could lose serious money on the convention and see the convention fold. I think you have a better chance of getting 7 player tables than 3 player tables. Three player tables are underpowered and the fact that LG is the only campaign which allows cohorts means it really doesn't fit the RPGA as a whole. Ed
AmIonyet 02-08-06, 06:16 PM	That was the interactive and, as stated above, interactives do not follow the normal rules. 12 turned out to be too many, but we probably would have still done 10 in retrospect. On the danger issue, how many people died at your table? Britt Frey, who wrote that interactive None by seer luck cause we went round the out side of the death zone behind the books case. Our rouge need 19or 20 to find the trap. triped it and we all follow be hind him. On the out side where the trap did not take place in. And lucky missed the big bad ick spells of doom. The end Boss more was dealable. It was hard, dealable. But if we where hit by the trap it would have been a total TPK. And a thought try handing out flyer before for meta org view for peolpe there view on things. Before the event instead so much box text. 60% of all poelpe did not care about XYZ views. Most only want to go eat. Our have some one in Char for each there to talk to about XYZ views. Cause we where told no that we could not leave like small childer to eat. Wich all most cuased a fist fight in real life not in char. The mod was good the time mangement was REALY BAD! In the long long long intro blurb made it seem that table hopping was going to be done. It was not done do to time management mess ups... Wich problely ment some role play or theat was lost. All GM I played with where good or better than most. 6 out of 7 game where realy good. Great odds there.
redgamer 02-08-06, 07:33 PM	Where is this mechanic from? Is this from another campaign? Considering there is actually a "mechanic" for determining APL for a seven person table, that should show you how often it has been done. By this I mean, you figure out the APL for AR purposes (Total Levels/players, +1 for six or seven) then play at that APL +2 for actually encounters. More danger, less rewards. I've heard this being applied more than I can count. Seven person tables do happen because three person tables can't. And drawing lots or having the senior gm determine who gets the shaft just doesn't work. That being said, if you're talking about 15 or 20 such folks who don't have a table (happened because of overselling of tickets at a convention) and there just aren't the judges to run the event. Well, folks go home empty handed because 20 person tables just don't work. ;) Miles
Marshall 02-09-06, 03:51 AM	Just have a list of stock NPCs that you can add to a table to make it 'legal' that are always going to be useful, but not attention grabbing. A Healer Cleric at lvls 3,5 and 7 A Trapfinding ROG at 3,5 and 7 An Archer/Tracker RNG at 3,5 and 7 All those characters would blend into the background in roleplaying situations, provide a useful skill that the party might lack and dont require any tactical decisions other that "move here, roll dice"
kenobi65 02-09-06, 10:14 AM	Just have a list of stock NPCs that you can add to a table to make it 'legal' that are always going to be useful, but not attention grabbing. The issue in LG (or any RPGA campaign) is that adding a 4th character as an NPC does not make it a legal table...you still need a 4th actual player, with an actual RPGA number, to make a legal table, by the current RPGA floor rules. If just adding a 4th character as an NPC was a viable work-around, then the LG cohort rules would probably allow it. Since LSJ isn't an RPGA campaign, they don't need to follow the "4 player minimum" rule.
RanielK 02-09-06, 12:46 PM	Where is this mechanic from? Is this from another campaign? It just the most common way I have seen to deal with a seven person table. The judge sits down and the coordinator guy says "remember to bump it one apl" and no one goes "whaaa? WTFO?" The times I have seen seven person tables, this mechanic was always used to up the challenge of having more people than the mod is balanced for. And I've never seen anyone question its use. Miles
A'Talsen 02-09-06, 02:20 PM	It just the most common way I have seen to deal with a seven person table. The judge sits down and the coordinator guy says "remember to bump it one apl" and no one goes "whaaa? WTFO?" The times I have seen seven person tables, this mechanic was always used to up the challenge of having more people than the mod is balanced for. And I've never seen anyone question its use.Miles I have objected. Of course I objected to the 7 person table first, since it was against the rules as well. I have since walked from that kind of situation rather than play; of course doing that gave them a legal table. While I had less of an issue with the 'let the 7th person play' mentality that squeezed them into my table (and yes I sign up early so I'm not the one bumped) to begin with, suddenly *I* am being penalized by a tougher encounter just to let *someone else* play the mod! Judges are *never* allowed to frak with the danger level in a mod, and I have seen them do it anyway... The way things are right now, I'd rather be bumped from a table rather than allow an illegal 7 person table. I also expect other people to be bumped to prevent it, if they are the last to sign up for an event. Michael "Fish" Murphy
rascal 02-09-06, 03:36 PM	I agree that there needs to be some way to accommodate 7 people. People spend money on hotels and travel, and they sometimes come in groups. At a convention, sending someone home because there is no more room should never be an option. In any convention I have been at they have always accommodated the 7th player and no one has ever complained or left. That will not stop regardless the rule – but there has to be something that can be done legally in that rare instance, and I think there have been some good suggestions in this thread.
kenobi65 02-09-06, 03:53 PM	I agree that there needs to be some way to accommodate 7 people. Not that I disagree with you (I don't)...but this really isn't the venue for trying to effect that change. Again, this isn't an LG rule. This is an RPGA rule. The Circle isn't who should be lobbied to make this change; it's RPGA HQ. All we're really doing on this thread is getting worked up over the inequity of the situation.