Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Alpha_Nerd 03-06-07, 03:12 PM	JamesMaissen made this suggestion in a Thread on the main LG board and I thought it was a great, no, an AMAZING idea. If a table only includes 4 players, the APL of the table is adjusted -1. I can't think of any examples where this would hurt a table. Only having 4 characters greatly increases the chance of you not having one of the iconic roles, and if you get caught at a .5 forced up APL (example: 7, 7, 8, 8 forced to 8) most people I know would just chose to not play as it would almost be guaranteed suicide. What does everyone else think about this? If you have an arguement against it I honestly want to hear it as I can't think of any negatives.
Mattastrophic 03-06-07, 03:22 PM	What does everyone else think about this? If you have an arguement against it I honestly want to hear it as I can't think of any negatives. I think it's a great idea, though I'd say make it an option rather than a rule. I've been a part of quite a few tables of, say, 8/8/10/10 (total=36, /4=9, -1=APL8), which could take APL 10. You also run into stuff like an 8/8/8/12 table (total=36, /4=9, -1=APL8) being unplayable if it's a rule and not an option. -But then again, Matt would rather set things up so that anyone could play any APL they wanted.
kenobi65 03-06-07, 03:44 PM	My guess is that the reason the current rules are the way they are is that the D&D EL system was created with a 4 PC party as the baseline assumption (when 3E was developed, WotC's research indicated that 4 was the most common table size). So, assuming the CR/EL rules are being followed, 4 LG PCs are operating at the correct APL, and giving them an APL reduction would actually be under-leveling them. Now, whether certain combinations of 4 PCs at a table are under-optimized is another discussion entirely. D&D's designers have also indicated that, as a general rule of thumb, every 2 additional PCs over that 4-PC baseline increases the party's effective level by 1, which is likely why 6-PC parties in LG have their party level automatically increased by 1 for their APL calculation.
Mommy was an Orc 03-06-07, 04:13 PM	I'd prefer a simpler rule that a 4 player table has the option of rounding up or down to the nearest two whole numbers. As an example, the following table could round down: Rogue 4/Cleric 2 Barbarian 1/Warmage 1/Favored Soul 1/Sorcerer 1/Bard 1/Dragon Disciple 1 Fighter 5 Fighter 5 But this table could round up: Barbarian 1/Fighter 4/Occult Slayer 1 Rogue 3/Swashbuckler 1/Wizard 1/Unseen Seer 1 Wizard 5 Cleric 5
Alpha_Nerd 03-06-07, 04:25 PM	Well, subtracting 1 from the APL is essentially rounding down, so I guess as long as it was an option there seems to be no problems. As far as the whole "created for 4 PCs in mind" mindset, the D&D rules were also created for 3-4 APL+0 encounters if I remember correctly, not an APL +2, APL +2, and APL +3 which is very normal in LG mods.
Lupo 03-06-07, 04:26 PM	JamesMaissen made this suggestion in a Thread on the main LG board and I thought it was a great, no, an AMAZING idea. If a table only includes 4 players, the APL of the table is adjusted -1. I can't think of any examples where this would hurt a table. Only having 4 characters greatly increases the chance of you not having one of the iconic roles, and if you get caught at a .5 forced up APL (example: 7, 7, 8, 8 forced to 8) most people I know would just chose to not play as it would almost be guaranteed suicide. What does everyone else think about this? If you have an arguement against it I honestly want to hear it as I can't think of any negatives. any players who form a 4 player table KNOW what they are doing :) - or they will learn the hard way the first TOUGH module :P any DM who sits such a table also should know what he is doing :) and as someone has mentioned the -1 would sometimes kick the APL down so far that a formerly legal table apl-2, apl-2, apl-2, apl +2 is forced to play down one tier and kicking out the highest character. ok, when running such a table, one should carefully consider whether the characters are really fitting for a given module, and the level +4 character shouldn't be a total nerd :P ciao martin m.
Gallaway 03-06-07, 05:58 PM	any players who form a 4 player table KNOW what they are doing :) - or they will learn the hard way the first TOUGH module :P any DM who sits such a table also should know what he is doing :) and as someone has mentioned the -1 would sometimes kick the APL down so far that a formerly legal table apl-2, apl-2, apl-2, apl +2 is forced to play down one tier and kicking out the highest character. ok, when running such a table, one should carefully consider whether the characters are really fitting for a given module, and the level +4 character shouldn't be a total nerd :P ciao martin m. I think the problem here is the granularity of the APL system. Taking APL6 as a random example. Its simply impossible to get a Mod that both challenges a balanced party containing 3 level 6 PC's and 3 level 8 PC's and is OK to play with 4 x level 4 PC's. Now in an ideal world the DM could vary tactics a bit to take into account the low party for the APL but that introduces a whole can of worms with more competitive players claiming "softballing" and "cheating". Now its all fine at a home game where you can ring around your friends and stack your parties or a large con where there is a wider choice, just make a rule "do not play up". But for those of us that rely on random games at games day it can often be the case that all thats available is a spot as player number 4 on a table thats barely meets the minimum APL the mod can be played at. People are not always palying up becasue they are XP or gold *****s they often have no choice. One game day i attend can barely muster a level 10 table with the regular attendees and there are a LOT of games starting at 10 in the year 6 cores. At some point that will be all thats left to play. Now the sensible thing to do in such a situation is to pack your dice and go home. However if you only get to play once a month and you drove an hour to get there you are probably going to bite the bullet and take the risk. My opinion ? The -1 adjustment removes player choice and so its a bad thing. However the problem is still there ... a game that challenges an optimal party playing down can easilyTPK a minimal party playing up.
Timlagor 03-06-07, 08:41 PM	The "correct" thing to do would be to have a +0.5 on the 5 player tables. (personally I add 6 levels for 6 players and would add 3 levels for 5 players before dividing but the result's the same)
JamesMaissen 03-06-07, 10:52 PM	Well in a perfect world I would suggest that the table of players decide what APL that they *WISH* to play at regardless of what the numbers work out to be. Then for rewards they would get the lesser of the APL played and their level (or one higher than their level). This would remove the need for the 1/2xp/gold rule (which face it, hits the WRONG people) and let stronger parties 'play up' while weaker parties could play it safer. -James
Madfox11 03-07-07, 03:37 AM	The problem with giving the players a choice is three-fold: - Arguments slowing down the start of a game (the easiest to overcome). - Players choosing to play up and being soft-balled by the DM. - Players blaming the DM if they do play up and it proofs to be a difficult adventure. Perhaps I am being too careful here, and likely most players are grown up enough not to have these issues. I have come across all three issues with the even APL choice rule. The fact is that simple rules are easier to implement and leads to less arguments. I just don't think such a change would be worth the trouble it generate. As for the 4 PC rule suggestion, I am neutral about it. Personally I avoid the problem by switching players around on game days that I oversee as a senior DM so that the experienced players with solidly build characters are on the 4-player tables. I admit that that is the benefit of a relatively small region where you know most of your players, but on bigger cons those 4-player tables should be much less of an occurance anyway... Or are the players in my region just more willing to accomodate the senior DM to make the game fun for everybody involved than in most other regions?
JamesMaissen 03-07-07, 11:29 AM	Let me first, in debate fashion attack each of the points presented. Or atleast attack the conclusions, as I think each are factors at times but that they would be less concern under my suggested system than they currently are. The problem with giving the players a choice is three-fold: - Arguments slowing down the start of a game (the easiest to overcome). This is a greater possibility when playing up or down will give some PCs xp/gold penalties. The issue on going up or down for danger is also a factor. The two of these can war against one another. It can lead to choosing the APL that is not at the right challenge level for the party so that no player will take 1/2 xp/gold. My suggestion would remove atleast the first part of the problem and reduce it down to the second, which arguably would be a factor regardless. Only in this case there won't be a conflicting pressure to contend with.. that should make the call easier. - Players choosing to play up and being soft-balled by the DM. Well first we have to admit that soft balling can occur regardless then it just boils down to a question of does this contribute to it or not? If we limit rewards by level as well as APL played I don't see how it would *add* to anyone's predisposition to softball a module. In fact giving the players greater choice would remove the 'pity' factor that might contribute to some judges' call to do so. After all they weren't 'forced' into playing at a given APL... - Players blaming the DM if they do play up and it proofs to be a difficult adventure. People can complain and will complain regardless. We're gamers, in this aspect we excell. That has to be understood. In the end it will be the group's call and the call won't be unduely influenced by someone taking 1/2xp/gold as it is now. In my experience this isn't that much of a factor. Authors get blamed for how tough the encounter is, or inappropriate something is for a certain APL. Judges get blamed for many other things, but players deciding something on their own just isn't one that recieves much support. Perhaps I am being too careful here, and likely most players are grown up enough not to have these issues. I have come across all three issues with the even APL choice rule. The fact is that simple rules are easier to implement and leads to less arguments. I just don't think such a change would be worth the trouble it generate. As you even say, these concerns are things that happen as things are now. If anything this suggestion would lessen each of them, and in my view make things better. Heck, you wouldn't even NEED to calculate 'APL' at all. How's that for simpler? You just take in who's at the table and make a call how tough you think that you are. I think you will have more problems with a group that should play one APL due to their relative power but elects to play a different APL so that one or more PCs don't get xp/gold penalties. Either playing up or down in this situation generally leads to disappointment. And it's something that if asked each player would admit to knowing that going into the mod. I think removing this tug of war will lessen resentments and bad feelings rather than engender them in new ways. It's not even that new of a concept as interactives employ part of that as it is. It seems to have the following factors for it: 1. Doesn't railroad players into playing at an APL that doesn't fit their group. 2. Solves the playing up problem smoothly (the current method doesn't even solve it) 3. Makes level/wealth ratios even more controled. 4. Lessens pressures on judges to softball parties currently 'forced' to play up. 5. Avoids all the problems with calculating APL both in actual calculations and how poor a job it does numerically (i.e. adjustments for animals and the like, wierd situations where *adding* a player *lowers* the APL, etc) So what does the current method have over this one? It's the devil you know is all I can see, James