Post/Author/DateTime	Post
trollbill 05-08-07, 01:26 PM	Greetings, I will be discussing this with the our Triad and getting their input on the issue, but I wanted to get some other points of view, as well. First of all, I have participated in only 4 BIs (one of the reasons I am looking for other PoVs); three regional and one metaregional. Of those 4, my experiences are split evening between two types: 1) Too hard. The BI was absolutely deadly for one APL or a small range of APLs (usually 4-8) to the point that if you did survive the BI, it was only because you either ran away or managed to use every trick in your arsenal to stay alive long enough for a higher level table to send help. 2) Too sporadic. The BI was fun while you were playing it, but you only played half the BI slot(s) because the judges spent the rest of the time in a huddle discussing either a rules issue created by one of the tables or what was supposed to happen next in the BI. I don't mind waiting a little bit for things like this, but the periods of time they usually took were way too long, usually at least half of the time dedicated to the BI in total. Both of these sound problematic, and not just from my viewpoint. Several people I have spoken with will no longer participate in BIs in the area because of this and other problems. Without pointing fingers I am looking for solutions. So to that end, I wish to get a clearer understand of BI theory and practice. From what I understand, the following rules and their justifications apply to BIs: Rule: They can only be run at Cons. Justification: This encourages people to attend Cons and the large number of participants usually makes Cons the only practical place to do these. Rule: You only get rewards based on the APL of your character, not the APL you play at. If you have an odd level, you get the rewards for 1 level higher. Justification: Since BIs frequently allow you to switch tables and call in aid when necessary, the APL you originally start the BI at can quickly change up or down without anyway of accurately measuring difficulty for treasure rewards. Rule: You only get half gold and half xp for a BI. Justification: Because you can call for help from other tables, BIs are not as hard. Rule: Only a limited number of BIs each year give out item access. Justification: Unknown Now given all of the above, I have also noticed some standard practices. A) Because players can call on help from other tables, designers feel its okay to make the encounters tougher than they really should be. B) Because coordinating multiple table interaction can be very difficult, some designers put limits on this in BIs. C) Because BIs tend to be a series of tough battles, one after the other, all in the same day (which exceeds the stand 3-4 encounters per adventure of a standard LG mod), players tend to use up far more consumables than usual. Now when you combine some of the theory, rules and practices, some problems start to come to light. a) If the designers follow both A & B the BI becomes doubly hard because they increase the hardness due to #A and then negate the benefit of #A by applying #B. b) By doubling the difficulty, you increase the consumption of expendables (including money to raise dead). c) When you combine half rewards, no item access, and an increase in consumables, some players may walk away from a BI with less than they started with, leaving them feeling like they were punished for playing the BI rather than rewarded. d) Everyone likes a challenging module, but when they become too challenging, the level of stress they create exceeds the enjoyment gained from the challenge. e) If you combine c & d then playing BIs can be a very frustrating experience. Even for those who believe the monetary rewards of playing a BI should not be a primary motivating factor, the loss of these things when combined with other elements defeat a purpose that even the die hard players may have a hard time arguing with, i.e. BIs not being fun. So I am looking for insights, suggestions and other things I can discuss with my local Triad in order to make BIs the Con draws they are actually supposed to be rather than deterants. Note: I realize many people in my regions still like the BIs, but an increasing number seems disattisfied with them.
bitznarf 05-08-07, 01:51 PM	I've only been involved in one BI to date. I had the opportunity to play in another at a con in Vegas, but ducked out of that one at the advice of a more experienced LG player. I've been told that my region has put a lot of effort into making battle interactives an enjoyable gaming experience and that the one in Vegas just wouldn't measure up. From the comments from people who did play in that one, I think he was right. As for how the con organizers dealt with it at the one I have played: Before the main 'battle' there was a series of mini missions, ones that lead up to the big fight at the end. This got around issue C. The big fight itself was actually literally one big fight. All the tables were lined up end to end, basically putting everybody on the same battle mat. Rounds were controlled by one person (the con organizer), with every table going on to the next round at the same time. The actual initiative order between tables was not worried about much, if you wanted to affect something on another table, you told the GM running it what you were doing to his table, and he dealt with it from there. If you actually switched tables (moved across the battlefield if you will) you got inserted in that tables initiative order at whatever your initiative was. If something happened that affected everyone, the con organizer made an announcement about it, say a +2/+2 bard song cames into effect at initiative 13. As for the EL issues facing each party, my table was APL4, and we were facing off against an EL8. To be more accurate, at our end of the battle it was more like 2 APL4 parties facing off against 2 EL8 encounters, they sort of merged. We survived by being selective about how we engaged. Well, that and because the Fig4/Pal4 on the other table charged in, drawing alot of fire, dropping a mob or 2 every round between him and his horse. Overall, issue C was not a problem at all, if you wanted to move tables, you could, and it worked fairly well. Issue A.. well comming in to the interactive the players were well aware that this would be tougher than your average encounter, and had the choice not to play if they so chose. Overall across 6 tables there was only 1 or 2 deaths if I recall correctly. There were a few other tables that were more isolated from the main fight, however by the time they dealt with their encounters the main battle was well finished. Well, it had finished about 40 rounds previous.
Reylance 05-08-07, 02:39 PM	Rule: They can only be run at Cons. Justification: This encourages people to attend Cons and the large number of participants usually makes Cons the only practical place to do these. Rule: You only get rewards based on the APL of your character, not the APL you play at. If you have an odd level, you get the rewards for 1 level higher. Justification: Since BIs frequently allow you to switch tables and call in aid when necessary, the APL you originally start the BI at can quickly change up or down without anyway of accurately measuring difficulty for treasure rewards. Rule: You only get half gold and half xp for a BI. Justification: Because you can call for help from other tables, BIs are not as hard. Rule: Only a limited number of BIs each year give out item access. Justification: Unknown I think the second and third rules you mentioned don't have those justifications. Rather, they are set to standardize things and to make modules the primary play focus. The restriction on number of access interactives (battle or no) helps keep things equitable between regions. In particular, remember that LG XP has little to do with DMG formula XP. Remember that interactives can take many forms, and can have more LARPing or a variety of special missions. They don't have to be purely battle, and if battle, they don't have to be more than three combat encounters in a short time period, and they don't have to be overpowered. My favorite type of battle interactive has a particular large location (defending the walls, clearing a monster-infested area), mustered APL-appropriate tables (each reflecting a part of the battlefield), and simple MM monsters (to speed the overall play). Switching tables can be allowed, but shouldn't be expected. Mini-mission interactives tend to suffer with a lot of milling around waiting for a mini-mission table to open. I would mitigate it by giving each table a card, and using that card to "get in line" for particular interactives. Let the players do the LARP portions, and call them over when the judge is ready to run the mini-mission.
trollbill 05-08-07, 03:12 PM	I think the second and third rules you mentioned don't have those justifications. Rather, they are set to standardize things and to make modules the primary play focus. The restriction on number of access interactives (battle or no) helps keep things equitable between regions. In particular, remember that LG XP has little to do with DMG formula XP. Well, my justifications were really best guesses. So you are saying that the reason the rewards are so limited is so that players in a region that runs a lot of BIs don't gain a huge advantage over players in a region that don't do a lot of BIs? Remember that interactives can take many forms, and can have more LARPing or a variety of special missions. They don't have to be purely battle, and if battle, they don't have to be more than three combat encounters in a short time period, and they don't have to be overpowered. The specific issue seems to be strickly with BIs. Non-battle interactives seem fine in the region, but are greatly outnumbered by the BIs. My favorite type of battle interactive has a particular large location (defending the walls, clearing a monster-infested area), mustered APL-appropriate tables (each reflecting a part of the battlefield), and simple MM monsters (to speed the overall play). Switching tables can be allowed, but shouldn't be expected. Mini-mission interactives tend to suffer with a lot of milling around waiting for a mini-mission table to open. I would mitigate it by giving each table a card, and using that card to "get in line" for particular interactives. Let the players do the LARP portions, and call them over when the judge is ready to run the mini-mission. Useful. :thumbsup:
Lupo 05-08-07, 04:06 PM	Greetings, I will be discussing this with the our Triad and getting their input on the issue, but I wanted to get some other points of view, as well. First of all, I have participated in only 4 BIs (one of the reasons I am looking for other PoVs); three regional and one metaregional. Of those 4, my experiences are split evening between two types: 1) Too hard. The BI was absolutely deadly for one APL or a small range of APLs (usually 4-8) to the point that if you did survive the BI, it was only because you either ran away or managed to use every trick in your arsenal to stay alive long enough for a higher level table to send help. 2) Too sporadic. The BI was fun while you were playing it, but you only played half the BI slot(s) because the judges spent the rest of the time in a huddle discussing either a rules issue created by one of the tables or what was supposed to happen next in the BI. I don't mind waiting a little bit for things like this, but the periods of time they usually took were way too long, usually at least half of the time dedicated to the BI in total. Both of these sound problematic, and not just from my viewpoint. Several people I have spoken with will no longer participate in BIs in the area because of this and other problems. Without pointing fingers I am looking for solutions. So to that end, I wish to get a clearer understand of BI theory and practice. From what I understand, the following rules and their justifications apply to BIs: Rule: They can only be run at Cons. Justification: This encourages people to attend Cons and the large number of participants usually makes Cons the only practical place to do these. Rule: You only get rewards based on the APL of your character, not the APL you play at. If you have an odd level, you get the rewards for 1 level higher. Justification: Since BIs frequently allow you to switch tables and call in aid when necessary, the APL you originally start the BI at can quickly change up or down without anyway of accurately measuring difficulty for treasure rewards. Rule: You only get half gold and half xp for a BI. Justification: Because you can call for help from other tables, BIs are not as hard. Rule: Only a limited number of BIs each year give out item access. Justification: Unknown Now given all of the above, I have also noticed some standard practices. A) Because players can call on help from other tables, designers feel its okay to make the encounters tougher than they really should be. B) Because coordinating multiple table interaction can be very difficult, some designers put limits on this in BIs. C) Because BIs tend to be a series of tough battles, one after the other, all in the same day (which exceeds the stand 3-4 encounters per adventure of a standard LG mod), players tend to use up far more consumables than usual. Now when you combine some of the theory, rules and practices, some problems start to come to light. a) If the designers follow both A & B the BI becomes doubly hard because they increase the hardness due to #A and then negate the benefit of #A by applying #B. b) By doubling the difficulty, you increase the consumption of expendables (including money to raise dead). c) When you combine half rewards, no item access, and an increase in consumables, some players may walk away from a BI with less than they started with, leaving them feeling like they were punished for playing the BI rather than rewarded. d) Everyone likes a challenging module, but when they become too challenging, the level of stress they create exceeds the enjoyment gained from the challenge. e) If you combine c & d then playing BIs can be a very frustrating experience. Even for those who believe the monetary rewards of playing a BI should not be a primary motivating factor, the loss of these things when combined with other elements defeat a purpose that even the die hard players may have a hard time arguing with, i.e. BIs not being fun. So I am looking for insights, suggestions and other things I can discuss with my local Triad in order to make BIs the Con draws they are actually supposed to be rather than deterants. Note: I realize many people in my regions still like the BIs, but an increasing number seems disattisfied with them. so far - after a quick glance through my ARs - i have played in approximately half a dozen Battle-Interactives. in general, all of these were great fun - due to good writing and even more good con organization - some special cookies to the sunndi, ekbir and innspa/ahlissa triads and writing/dm teams. some where dangerous till the edge of looking overpowering but some luck and some results from other tables have let all my characters survive them so far. so far i wasn't involved into writing/organizing/coordinating/running any interactives so my observation is strictly from the player's point of view. from this the key points seem to be: TIMING: nothing is more important than keep all the tables in roughly the same "time slot" and keep DMs discussion time as well. the players tended to get "restless" when off-times get longer than 30 minutes. DM preparation: good DMs and DM preparation is another important part. table composition: as BIs tend to be combat heavy and tough those tables with a good assortment of characters and levels and even more good character and player cooperation had less hard times than those that had a blind spot in any of these fields. NB: that has nothing to do whether the characters or players were power builds and power gamers or not. for the result and outcome part of BIs: for most BIs my characters got special rewards, some big favors or something like this. while it is right that the TU vs. xp/gp is lower than for normal adventures (especcially hefty when playing BIs outside ones own region) the option to have direct influx on the regional storyline makes up for this. ciao martin m.
copper_wyrmling 05-08-07, 04:12 PM	Rule: You only get rewards based on the APL of your character, not the APL you play at. If you have an odd level, you get the rewards for 1 level higher. Just a note: at every interactive I've played (battle interactive or otherwise), if you're at an odd level then you get the rewards for one level lower.
Eric Anondson 05-08-07, 04:23 PM	Just a note: at every interactive I've played (battle interactive or otherwise), if you're at an odd level then you get the rewards for one level lower.That has been the rule for years now at every interactive of all sorts I have ever played since... year 2 or so.
solbergb 05-08-07, 04:28 PM	That isn't strictly the rule. Many interactives play more like a module, with tables mustered normally by APL and interaction between tables either impossible or rare. At such BI's, you use normal APL rules for rewards. A level 4 guy at an APL6 table gets the APL6 box circled. Examples of these that I've played at include: a multipart rescue mission for a significant Pale NPC a "kill goblins" interactive at a tusmit/ket bordercon a "do stuff in bramblewoods for a faction" in a tusmit/ket bordercon a Pale battle interactive featuring an invasion of ogberg from Acheron a two-round puzzle-mod disguised as an interactive a Pale battle interactive for bringing down the troll king, with cross-table cooperation only at the highest APL's, but difficulty of subsequent encounters based on success rate across all tables. A Pale battle interactive for bringing down Winterwind, with some limited cross-table mobility, mostly used for the climactic battle between the Theocrat and Winterwind, with assistance from any PC who could get to the location. an intro mod with about 3 intro mods of fun disguised as an APL2 interactive ======================================== ============ Other interactives aren't structured like a module. In these, you get your level in rewards, or the lower level if it is odd. Examples include a mix of mini-missions and a big combined battle - we chose just minimissions that time, but the big table had level 2s and level 12's next to each other in places. a mix of UNTIERED minimissions - join whatever you want, and suffer the consequences :) Some were roleplay heavy---some not. My level 4 monk didn't do a whole lot in the fiendish beholder on elemental plane of fire encounter, but he had a smokestick ready in case any eye-rays went in his direction, he was covering the approach of a ranged attacker. a troll hunt where there was a lot of inter-table mobility and whistles issued so you could holler for help and get it from any table that finished its own stuff a BI that started with minimissions but ended in a seige of a castle combined, then broke up into more minimissions representing various objectives of the castle once the walls were breached. Very limited cross-table assistance was allowed in the final stages of the assault, but the middle section we were all mashed together (and a druid broke the encounter with control winds, so yeah, most of us didn't do much in that part) A BI that was 70% a carneval with LARP roleplay and 30% a sewer crawl once clues had been figured out. a BI that had token "mop up the fleeing orcs" missions for the combat oriented but was mostly a series of tournament games for the victorious side (the expected battle fizzled before play started) A BI that was a large scale miniatures battle with PC's leading troops appropriate to their level, class and religion tiered only roughly by mission (high levels assaulted Calbut, mid-levels did open-field-battles with iuzians, low levels guarded the supply chain from traitors, stoneholder irregulars and redspan flan). You could also join the opposite side and fight against the region's army. That choice of action was the most dangerous. Two "ante up" tournaments
solbergb 05-08-07, 04:32 PM	On topic for this thread, the most successful battle interactives I've seen that *felt* like a battle divided the action up among the PC tables, but allowed some limited cross-table play and a BRIEF climactic encounter with named bad guys where you get a shot at them but where participation is somehow limited to a manageable number of PC's. The least successful interactives I've seen had massive battles with zillions of PC's involved that progressed at glacial pace and/or ability to continue for everyone hinged on the actions of some table that played at half speed compared to everyone else. I'm not a big fan of the larp-heavy interactives but I know that others enjoy them. Probably I'm a touch soured on them because I tend to hit those when I travel, and as a visitor to the region, my PC doesn't know what's going on or who these people are that I'm interacting with. A nice "demons are invading" or "we're battling an army hoping to enslave us" thing is easier for a visitor to get behind and understand. As for favors/access - each region gets a limited number of "access interactives" each year. Those interactives tend to have interesting stuff on the AR. All the other interactives just have half the rewards. The fun is in the opportunity to have impact on the region, or do something different than a typical module. Most interactives accomplish that much, and so I tend to seek them out even though rewards are lower.
trollbill 05-08-07, 04:58 PM	for most BIs my characters got special rewards, some big favors or something like this. while it is right that the TU vs. xp/gp is lower than for normal adventures (especcially hefty when playing BIs outside ones own region) the option to have direct influx on the regional storyline makes up for this. I agree and no one seems to have a problem with the half stuff when the BI actually works right and everyone has fun. Unfortunately, when things go wrong, downsides get magnified. So getting half just makes the matter worse when the whole things wasn't fun. I've noticed the Half XP/Gold complaint only surfaces when people didn't enjoy the BI to begin with. In those situations, advancing the storyline doesn't balance it out. Just a note: at every interactive I've played (battle interactive or otherwise), if you're at an odd level then you get the rewards for one level lower. So if you played a BI at 1st level you got 0xp/0gp? The whole round down thing just seems to be adding insult to injury, "We are only going to give you half your average APL, and oh, BTW, if you have an odd level, you are going to get even less than that, but it still costs you full in TUs and upkeep."
copper_wyrmling 05-08-07, 05:18 PM	So if you played a BI at 1st level you got 0xp/0gp? The whole round down thing just seems to be adding insult to injury, "We are only going to give you half your average APL, and oh, BTW, if you have an odd level, you are going to get even less than that, but it still costs you full in TUs and upkeep." People below the minimum APL for the interactive take the xp/gp for the minimum APL. People above the max APL take the xp/gp for the max APL (for example, when my L14 cleric turned up to play a BI that had been advertised as going to APL 14, but in fact only went to APL 12, she got the APL 12 rewards - if she'd been L15 she would've gotten only half of that due to being out of APL).
Southernskies 05-08-07, 09:07 PM	Having played some overseas interactives and written a *lot* locally there are a few things. 1. The *official* rule for xp/gp is that you always get the reward based on your character level (round down) regardless of the APL you play. (This covers wierd things like L2 and L12 PCs at the same table during some points of an adventure). 2. The unofficial method of using the half xp/gp rewards of an interactive is to halve the writers guidelines for ELs etc. Thus a 1TU interactive at APL2 only has 6 ELs worth of combat in it. Helps to keep the combats relatively balanced and leaves plenty of flexibility for roleplay encounters. Writers are allowed to do what they like, but the triads review it first. 3. Playing time determines what you write to. The way I write interactives, its approximately 1 TU per 2 hours. Our last interactive was 4TU (effectively a 2 round core for ELs and reward) played over 8.5 hours. It ran a little long early in the day, but finished on time as written across and APL2-8 range. One of the interactives I played in the US, I was a L2 character, playing at an APL2 table and I calculated we fought 5 x EL5 encounters *without rolling new initiative or a rest* and I got 225xp and 225gp for it. What sadistic writer throw a troll at APL2!?!?! It was a really enjoyable group to play with, and we prevailed; but only because the GM allowed us to build fixed defences (10' ditches and ramparts) and my strategies (abandoning the outlying village & all using longspears) gave us a small advantage that stopped us being slaughtered wholesale. If we had tried to play the encounters as written, it would have been a TPK in the second encounter.
Britt 05-08-07, 09:49 PM	That isn't strictly the rule. Many interactives play more like a module, with tables mustered normally by APL and interaction between tables either impossible or rare. At such BI's, you use normal APL rules for rewards. No, you always get xp/gp based on your character level for interactives, no matter how they are setup. There was some confusion about this between regions and metaregions a while back, but since year five, at the least, this has been a hard rule for all regions, clearly spelled out for the Triads.
trollbill 05-08-07, 10:27 PM	No, you always get xp/gp based on your character level for interactives, no matter how they are setup. There was some confusion about this between regions and metaregions a while back, but since year five, at the least, this has been a hard rule for all regions, clearly spelled out for the Triads. Well, now that we have confirmation on the rules, can we get some confirmation on the justifications for them? I am not trying to start an argument, but rather seek understanding of the big picture to better improve our local situation, i.e. why don't the rules seem to be working well for us if they have been working fine for everyone for the last five years?
Britt 05-08-07, 10:32 PM	Too many regions were doing it differently, causing confusion mainly when people traveled. Basically, we needed a rule, and that's the one that was created. I don't know why that rule was picked over other possibilities, but that's what we have.
Drezden 05-09-07, 12:39 AM	What is the rule with item access? In an interactive that is self-contained, i.e. the entire play takes place at 1 table, and my 10th level character plays it at APL12, what access do I get? I know that XP/GP is 10th level, but do I get access to purchase items at APL12 (i.e. ones I encountered during the interactive)? I have seen this ruled inconsisently between regions. Daren Too many regions were doing it differently, causing confusion mainly when people traveled. Basically, we needed a rule, and that's the one that was created. I don't know why that rule was picked over other possibilities, but that's what we have.
Maesto 05-09-07, 03:02 AM	All of the interactives I've ever played in have had the same item access no matter what level you are. The fact that you play on an APL x table for the first minimission part, and on an APL y table for the second minimission part has had absolutely no bearing upon anything, and you round down to the nearest APL to calculate gold/xp. Jolyon
pedr 05-09-07, 03:43 AM	So are interactives different from mini-missions? Various regions I know have (actually 'have had') double TU cost companion missions to regional modules which I thought were functionally similar to some interactives, though without the moving between tables/live action aspects. I'm wondering if that will continue.
solbergb 05-09-07, 12:20 PM	Too many regions were doing it differently, causing confusion mainly when people traveled. Basically, we needed a rule, and that's the one that was created. I don't know why that rule was picked over other possibilities, but that's what we have. Hm. Perhaps the more recent ones were structured as minimissions then, which do APL's identically to a normal module. I remember a conversation that there was two ways to do it in 596, but maybe I misunderstood and they were talking about interactive vs minis. I've never authored an interactive, only minimissions and special missions.
Britt 05-09-07, 12:28 PM	Minimissions are just another form of interactive. There is no official category of adventures called minimissions. As such, they follow the interactive rules.
trollbill 05-09-07, 02:00 PM	Minimissions are just another form of interactive. There is no official category of adventures called minimissions. As such, they follow the interactive rules. What are the rules on interactives at holding them at more than one event. I have only seen this with Metaregional interactives, but is it possible to have, say, the same interactive or mini-mission at 2 different cons?
Howie23 05-09-07, 02:06 PM	What are the rules on interactives at holding them at more than one event. I have only seen this with Metaregional interactives, but is it possible to have, say, the same interactive or mini-mission at 2 different cons? There isn't a restriction on limiting an interactive to a single venue or date. I don't know if they still do, but Duchy used to have one interactive per quarter, and it played as often as there were cons. There is a limit of four access-granting interactives per year, but the total number or how they are doled out is up to the Triad. In Nyrond, we have gone to giving access on our mini-missions rather than on the interactives, which has the effect of giving more players the opportunity to play the access-granting mods. David
solbergb 05-09-07, 02:38 PM	Minimissions are just another form of interactive. There is no official category of adventures called minimissions. As such, they follow the interactive rules. Huh...really? The boilerplate for calculating APL and rewards was identical to a real mod on the template I used when I authored one. Both Nyrond and Pale have minimissions that are identical to modules in terms of everything except rewards (same EL's, same module structure, the works - just half the benefit and not item access). The only real difference is they can only be played at conventions, but they have a year-long "shelf life", they can play at multiple conventions and they are "stand-alone" - no table influences any other table. I've never seen anything but average party level rewards given out, in the last two years of playing those modules and in running those modules. This is the first I've heard of this rule that enforces individual character level rewards on a normally mustered and played table module. Perhaps it should be in the next LGCS explicitly, because it is widely not being followed. I've literally seen scores of tables of these modules go off with reward structure in violation of what you describe.
Drezden 05-09-07, 03:10 PM	I agree that there should be LGCS language - or maybe a Dispel Confusion entry - regarding this - I have seen way too much variation. Also, Britt, could you please answer by item access question, i.e. is item access dependent on the APL you played at or does it follow the GP/XP formula of your level rounded down? Thanks, Daren Huh...really? The boilerplate for calculating APL and rewards was identical to a real mod on the template I used when I authored one. Both Nyrond and Pale have minimissions that are identical to modules in terms of everything except rewards (same EL's, same module structure, the works - just half the benefit and not item access). The only real difference is they can only be played at conventions, but they have a year-long "shelf life", they can play at multiple conventions and they are "stand-alone" - no table influences any other table. I've never seen anything but average party level rewards given out, in the last two years of playing those modules and in running those modules. This is the first I've heard of this rule that enforces individual character level rewards on a normally mustered and played table module. Perhaps it should be in the next LGCS explicitly, because it is widely not being followed. I've literally seen scores of tables of these modules go off with reward structure in violation of what you describe.
Ancillary 05-09-07, 07:42 PM	I enjoy battle interactives quite a bit. That being said, I played one interactive where it was literally impossible for my party to get greater than 1/6 gold or xp (or one third of half) no matter how well we played (although there was no chance of death), and another in which my gnome with a -8 jump check needed to make an indeterminate amount (it turned out to be 20ish I believe) of DC 10 jump checks or perish unrecoverably. Ropes did not work, a normal riding dog would not participate, and a Planer lock prevented summoning. Characters could not stay still long enough to help each other and simply carrying was also prohibited. It was very frustrating but faced with this our table had to walk. There were also some balance checks thrown in, and a dispelling screen as well. Apl 6. Anyway, I will still play BIs but am very cautious when doing so. I believe that the problem is from the lack of accountability that comes with something only running once.
trollbill 05-09-07, 08:43 PM	I enjoy battle interactives quite a bit. That being said, I played one interactive where it was literally impossible for my party to get greater than 1/6 gold or xp (or one third of half) no matter how well we played (although there was no chance of death), and another in which my gnome with a -8 jump check needed to make an indeterminate amount (it turned out to be 20ish I believe) of DC 10 jump checks or perish unrecoverably. Ropes did not work, a normal riding dog would not participate, and a Planer lock prevented summoning. Characters could not stay still long enough to help each other and simply carrying was also prohibited. It was very frustrating but faced with this our table had to walk. There were also some balance checks thrown in, and a dispelling screen as well. Apl 6. Anyway, I will still play BIs but am very cautious when doing so. I believe that the problem is from the lack of accountability that comes with something only running once. *chuckle* I know which mod YOUR talking about. This was one of those I listed as 'Too Hard."
CdrcJsn 05-10-07, 03:07 PM	Minimissions are just another form of interactive. There is no official category of adventures called minimissions. As such, they follow the interactive rules. Hate to disagree with you here Britt, but the latest LGAH says otherwise (specific info snipped) If this is going to be changed, please update the LGAH. We've been basing our interactives based on this rule currently. We have a convention coming up in a few weeks and this might impact that so an update would be appreciated. Thanks. Cedric Atizado Pale Triad
Britt 05-10-07, 03:24 PM	The LGAH is not for public discussion. Many things can be done with Circle approval.
Madfox11 05-11-07, 03:38 AM	In short: battle interactives can grant xp/gp as per the APL played instead of the level of the PC. Doing so requires specific permission from the Circle member and the organizer of the event should inform the DMs what method is used. For people interested in why we only allow 4 special ARs per year per region, that is very simple. Interactives should NOT replace regular adventures. Besides, each AR with special rewards require special attention by the Circle, and means additional work for us. It might not seem as much, but it will add up... Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle The Splintered Suns
solbergb 05-11-07, 09:34 AM	Thanks Pieter. That means I wasn't remembering wrong when con organizers told me to give rewards based on APL, not character level, and means I have not been violating the rules for the last 3 years unknowing. That's something of a relief. I guess in Nyrond and Pale, they got permission a lot. Although if I was a reviewer, I'd give permission for anything structured like a normal module. The "by character" rule makes a lot of sense when there is LARP, or mixing of APL's across tables or other odd structures. It does'nt really make sense when the only thing that distinguishes it from a normal mod are half rewards, no access and a "M" or "S" in the title.