Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SamuelLBronkowitz 03-27-07, 01:19 PM	I need to ask a question regarding something from a recent convention. I "overheard" a conversation from a couple tables away. I put "overheard" in quotations because from a couple table lengths away, the one party, who I later found out was the module author and also local triad, was telling the other party that he had a "sense of entitlement" to full gold and XP and being very rude in doing so, not to mention loudly enough that I could hear it a good distance away. Apparently this is in relation to the module in which, at least at APL's 10 and 12, 1/3 to 1/2 of the possible gold for the module is held by a non-hostile NPC, and the only way for the characters to get this is to kill the NPC. The party who were complaining apparently not only got a mere 1700 gold for "not committing an Evil Act" (their words) but also got a curse that they claimed was a result of the module being run by someone who hadn't properly read it. Is this how the modules are supposed to be written? I understand that not all adventures will end with full gold or experience, but it seems to me that setting up full gold or experience only at the expense of failing the mission or committing evil acts shouldn't be right for modules.
solbergb 03-27-07, 01:27 PM	I ran a mod where much of the cash was in the form of a weapon that belonged to an NPC who really hadn't done anything very bad aside from being drunk and angry that PC's had broken into his home to chase some toher badguys and who in some outcomes is actually befriended by the PC's. parties who didn't have chaotic rogue types were usually shafted in that mod. I gave the author feedback, and I haven't seen him repeat that mistake. His response was that he just put items in that made sense for the story and hadn't really thought through how it would play out if that guy turned out not to be treated by the PC's as someone worth "greyhawking".
vvincent 03-27-07, 02:21 PM	I have heard of this, and it seems to mostly be a regional thing. In Dyvers, where "everyone is a rogue", there are adventures where you can 'profit' from the misfortune of other NPCs. However, that's not a frequent occurrance, and my guess is that the author was experimenting with something. Sometimes, you can't find out whether an idea works until you see it implemented on a large-scale. I need to ask a question regarding something from a recent convention. I "overheard" a conversation from a couple tables away. I put "overheard" in quotations because from a couple table lengths away, the one party, who I later found out was the module author and also local triad, was telling the other party that he had a "sense of entitlement" to full gold and XP and being very rude in doing so, not to mention loudly enough that I could hear it a good distance away. Apparently this is in relation to the module in which, at least at APL's 10 and 12, 1/3 to 1/2 of the possible gold for the module is held by a non-hostile NPC, and the only way for the characters to get this is to kill the NPC. The party who were complaining apparently not only got a mere 1700 gold for "not committing an Evil Act" (their words) but also got a curse that they claimed was a result of the module being run by someone who hadn't properly read it. Is this how the modules are supposed to be written? I understand that not all adventures will end with full gold or experience, but it seems to me that setting up full gold or experience only at the expense of failing the mission or committing evil acts shouldn't be right for modules.
paigeoliver 03-27-07, 09:34 PM	Hee, hee. I have played at least one Dyvers module where most of the loot was only gettable if you looted some neutralish NPCs. It isn't like that is something that crops up all the time, it was more than balanced out by various item discounts going on in the same region at the same time.
lunarfish 03-28-07, 12:34 AM	Yes, I remember the Dyvers adventure. Luckily, I was playing a Paladin... stupid Lawful Good. BTW - several of them were actually good aligned.
_metz_ 03-28-07, 12:46 AM	Possible spoiler: I know of a mod which involves stripping a temple of a certain evil god from its riches, but people from one region refused to do it cos afformentioned god was part of their pantheon, and the metaregional mod writer hadn't taken this into account, that these players were used to attracting ire for such acts or even respected and had met representatives of that god... I really don't like modules where the godl is wrapped up in an NPC's item.
Madfox11 03-28-07, 06:59 AM	When I write or review an adventure I try to avoid such a situation. It is real easy though to overlook this due to the difficulties of treasure calculations or it is not always easy to predict PCs actions. So I always hope players inform me when such a situation arises so that I can avoid making it in the future. Even more difficult to avoid is access problems. As an author and triad you want to give access to all the items the PCs might find, wich is no real problem for most players, but it is really irritating to those players when they hear of tables that get it because the DMs do not bother properly filling in the ARs (the max xp, max gp and rush on to the next slot type of AR signing).
paigeoliver 03-28-07, 07:05 AM	I was playing it with a "Fake Paladin" myself (CG Marshall who sometimes claims to be a Paladin and has a backpack full of holy symbols), and Joe Selby was the gamemaster. With him running you can get zero gold and still have a great time. I think I got 30 gold on that one. Yes, I remember the Dyvers adventure. Luckily, I was playing a Paladin... stupid Lawful Good. BTW - several of them were actually good aligned.
Southernskies 03-28-07, 08:46 AM	The most common cause of this I have seen is lazy writing, or not thinking through plot implications. One regional had all of the adventure loot on one BBEG at the end; except the writer used a stock MM vampire monk as his bad guy and hadn't bothered to install the lair. At all APLs other than APL10, the BBEG was corporeal and didn't gaseous away. Triad soon had an errata out on that one.
amnuxoll 03-28-07, 09:11 AM	The most common cause of this I have seen is lazy writing, or not thinking through plot implications. This comment angers me because anyone who's actually written for LG knows it's clearly false. Brendan, if you are an "expert" on what makes a good mod, why haven't you written any? Your false expertise is self denigrating. :AMN:
MatteBlack 03-28-07, 09:17 AM	I recently ran in a mod where doing the right thing was basically going to cost you all treasure and likely a fair amount out of pocket (especially at lower levels due to an unscaled "fee"). Circumventing the need to pay this "fee" would have been prohibitively difficult for probably all APLs. I ended up with a title from the AR for it but there was no GP recompensation and I think doing so would have cheapened the gesture. Being a good guy requires sacrifice so I think this sort of thing is appropriate to cause characters to define who they are. It may cause some grumpy faces around the table but, it draws a line between the roll-players and the roleplayers.
Maesto 03-28-07, 10:00 AM	The core module Retribution had the problem of a non-evil NPC who the PCs met earlier (and had helped the PCs) facing off against the PCs at some point in time. He could be talked down via diplomacy, but this lost access and gold. Even just a "Thanks of X" would've been nice, but hey. I can live with that. There was a metaregional module which at APL 12 had the stock standard vampire monk out of the MM for one combat, and basically all of the loot was on this vampire. If you took the vampire to zero hp, he went gaseous and went to his "coffin", which was "beyond the scope of the module". The level 14 divine oracle diviner supposedly was unable to locate the coffin to vanquish the vampire once and for all. Unless you had a forcecage or a cleric with greater turning, you were unable to get the gold =( The author's comment? "Well, you should've had a radiant servant of pelor on your table, shouldn't you?"
The_Jester 03-28-07, 10:18 AM	One one hand I like the idea that doing the right thing, being the good guy, actually means having to give up some treasure. To actually make a sacrifice. This makes playing the hero meaningful. On the other hand, not beating up random non-evil and non-combative individuals is hardly making a noble choice worthy of praise. That's just setting out to take money away from the players.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 10:20 AM	The problem however, is that this sort of thing can mess with the wealth by level guidelines, quite badly if it happens a couple of times.
Reylance 03-28-07, 10:21 AM	One concern about modules that don't give out maximum gold, expect players to give away wealth or heavy bribes, or have negative AR consequences including paying gold, is that PCs could fall behind the appropriate wealth curve. PCs are expected to have a certain amount of wealth at each level, and that expectation of power is, theoretically, included in judging the CR of monsters and traps. If a PC is only at 50% wealth, he's just not going to be competitive.
Timlagor 03-28-07, 12:18 PM	This is a problem exacerbated by the assumption apparently built into the Gold Caps that PCs will get full gold most/all the time and not lose or spend it (except on permanent items).
Newpaintbrush 03-28-07, 12:56 PM	Yeah, I'm starting on writing some ideas for mods. The thing is, a lot of DMs and players have come to EXPECT that they can use over-the-cap gold to pay for stuff. So you have the attitude of "It doesn't matter if we give the lizardfolk 500 GP in bribes, because frankly, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference in the end, it's over the cap gold". Hopefully the local triads will encourage authors to cut back on over the cap gold, so players aren't so used to getting max XP and gold for an adventure. -- The thing is, though, since players are USED to getting that gold - and as has been brought up, a lot of mods are written with the assumption that characters will the "proper" amount of gold - I think that mods that DO run under-cap gold should either have access to items that are quite cost-efficient, and/or one-time use special abilities. That is, if I wrote a mod that involved an important ethical decision, players would either get max gold (if they did the BAD thing, and robbed the NPC), or a few hundred gold less but good access (like to "scroll of lesser vigor" or "potion of lesser vigor", both of which can cure about twice as much as a scroll/potion of cure light wounds (well, although the curing is far slower, it's still very nice to have), but cost the same. Or instead of that access, perhaps the PCs could donate the gold to a shrine, and get "Favored of Tymora", gaining a luck bonus to a roll once, or getting clerical spellcasting at a reduced price for a year, or something like that.
Ira_Dei 03-28-07, 12:58 PM	Come to Onnwal - I've played two regionals that didn't offer *any* way to get full gold, one of them no way to get max xp.
Newpaintbrush 03-28-07, 01:02 PM	Yeah, the funny thing is that the writers guidelines do mention that there may be situations in which you shouldn't give the players full XP and gold. But the authors don't want to do that. Because frankly, if you do NOT give full XP and/or gold in a mod, players are going to walk away from the table dissatisfied. And who wants that, really?
bitznarf 03-28-07, 01:02 PM	Come to Onnwal - I've played two regionals that didn't offer *any* way to get full gold, one of them no way to get max xp. There are a rash of intro's here in Zeif that are the same way.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 01:05 PM	Yeah, the funny thing is that the writers guidelines do mention that there may be situations in which you shouldn't give the players full XP and gold. But the authors don't want to do that. Because frankly, if you do NOT give full XP and/or gold in a mod, players are going to walk away from the table dissatisfied. And who wants that, really? In my opinion, its not a problem of not getting 'full gold and xp', its a problem of throwing off the wealth by level guidelines. If a mod gives full xp, but only 1/2 gold, in my opinion, there had better be a good reason for it. Edit: I don't care if I don't get full gold or xp because we (the players) screwed up. I do care if the mod requires something entirely wacky to get it.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 01:33 PM	Yeah, I'm starting on writing some ideas for mods. The thing is, a lot of DMs and players have come to EXPECT that they can use over-the-cap gold to pay for stuff. So you have the attitude of "It doesn't matter if we give the lizardfolk 500 GP in bribes, because frankly, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference in the end, it's over the cap gold". Hopefully the local triads will encourage authors to cut back on over the cap gold, so players aren't so used to getting max XP and gold for an adventure. Here's the thing. If overcap gold is cut back undercap gold will have to be shored up, if the wealth by level guidelines are to be followed. In an home game, the players wealth is essentially dictated by the DM, he can monitor it and change it as needed. In a living campaign some other method needs to be used. In LG, thats the gold/xp caps. In order for it to work, mods need to be consistent with their rewards, as there is no provision for 'catching up' if a mod gives way less gold then xp (in relative terms here). Instead of possibly catching up next adventure, overcap eats the extra gold.
Newpaintbrush 03-28-07, 02:31 PM	If gold-per-level amounts are supposed to be fairly fixed, then I would think it would be written into the LGCS. Just think about the character that's at 10th level. If he dies, he becomes . . . not just a 9th level character, but a RICH 9th level character. And when that 9th level character reaches 10th level again, and dies again, that character becomes a REALLY RICH 9th level character.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 03:09 PM	If gold-per-level amounts are supposed to be fairly fixed, then I would think it would be written into the LGCS. Just think about the character that's at 10th level. If he dies, he becomes . . . not just a 9th level character, but a RICH 9th level character. And when that 9th level character reaches 10th level again, and dies again, that character becomes a REALLY RICH 9th level character. And has been mentioned before in other threads, this is not something that is addressed in any manner with the current gold/xp cap systems. Nor should this be used as justification for modules giving out vastly under-cap gold. It is an issue in and of itself that currently doesn't really have a solution. Suggesting that possible deaths balance out cheap mods just seems... odd.
Lupo 03-28-07, 04:12 PM	This is a problem exacerbated by the assumption apparently built into the Gold Caps that PCs will get full gold most/all the time and not lose or spend it (except on permanent items). the problem is that it is easy for PCs to not get max gold for several reasons, including mods where full gold per APL is only reachable with doing very silly/evil/bad/unexpected/unhealthy things. with your logic there should be an equal number where PCs get out with more gold as there are where they are getting out with below gold according to APL cap. but there is no (or near to no) way to get out of a module with MORE than max gold per APL. therefore i will always complain about a module that arbitrarily cuts down the gold for being GOOD (as players of LG we are supposed to have non-evil characters, you remember???) without giving any compensation. like the long retired infamous metaregional "legacy of madness" to get more than half of the gold one has to slay every single guardsman of a castle (that is the silly part) AND rob a temple of hextor (that is the unhealthy part, as the cleric in there is somehow overpowered, something like an APL +3 or +4 encounter), AND instead of being allowed to execute the evil brat that suppresses the people of the village or at least hand him over to justice, you are supposed to restore him to his seat and title "he is not as evil as the evil brat you have just slain":confused:, i still hate that module :( ciao martin m. edit: i have seen around half a dozen modules where a player can get out with some more "effective" gold, one was a favor that allowed non-crafters to get a weapon enchantment for the prize a crafter would have to pay and around three or four offer a discount option for some buys (some of very limited use) and the infamous "amidst the mist and coldest frost" is still paying some gp for argentvorax furs for one of my characters. but all these doesn't make up for the number of modules where a character ended way under cap at the end.
MatteBlack 03-28-07, 05:52 PM	There definitely needs to be some sort of mechanism to get back on the GP curve. I think most the under-cap-GP mods are fine but, the point of the gold system is to keep characters close to equal. The only problem is that players could abuse the mechanism by buying and using consummable and getting dragged back up to average. I think an answer could be to raise character worths up to an 80% point or so at the end of each year. Once you run out of TUs or the New Year comes around, check your level and up your gear and accounts. If you are below 80% of what the max gold guy has you add the necessary GP to come up to that point. There is still room for abuse but, most the guys who would want to, would abhor playing even 20% behind on gear. The other option would be to have a mod where a rich NPC takes pity on impoverished adventurers and raises up their net worth somehow. You could even have it come at the expense of the mod's XP and/or have a substantial TU cost. Straight out trading TUs for coin below the poverty line would be another option.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 05:54 PM	At the moment the only option is the Charity of Freinds clause.
jstorrie 03-28-07, 06:53 PM	There are a rash of intro's here in Zeif that are the same way. I don't know about that. I've only run Daima Mucehver and The Sultan's Birthday out of the Zeif intros so far, but neither of those presented much trouble hitting cap. Most of the APL 2-4 geared mods are decent for wealth by level, too. If anything, my experience has been that Zeif modules are over-geared–there have been a couple mods I've played where once you'd looted the first encounter, you were already at cap (to the point where I might be encouraged to start 'storing' all the loot in a bank before continuing on the adventure...) But you are absolutely right that the gold/xp ratio should not be overly tampered with. I wouldn't mind too much if a mod didn't give cap xp, but if I could easily hit cap xp and barely crest 1/2 gp I'd be worried. Being undergeared for your APL is a serious threat.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 07:01 PM	Well, I could be over reacting about the Zeif intro mod thing. The last 2 I ran, the PC's got about 1/2 gold. Or less. Sultan's Birthday in particular (go look at the max gold available).
jstorrie 03-28-07, 07:02 PM	Sultan's Birthday can be tricky because it's so short, so the odds of missing a significant amount of cash are high. But a Greyhawking-oriented party can still go over cap, and a normal party has decent odds of hitting cap if they complete all of the (what, one, two?) adventure goals.
JohnduBois 03-28-07, 10:03 PM	I really don't like modules where the godl is wrapped up in an NPC's item. ... Huh? I don't think I'm reading this statement correctly. It seems that you're complaining that the treasure from adventures comes from items in the possession of NPCs. If that is the source of the complaint, how do you propose players gain money and access when the wealth of the average 14th level PC is more than that of a small country?
boolean 03-28-07, 11:04 PM	... Huh? I don't think I'm reading this statement correctly. It seems that you're complaining that the treasure from adventures comes from items in the possession of NPCs. If that is the source of the complaint, how do you propose players gain money and access when the wealth of the average 14th level PC is more than that of a small country? He might be complaining about modules where a large percentage of the available g.p. is tied up in the gear of one or two NPCs. If one of those NPCs escapes, that can mean a substantial loss in g.p. gained even though the encounter is defeated for purposes of x.p. I could be wrong. I agree that the previous poster could have been clearer in what he meant.
Simpi 03-28-07, 11:41 PM	like the long retired infamous metaregional "legacy of madness" to get more than half of the gold one has to slay every single guardsman of a castle (that is the silly part) AND rob a temple of hextor (that is the unhealthy part, as the cleric in there is somehow overpowered, something like an APL +3 or +4 encounter), AND instead of being allowed to execute the evil brat that suppresses the people of the village or at least hand him over to justice, you are supposed to restore him to his seat and title "he is not as evil as the evil brat you have just slain":confused:, i still hate that module :( Hey, I like that module. Though both time I ran it suffered from under-gunned and over-confident player syndrome which led to disaster. One PC ended up on villains torture chamber, twice. Myself and many locals had more issues with "The Prisoner" since it assumes that only courses of action are a) free the prisoners b) walk away if you are pro-ahlissa. There is no option for those who do not wish to mess up with their countrys legitimate authority, whether or not they are in exactly acceptable place, doing somewhat questionable things. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
_metz_ 03-29-07, 04:00 AM	... Huh? I don't think I'm reading this statement correctly. It seems that you're complaining that the treasure from adventures comes from items in the possession of NPCs. If that is the source of the complaint, how do you propose players gain money and access when the wealth of the average 14th level PC is more than that of a small country? Sorry I was perhaps unclear on this. My issue is where all the gold is tied with perhaps one NPC who can escape a little too easily, or is capable of being diplomacised. It encourages a kill first talk later attitude and blatant robbing all the time, and diminishes overall roleplay when indifferent NPCs carry the adventure's gold/access. Class example being Vampires who gas away, teleporting WIzards with the one item all the godl comes from, and so forth. No longer must we just defeat the bad guy, but dimensional lck/forcecage all the time so we can steal thier stuff. By all means have Treasure and funky items, just don't punish players who talk, or make it so that by simply being creative (e.g: travelling a different route and bypassing an encounter) They lose out on gold and Access. Especially if its not clear which way to go/what to do.
Lupo 03-29-07, 08:57 AM	Hey, I like that module. Though both time I ran it suffered from under-gunned and over-confident player syndrome which led to disaster. One PC ended up on villains torture chamber, twice. Myself and many locals had more issues with "The Prisoner" since it assumes that only courses of action are a) free the prisoners b) walk away if you are pro-ahlissa. There is no option for those who do not wish to mess up with their countrys legitimate authority, whether or not they are in exactly acceptable place, doing somewhat questionable things. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad :rant: yes all those groupies of the "overking" over there in naerie :P my problem with "the prisoner" was the automatic "wanted status" no matter what one did to get rid of surplus corpses, obviously even if they were killed in the middle of the night and had no actual chance to identify any PC, the authorities get perfect descriptions, including names etc. of every PC in the party :rant:. since then my druid uses a summoned giant croc to get rid of suspicious corpses - summon, swallow whole, swallow whole, swallow whole . . . . *puff* there go the corpses :) and demand for hats of disguise increased dramatically after that mod ;) ciao martin m.
Maesto 03-29-07, 09:27 AM	The Iuz module "Fractures", year 3, had the vast majority of the cash tied up in a relic of Grumsh. If you did the right thing and gave it to the elves or the knights to destroy it, you got a favour, and no cash for the module.
Madfox11 03-29-07, 10:32 AM	my problem with "the prisoner" was the automatic "wanted status" no matter what one did to get rid of surplus corpses, obviously even if they were killed in the middle of the night and had no actual chance to identify any PC, the authorities get perfect descriptions, including names etc. of every PC in the party :rant:. Oy, there was not automatic wanted status in that adventure. The adventure does mention that (a) you only got wanted when you kill an officer and (b) the DM thinks the PCs were actually seen (and note that dead people can be used as witnesses). Also remember that tracking down PCs is relatively easy, especially since the PCs did talk a lot with the escaped victims and were rewarded for it by high and mighty. It is not as if the PC would ever come for court... the whole thing was way too sensitive for the Ahlissan authorities (and the whole ordeal was illegal so even Naerie nationalists should realize it - there were methods to free those prisoners without actually resorting to killing).
gomeztoo 03-29-07, 10:43 AM	my problem with "the prisoner" was the automatic "wanted status" no matter what one did to get rid of surplus corpses, obviously even if they were killed in the middle of the night and had no actual chance to identify any PC, the authorities get perfect descriptions, including names etc. of every PC in the party :rant:. IIRC, that status was not automatic, though some DMs wrongly interpreted it a such. That said, it does suprise me how many players seem to think that all the nifty divination spells that they can think up to have their PC cast cannot be performed by NPCs. If a groups of prisoners are freed and their guards ruthlessly murdered, their corpses not even made recoverable for their family, in a situation that is politically sensitive, then surely those NPCs that have the power will use their most powerful magic to find the culprits? Shouldn't happen always, of course. But it could have in this case. Many people actually wore the wanted status like a badge.
Reylance 03-29-07, 11:22 AM	The LG gold guidelines track well to character wealth guidelines, but only if players always get maximum gold; never pay money for lifestyle, spellcasting, bribes, or the like; never use consumable items; and never have to sell a magic item. I performed this analysis by tracking the modules played at each APL, earning max XP and gold, assuming the XP and gold is from APL 2 at level 1, at APL for all even levels, and the average of APL X-1 and APL X+1 at odd levels. I did a quick analysis of the GP totals with the following assumptions: 1. Pay Adventurer's Standard upkeep, assuming an average 1.5 TU per one round module (reasonable for local players, low for players who travel) 2. Use consumables at the rate of 50 GP per module at levels 1-5, 75 gp per module at levels 6-9, 100 gp per module at levels 10-13, and 200 gp per module at higher levels 3. Lose 100 gp at level 2, 2000 gp at level 8, and 5000 gp at level 12, representing items sold at half value 4. Earn 95% of GP (relative to XP, so that would include playing a module and getting 90% of the XP and 85.5% of the GP) Consumables attempt to average modules where you use nothing and modules where you break out a 700 gp utility scroll or burn half a wand of CLW. Items sold reasonably include weapons and armor upgraded to masterwork, switching armor or weapon types (e.g. +1 full plate to +1 mithral full plate), replacing gauntlets of ogre power, or replacing an early low cost item (belt of one mighty blow) with a more powerful item in the same slot (belt of giant strength). With these assumptions, players are consistently 10% under the wealth by level guidelines, and that assumes no GP disasters like sundering, enslavement, or low level full cost raise deads. This analysis suggests the following GP totals by APL: APL 2: 500 APL 4: 750 APL 6: 1000 APL 8: 1500 APL 10: 2600 APL 12: 3600 APL 14: 7200 APL 16: 10800 Note that LG PCs have an advantage in being able to buy many items fairly freely, not relying on what a DM adds to an adventure. On the other hand, LG PCs have major disadvantages in not having other party members craft items for them, not being able to keep items found off NPCs, and not being able to sell items for anything other than 50% value.
Jesse Heinig 03-29-07, 06:03 PM	Thanks, someone beat me to the analysis of how dropping the gold value of mods winds up making the PCs gear-underpowered by the guidelines expected in the rules. A character who is consistently run through gold-starved adventures is slated to die because in the long run he will not have the gear to be competitive at his level, and even if you are an 8th-level fighter, you will have problems when you're running into monsters with material-specific DR or great attack rolls and you're still stuck with (non-masterwork) normal weapons and scale mail.
Lupo 03-29-07, 06:27 PM	Thanks, someone beat me to the analysis of how dropping the gold value of mods winds up making the PCs gear-underpowered by the guidelines expected in the rules. A character who is consistently run through gold-starved adventures is slated to die because in the long run he will not have the gear to be competitive at his level, and even if you are an 8th-level fighter, you will have problems when you're running into monsters with material-specific DR or great attack rolls and you're still stuck with (non-masterwork) normal weapons and scale mail. :) that is a little over the top, at level 2 any reasonable fighter will have his primary weapon masterwork and soon after magic, getting a suitable magic armor is even less troublesome unless you want a specific material like mithal or adamantine. the DR problem is harder to solve, silver and cold iron are free to get, but out of total nearly 50 character levels with some 250 ARs i don't have actual adamantine access, i have some specific adamantine access, but mostly items the character in question is not able to or will not use - i have access to the perfect weapon for a drunken master, a adamantine TOOL hammer that states that it can only be used as improvised weapon - i know a drunken master who is really longing for it ;). and there is always the problem for the non-crafters to have the gp for specials ready in three ARs. the pro side of the LG system is that characters can get a lot of tailored-to-fit items when they want and the exact type they want, this makes up for some gp value in the total wealth calculation but not enough to have LOTS of modules that go way under the gold cap in total. ciao martin m.
Jesse Heinig 03-29-07, 07:13 PM	Not if he earned an average of 13 gp per AR for his first 3-4 adventures, as one of my characters did. :) that is a little over the top, at level 2 any reasonable fighter will have his primary weapon masterwork and soon after magic, getting a suitable magic armor is even less troublesome unless you want a specific material like mithal or adamantine. (snip) martin m.
Lupo 03-29-07, 08:55 PM	Not if he earned an average of 13 gp per AR for his first 3-4 adventures, as one of my characters did. my first lg character premiered just at the end of year two, where all special items were taken away from the modules BUT no gold was put in in exchange, so i perfectly know how you are experiencing ;). ciao martin m.
Mystical_Tutor 03-30-07, 07:32 PM	Quoted from Brendan: "The most common cause of this I have seen is lazy writing, or not thinking through plot implications." This comment angers me because anyone who's actually written for LG knows it's clearly false. I can see where that comment might upset you but your response is much farther out of line than the comment is. No matter how badly you might like to whitewash all LG writers, the “perception” that some authors have been lazy or unthinking in their writing is very much alive and well, sadly, and to detriment of those truly fine authors that provide us so much enjoyment and challenge in the world of LG. The reason that perception exists is because there are far too many examples that give it life. Two reasons that perception is more than just a perception: 1) Cop outs on moral dilemmas/impasses. One of the easiest hooks an author can use to get party attention is to create a moral dilemma. After 2 hours of dungeon crawl people actually have to stop and think—it at least works to wake people up (sometimes). The lazy part of this “style” of writing is not rubbing enough brain cells together to provide a creative way around it. In one COR mod the group had to decide to let the innocent slaves be slaughtered in order to serve a ‘greater good’ (there were also long term effects on a PC if this was not done). The author provided absolutely no alternative. That is LAZY in my book. 2) One of the main thrusts of this thread. Underpaying the money and goodies. It seems to me that many of the comments here poll-vault over mouse minutia when the seed of the issue is that of writer attitude. My perception is that I am running into more mods/writers that result in holding players back or making the game as troublesome as possible rather than elevating and enriching the LG gaming experience. It almost seems that some would like to water down the PC resources to where an APL 10 group is playing with APL 8 gear—I guess for the purpose of making it easier to control them. In any case, I think that most writers do a great job of keeping the big picture in focus. They write in such a way that their mod will provide a stepping stone in a PC’s path instead of a pitfall. Those mods have appropriate growth material in them, money, XP, access, favors, whatever to build the future on. The lazy and unthinking ones produce a product that may support the writers ego needs of superiority but leaves the party in shambles. The thinking player then should identify that writer and adjust their future LG experiences accordingly. For those who bravely said “Damn the money—full speed ahead”, I agree. I just hate to get 5 of those in a row.
cetiken 03-30-07, 10:24 PM	the problem is that it is easy for PCs to not get max gold for several reasons, including mods where full gold per APL is only reachable with doing very silly/evil/bad/unexpected/unhealthy things. Actually, this is one of the reasons I invest in a very low wisdom score on most of my characters. If the folks question my judgment in attacking foolishly I just point out that my character is in fact foolish.
Samwise 03-31-07, 10:05 AM	I can see where that comment might upset you but your response is much farther out of line than the comment is. No matter how badly you might like to whitewash all LG writers, the “perception” that some authors have been lazy or unthinking in their writing is very much alive and well, sadly, and to detriment of those truly fine authors that provide us so much enjoyment and challenge in the world of LG. The reason that perception exists is because there are far too many examples that give it life. Actually, I have tended to find that most of that "perception" is caused by players who want their preferences indulged at the expense of the campaign, and go off on whining rants when they aren't. Related to this is when players start to whine because some author "dared" to build an NPC as tweaked out as one of their PCs, and they were shocked when the damage started flowing at a rate that could one shot or one round them as gratuitously as they walk through most encounters. The second greatest cause is DM's screwing up when running an adventure. Only then do we get to authors being at fault, but generally not being able to anticipate every single permutation that a creative party might conceivably come up with generally outnumbers instance of author arrogance and player hate. Two reasons that perception is more than just a perception: 1) Cop outs on moral dilemmas/impasses. One of the easiest hooks an author can use to get party attention is to create a moral dilemma. After 2 hours of dungeon crawl people actually have to stop and think—it at least works to wake people up (sometimes). The lazy part of this “style” of writing is not rubbing enough brain cells together to provide a creative way around it. In one COR mod the group had to decide to let the innocent slaves be slaughtered in order to serve a ‘greater good’ (there were also long term effects on a PC if this was not done). The author provided absolutely no alternative. That is LAZY in my book. Why is it lazy? Why must there always be a way out? If you want moral dilemmas, they have to be no-win situations, not merely hard-to-bypass situation. If there was a way out of that, there would be no moral dillemma at all, only a tactical one. (I'm also trying to figure out which adventure you mean. Is it retired?) 2) One of the main thrusts of this thread. Underpaying the money and goodies. It seems to me that many of the comments here poll-vault over mouse minutia when the seed of the issue is that of writer attitude. My perception is that I am running into more mods/writers that result in holding players back or making the game as troublesome as possible rather than elevating and enriching the LG gaming experience. It almost seems that some would like to water down the PC resources to where an APL 10 group is playing with APL 8 gear—I guess for the purpose of making it easier to control them. Are they? Or are they just not indulging the power gamer urge? And how do we know when the complaints are based on a legitimate shortfall instead of just "How dare you call my favorite toy broken and refuse to give me access to it?!?!?!" LG authors don't need to be whitewashed. There are plenty of sucky adventures out there, and plenty of just plain weak ones. There are also plenty of good ones. Before you assign an author to one of those negative categories, you should make an effort to see if one of the other factors doesn't apply, and be prepared to justify your criticism with examples. Of course, you can't really provide examples here because of the spoiler effect. That means there is a bigger responsibility on the people making the criticisms to ensure they don't make statements that are too generic, and too sweeping. If they do, then they need to understand that people involved in the writing are going to get upset, and respond back with equally sweeping challenges.
solbergb 03-31-07, 10:31 AM	Especially before tarring an author with "Bad", read and prep the damn module in all APL's. Most bad experiences I've had were bad judging. I can count on one hand the number of truly "broken" encouners and of those only two were a problem outside of a narrow (and likely unplaytested) level range, ie scaling problems, not malice. The other two I contacted the author, one was errors on his part (underestimated effect of hardness in low APL's and miswrote the tactics block) the other was an arrogant, bad author who is now, thankfully, bored with the campaign and working on other things. (no Sam, you'e not either of those. That encounter you warned us about at a certain APL was not in concept any different from a similar encoutner at APL2. It just managed to scale that level of sudden death which can happen in baby levels fighting ordinary opponents to high APL, which was kind of cool. We had to be creative) Edit...oops, I forgot a local metaregional where I did the draft version and gave lots of feedback. We ran an eratta'd version for the premier but it was pulled for editing, the problems were intractable and the mod was pulled permanently. I don't think that one counted, because the oversight process actually worked to prevent a really bad encounter and a few under-cr'd encounters from escaping into the wild.
Samwise 03-31-07, 11:11 PM	(no Sam, you'e not either of those. That encounter you warned us about at a certain APL was not in concept any different from a similar encoutner at APL2. It just managed to scale that level of sudden death which can happen in baby levels fighting ordinary opponents to high APL, which was kind of cool. We had to be creative) That was why I focused on it specifically in the playtest, just to be sure I wasn't overly indulging my own powergaming tendencies. Hard is one thing. The DM didn't roll a 1 so someone is dead, no way to even theoretically avoid is, and even your favors are useless, is another. As long as it stayed at hard and didn't cross the line, I hope people think it was good. As for being creative, I think that is the heart of the game. Ticking off spell slots or parts of an attack routine might be fine for grunt encounters and covering that last few xp before leveling or gp for a new purchase, but nobody tells stories about that at conventions or in IC posts.
gomeztoo 04-01-07, 11:03 AM	I'm also trying to figure out which adventure you mean. Is it retired?) Possibly he means CORS5-02 Mines of Father Eye. It's retired to we can discuss it freely. In it, you have to choose between freeing the slaves (by brokering a deal with the keeper), or let the covert mission (of another party) succeed. It is pretty hard to do one without the other, iirc (if you free the slaves the duegar learn of the attack you were supposed to provide a distraction for). So you choose what is more important: success (defeat the duegar) or innocent lives. If you screw up the mission, you get a disfavor with Karistyne (typical Miko style paladin behavior). Our group decided to give up the mission and save the slaves. My PC didn't care either way, though she felt the rest of the party cut the proverbial knot way too fast. She felt robbed of a long, time-consuming argument... Anyway, when we got back to Karistyne, she made up by blatantly lying through her teeth about the missions success. Hence we lucked out on the disfavor since Karistyne never learned we gave it away. Seriously though, even with the disfavor (which is pretty dumb to get from a paladin), that dilemma was a proper one. You can't always win, but you can decide on what you think is more important. It may be troublesome with a party that disagrees on the course of action to take though.
The_Jester 04-01-07, 12:18 PM	The LG gold guidelines track well to character wealth guidelines, but only if players always get maximum gold; never pay money for lifestyle, spellcasting, bribes, or the like; never use consumable items; and never have to sell a magic item. I performed this analysis by tracking the modules played at each APL, earning max XP and gold, assuming the XP and gold is from APL 2 at level 1, at APL for all even levels, and the average of APL X-1 and APL X+1 at odd levels. I did a quick analysis of the GP totals with the following assumptions: 1. Pay Adventurer's Standard upkeep, assuming an average 1.5 TU per one round module (reasonable for local players, low for players who travel) 2. Use consumables at the rate of 50 GP per module at levels 1-5, 75 gp per module at levels 6-9, 100 gp per module at levels 10-13, and 200 gp per module at higher levels 3. Lose 100 gp at level 2, 2000 gp at level 8, and 5000 gp at level 12, representing items sold at half value 4. Earn 95% of GP (relative to XP, so that would include playing a module and getting 90% of the XP and 85.5% of the GP) Consumables attempt to average modules where you use nothing and modules where you break out a 700 gp utility scroll or burn half a wand of CLW. Items sold reasonably include weapons and armor upgraded to masterwork, switching armor or weapon types (e.g. +1 full plate to +1 mithral full plate), replacing gauntlets of ogre power, or replacing an early low cost item (belt of one mighty blow) with a more powerful item in the same slot (belt of giant strength). With these assumptions, players are consistently 10% under the wealth by level guidelines, and that assumes no GP disasters like sundering, enslavement, or low level full cost raise deads. This analysis suggests the following GP totals by APL: APL 2: 500 APL 4: 750 APL 6: 1000 APL 8: 1500 APL 10: 2600 APL 12: 3600 APL 14: 7200 APL 16: 10800 Note that LG PCs have an advantage in being able to buy many items fairly freely, not relying on what a DM adds to an adventure. On the other hand, LG PCs have major disadvantages in not having other party members craft items for them, not being able to keep items found off NPCs, and not being able to sell items for anything other than 50% value. Interesting. Of course, you're a level for more than one adventure. A person who just reached 6 might have 10% less than the minimum gold but when they're an adventure or two away from 7 they're likely much more powerful than the average L6. At higher levels after a death or magic item creation the figures get thrown off. And if you're creative and slow down your progress w/ some extra class levels then you might end up with more gold.
thorinXXX 04-01-07, 12:56 PM	Lets not forget about the mods which are designed to seriously deplete a PC's equipment. Who cares if you get max gold if the mod required you to spend twice that to suceed or broke most of your items. Those tend to be author issues rather than judge issues. There was a Sheldomar metaregional that was partly underwater. At APL 6 it took 75% of max gold to buy enough potions of water breathing to even attempt that portion of the mission. Scrolls were not offered. APL 2 mods with stat drain, requiring restoration to be cast. Thats 85% of max gold, not counting any other consumables spent. A Bissel mod with a special creature. If you hit it, save or your weapon goes poof. If it hits you, save or your armor goes poof. Ref save DC 17 at APL 4.
Mystical_Tutor 04-01-07, 01:52 PM	Humm, lets take a look at this: ...most of that "perception" is caused by players... The second greatest cause is DM's screwing up... My! Red herrings a-pair here. Must be a couple burrs under your saddle that you just HAD to get out—even if they are irrelevant to the point of my post. Remember, I am trying to state why this perception is more than a perception. Those issues only support why the perception might only be a perception and I do think there are other threads on this board that explore them. It is true, however, that writers would have far less problems if there were no players. ..outnumbers instance of author arrogance and player hate. I did not bring up, nor am I interested in finger waving on, either of these distracters. Back to the two points at hand, If I may. 1) “Moral dilemmas with no way out” Why is it lazy? Why must there always be a way out? If you want moral dilemmas,... Hold it right there son, a careful re-read should reveal that I don’t want moral dilemmas in which evil wins out either way. It is my opinion, that the only reason any such exist is because of laziness or lack of imagination. For the sake of terminology let me suggest that we should have only ‘apparent moral dilemmas’, in which a careful author confronts the party with a mind stimulating dilemma that then can be solved by thinking outside the box and where the party can save the day. Let people finish feeling like heroes instead of like crap. As to your moralistic question, “Must their always be a way out?” IMHO YES, evil should not triumph in LG! But let me not digress to discuss morality. It is really a separate subject with its own thread available. 2) Underpaying the money and goodies. …the seed of the issue is that of writer attitude. Are they? ... And how do we know when the complaints are based on a legitimate shortfall… First of all, the snivelers will always be with us. Their tears and tantrums will be taken as such by thinking people. But what makes this perception a reality is when writers have their modules result in significant LOSS of gold and goodies or when your GM has to warn you “Better buy a couple-three K of consumables or you probably won’t make it through this”—and he ends up being right. One thing I really like about LG is the strong attempt at a level playing field. It provides a LOT of good entertainment. No level 4 fighters running amuck with +3 vorpal bastard swords and no level 5 wizards with 4 meta-magic feats. In fact, for me, needing to resist buying all those little ‘neat to have’ (Adventure) items in order to save up for something really worth while adds to the fun and challenge of the game. But writers need to give the player his/her due and not have them suck up all their resources to the point they never have enough for those goodies that dissapear 3 AR's later. That means there is a bigger responsibility on the people making the criticisms to ensure they don't make statements that are too generic, and too sweeping. If they do, then they need to understand that people involved in the writing are going to get upset, and respond back with equally sweeping challenges. Well, that pretty well sums up all the support I need for my point. A person too lazy or unimaginative to analyze those generic, sweeping statements and try to learn something from them by understanding what is behind them, will, certainly, respond back with sweeping comments rather than carefully thought out discussion. Again, let me thank all those writers that have made good solid adventures. I know you will have a bad day once in awhile or maybe not receive the feedback and play testing necessary to polish your work. I can handle that. I will be looking at your journey, not your stumble. What I have said here applies to only a few and even then only some of the time. Keep up the good work but if you find your foot on one of the banana peals noted here, back off, take a deep breath and go back to giving us your best.
Mystical_Tutor 04-01-07, 02:12 PM	Possibly he means CORS5-02 Mines of Father Eye. It's retired to we can discuss it freely. In it, you have to choose between freeing the slaves (by brokering a deal with the keeper), or let the covert mission (of another party) succeed. It is pretty hard to do one without the other, iirc (if you free the slaves the duegar learn of the attack you were supposed to provide a distraction for). So you choose what is more important: success (defeat the duegar) or innocent lives. If you screw up the mission, you get a disfavor with Karistyne (typical Miko style paladin behavior). This is as good an example as any. In our case it was told to us after the mission that none of the raiding party returned--they were wiped out because we did not provide the needed distraction. After 27 years in the Army that made me feel like s***. I let my buddies die. Would I have felt better if I had let some of the slaves die (we may have been able to beat the dude and saved some of them--who knows)? No. I would have felt bad then too. Why does a LG module have end up with the players feeling bad about the decisions they make? It doesn't. See my post above.
Samwise 04-01-07, 02:49 PM	Possibly he means CORS5-02 Mines of Father Eye. It's retired to we can discuss it freely. I considered that. The thing is, the group I was with punked the bad guys so harshly that I find it hard to consider that situation a truly hard moral choice. We knew who the bad guys were, we weren't inclined to give up on our mission, and we were willing to take as many hits as needed from the bad guys to protect the slaves. I suppose the biggest part was the fact that there was just one bad guy visible. One guy telling us to give up or else? Not a chance. So we didn't really see it as a choice between letting the slaves die or giving up the mission, we saw it as a choice of ignoring the bluster of one two bit bad guy or giving up the mission, and we had no real intention of doing that. This is why I say that perception can play a major part in these things, and why just dismissing this as poor writing without considering other experiences or author intent is not fair.
gomeztoo 04-01-07, 02:52 PM	As to your moralistic question, “Must their always be a way out?” IMHO YES, evil should not triumph in LG!. You are free to dislike such elements in scenarios. Some people dislike puzzles. Or diplomatic encounters. Or dungeon crawls. Or the use of specific monsters, location,s , religions, plot hooks, etc. All those things are story-elements, opinion is divided on what is fun and what is not, and therefor it is probably not realistic to assume it will change. You can voice your dislike, of course, but I don't really think it will change much. All you can do is avoid certain authors (including me), in the hope to not find such moral dilemmas. Note, btw, that often the way the dillemma is set up is not laziness of the author: it is becasue otherwise there would likely not be a true dilemma. Now, perhaps some players may think of a way to actually do 'solve' the dilemma, somethign not taken into account. Probably using powerful magic the author didn't think of, certain skills, some luck, or a clever ploy. A DM shouldn't feel restricted too much to not reward a cunning plan. But in principle, a scenario that presents a dilemma need not always have thought out all possibilities, especially not if the focus is the choice between two not-exactly-great options. As to the Mines: my PC happened to be relaxed about it. She is true neutral with a nasty streak. But some of my others would certainly feel bad. That is part of the roleplay though: occasionally the PCs learn that evil may win, or stalemate, and feel a greater urge to fight back because of it. Yes, we are supposed to make heroes. If you can call trigger-happy tomb-looting murderers (the slightly biased view on the average adventurer) a hero, ofcourse. But that doesn't means we always win. Sometimes we loose. If good alwasy won, there would be no evil. With the occasional loss, we will strive ever greater for the next victory.
Samwise 04-01-07, 03:33 PM	Humm, lets take a look at this: My! Red herrings a-pair here. Must be a couple burrs under your saddle that you just HAD to get out—even if they are irrelevant to the point of my post. Remember, I am trying to state why this perception is more than a perception. Those issues only support why the perception might only be a perception and I do think there are other threads on this board that explore them. It is true, however, that writers would have far less problems if there were no players. As opposed to your red herrings and profusion of burrs? All you have proven is why your perception is nothing more than a perception, driven purely by your own dissatisfaction at having "lost" in an adventure because of a poor choice that your group made. But rather than consider where you might have gone wrong, it must all be the author's fault. What is true is that players would have far less problems if you just got to add all the rewards from every adventure without having to actually deal with the challenges. That you completely miss the point that a challenge carries with it the possibility of failure, and the consequent possibility of not getting the rewards, shows that you also really do miss the point of adventures to begin with. If there is no consequence to failure there is no joy in victory. If you get exactly the same no matter how well or poorly you do, there is no real need to think outside the box, or inside it for that matter. While I'm sure you will feel better knowing you can never make a mistake with adventures written that way, I prefer a challenge, even if it means I have to deal with feeling bad for losing every now and then.
gomeztoo 04-01-07, 04:26 PM	Just to put a bit of perspective in this discussion: Authors DO make mistakes. We're not of divine power after all. Sometimes a scenario fails, because the monsters were advanced wrong, or a situation was badly thought out, or a certain element that the author thought was cool just doen's work with a party or player. The last bit is hardest to judge. Even if it goes well with the playtest, it can't guarantee that other tables - or even the majority - will like it. But I also found that many, many times when things go wrong, a DM hasn't prepared well, or skipped an strategy that was easy to overlook but vital for the fight, or that players just didn't go for the obvious route. That doesn't mean that we authors shouldn't listen to criticism. We do, and we try to improve. I read all comments on nyrond.org regarding my scenarios. You can leave comments there and I'll try take it into regard next time. If you actually have a question or wish feedback, or if you have comments regarding a TSS metaregional, you can email me privately (I don't yet have access on Nyrond feedback regarding metaregionals).
Mystical_Tutor 04-01-07, 08:22 PM	Yes, we are supposed to make heroes. If you can call trigger-happy tomb-looting murderers (the slightly biased view on the average adventurer) a hero, ... I am somewhat chagrin because as I re-read my posts I do seem to be whitewashing the players who, I must remind myself (and point the finger at myself too), often are the causes of bad adventures. I love your "slightly biased view" and need to mount it on my wall to keep it in proper perspective.
Mystical_Tutor 04-01-07, 08:31 PM	Please note my last paragraph in post #52 That doesn't mean that we authors shouldn't listen to criticism. We do, and we try to improve. And let me say I have the highest admiration for authors I hope my paragraph above properly states that. I don't think I could be one, at least not for a RPG. It appears far more complex than I could handle. It also goes, almost without saying, that an author with an attitude such as yours will make the greatest contribution to our hobby. Thank you.
Haro 04-01-07, 08:39 PM	Especially before tarring an author with "Bad", read and prep the damn module in all APL's. Most bad experiences I've had were bad judging. Amen brother. Amen.
solbergb 04-01-07, 10:44 PM	One recent thing that happened to me as a player is perhaps relevant here. We had a party that at APL12 had their rear-ends handed to them by four ordinary elder frost elementals. CR15 encounter, chance to notice them was fair, etc. Things that contributed to a normal encounter turning into a "we have to work hard to even flee" encounter. 1. our L13 sorcerer was traded for a L10-11 rogue who lacked UMD or any other alternate means of contributing when he could not sneak attack an enemy. This also dropped us from a solid level 12 to a weak level 12 table. 2. 3/4 of our party members under a curse that prevented us from using fire, discovered during that encounter. 3. we failed to use arcane sight or detect thoughts when we encounterd a suspicious setting, having both abilties available, either of which would have prevented us from being surrounded by bad guys at the outset. We instead trusted entirely to the spot skills of our archer, and he rolled poorly. We didn't even try to detect evil, although that would not have helped. 4. We were just a touch underpowered. Had my sorceress been level 11 or 12 instead of 10 at this table, I would have had better spells known for big, strong monsters essentially immune to my lesser battlefield control and most of my direct damage (when fire is excluded due to curse). Likewise the fighters and archer were doing 10-20% less damage than they would have if they were not playing up a little, and that got us on the wrong end of the damage dealth vs damage taken curve. We had one powerful character, but she suffered action starvation, she needed to do everything at once. A level 11-12 arcane instaed of level 10 might also have had mass fly, teleport or an equivalent spell that would have done a tactical extraction and let us bombard the ground-bound monsters with our archers. 5. The fire curse also prevented me from raising a smokescreen, something I often do when a party is surrounded by reachmonsters. 6. The bad guys got hot dice against our one powerful character. They rolled six "16 or better" rolls vs stuff that would have removed them, including one fatespinner forced reroll. So anyway...at the time we were grumbling about how overpowered it was, but in cold hindsight, a combination of our party mix, our choices, and, yes, dice, gave us a near TPK. I chose to take that as a learning experience for my character, reshuffling the order of some spells she was going to take - all of her L11 spell picks would have helped somewhat in that encounter and I gave serious thought to what she'd do if faced with a similar situation in future. Her second level 11 adventure, she ran in to a very lethal encounter along similar lines. Her new spells AND tactics for using them thought up as a result of her failure let her contribute strongly, even though it was an APL14 table this time, and she was playing up even further (slotzero tables, you know how it is). Sometimes the failures can be instructive, if you survive them. I was able to reverse-engineer that encounter and figure out what went wrong, and how many other parties would have not noticed it as difficult. Indeed, had we our L13 blaster sorcerer, I think we could have muscled past our bad decisions with only a worry about character deaths, rather than encounter failure. I do wonder now though how that slotzero might have gone if I hadn't failed earlier.....
Haro 04-02-07, 12:54 AM	The LG gold guidelines track well to character wealth guidelines, but only if players always get maximum gold; never pay money for lifestyle, spellcasting, bribes, or the like; never use consumable items; and never have to sell a magic item. I performed this analysis by tracking the modules played at each APL, earning max XP and gold, assuming the XP and gold is from APL 2 at level 1, at APL for all even levels, and the average of APL X-1 and APL X+1 at odd levels. I like the detail of your analysis. One problem I have is that people take that your conclusions to mean that LG is somehow unfair in comparison. The character wealth by level guidelines are written on the basis of 25 point 'standard' builds. Considering that LG characters use a 28 point buy, it is only fair that they be poorer in order for encounter difficulty to be accurate and scale properly. The DMG is already way too light on in its detailing of party resource drain that drives ELs. That's why a 'standard' difficulty EL in LG is APL +2. Back on topic; I despise that many players expect to receive max gold and not earn it. Yes, it can be a disadvantage to talk your way out of or around a fight and not slaughter the bearer of loot *but* you haven't, as the DMG puts it 'drained the resources of the party' to defeat the encounter. No need to pay to replenish the wand of clw you didn't use or the scroll of restoration or the potion of fly or the adamantine arrows etc. etc. There will always be individual cases to disprove the above statement. There always will be in a campaign this big. I just don't think that occasionally earning undercap gold is that big a deal. :) Just a thought. Joe
Japangirl 04-02-07, 01:01 AM	Back on topic; I despise that many players expect to receive max gold and not earn it. Yes, it can be a disadvantage to talk your way out of or around a fight and not slaughter the bearer of loot *but* you haven't, as the DMG puts it 'drained the resources of the party' to defeat the encounter. No need to pay to replenish the wand of clw you didn't use or the scroll of restoration or the potion of fly or the adamantine arrows etc. etc. The CLW wand is 750, the scroll of restoration is 800g, and the adamantine arrows are about 60g each. The person you talked your way out of a fight with was carrying probably 30,000g worth of equipment if he's decently well geared, like at an APL 10 table or something. That's assuming +1 armor, +1 shield, +1 weapon, one stat item +4, resistance item +2, and two cheap rings. That's a pretty poor trade-off IMO.
clannagh 04-02-07, 01:26 AM	Back on topic; I despise that many players expect to receive max gold and not earn it. Yes, it can be a disadvantage to talk your way out of or around a fight and not slaughter the bearer of loot *but* you haven't, as the DMG puts it 'drained the resources of the party' to defeat the encounter. No need to pay to replenish the wand of clw you didn't use or the scroll of restoration or the potion of fly or the adamantine arrows etc. etc. There will always be individual cases to disprove the above statement. There always will be in a campaign this big. I just don't think that occasionally earning undercap gold is that big a deal. :) Just a thought. Joe I agree on that. In fact too much XP/gold/access whoring results in the "play (or in my opinion waste) multiple rushed mods in a row just for AR access, to get your build to the next level, or buy the new item" syndrome. I would, however, add that i am not keen on anything that pushes players towards a "kill everything so they do not walk off with our loot" mentality. In fact if a party successfully uses diplomacy to avoid an encounter and makes the right overtures (" hey mister big thug person, now we are friends, you don't happen to have any funky gear you might sell us for full price which as you know is double its going second hand value ???") then I have, on occasion , awarded the encounter AR access ... but clearly they do not get the gold.
Mystical_Tutor 04-02-07, 10:07 AM	In fact if a party successfully uses diplomacy to avoid an encounter and makes the right overtures... What is it that prevents more material in game rewards for clever or imaginative use of party skills? Or for that matter just the regular use of a skill such as diplomacy to avoid a conflict? Unless the NPC is an important part of the plot why isn't neutralizing him or duping him just as good as killing him? I too get tired of killing everything in sight and being forced to think that everything we meet needs to die.
gomeztoo 04-02-07, 10:38 AM	What is it that prevents more material in game rewards for clever or imaginative use of party skills? In game justification for a NPC to give you stuff for free, rather than you forcefully taking it from him. Believe me, I would like to reward people for not hacking anyone they meet to pieces. But you can encounter overly generous NPCs only so often. You can provide enough treasure in an adventure to satisfy the cap when people take the diplomatic route, but this will likely mean that people that go the violent way still get more than others, likely an enormous amount of over the cap gold, unless you make it so that the 'treasure' is not worth any coin (which I did once). And people don't like that happening too often either.
pedr 04-02-07, 11:37 AM	Well one solution is to have adventures where 'kill 'em and take their stuff' doesn't work. Many of the 'can be solved diplomatically' adventures would work well in lawful environments where selling the armour from the bad guy you just killed would be considered to be theft. Of course this doesn't work all the time, but the dungeon-crawling treasure-accumulating paradigm isn't the only one which works. Plenty of city-based adventures could quite logically require you to surrender any property you find to the city authorities - and give you a generous reward for solving the problem, of course, which could be conveniently identical to the APL gold cap.
Mystical_Tutor 04-02-07, 11:52 PM	You can provide enough treasure in an adventure to satisfy the cap when people take the diplomatic route, but this will likely mean that people that go the violent way still get more than others, .. That kinda seems to be the rut we are stuck in. I think a key thing here is the way the 'access' part of the game works. But it still seems to me that those for whom we go to risk our lives could provide us with just as much reward after we clean out the nest of vipers and find no coin, as could ever be found by taking out the evil rich guy and stripping him of all his goodies. Then if, instead, we just captured said bad dude and turned him in to the powers that be coulen't they be so greatful to us that all his stuff all of a sudden became available to us? I don't know, I don't really have an answer, I just belive there needs to be a better way.
Timlagor 04-03-07, 02:31 PM	Ther writer should always allow for a good way out of a situation because the players at some table will think of one -and they'll really hate a module in which their good plan is arbitrarily disallowed just because the author didn't think of it. In our running of Mines, the visible bad guy went down in the first round and the other one managed to do about 3 damage to a couple of slaves who were promptly extinguished by a Create Water so that one didn't strike me as much of a problem.
MatteBlack 04-03-07, 03:14 PM	But it still seems to me that those for whom we go to risk our lives could provide us with just as much reward after we clean out the nest of vipers and find no coin, as could ever be found by taking out the evil rich guy and stripping him of all his goodies. Then if, instead, we just captured said bad dude and turned him in to the powers that be coulen't they be so greatful to us that all his stuff all of a sudden became available to us? It seems to me that it would make just as much sense for a group to be given a set amount of reward for solving the problem or bringing the culprit to justice/killing them. Appreciative parties or goodly churches might add a reward for keeping the baddie alive to bear witness or bringing things to closure with minimal violence. Maybe you are left to have the spoils or can take them under the table and have to hide the fact you did. On the frontiers, they would be more likely to let you keep what you kill because they can't muster up the coin whereas in a big city you would more likely have a set professional fee but, be expected to keep the peace and bring in ALL the evidence. They just need to avoid promoting people "Greyhawking" every mod and fairly clearly let the characters know when a given method is expected or allowed by the PCs or even when the big choice between the two is part of the drama. Appropriate reward should be granted in a natural manner with the story that unfolded not in some sort of twisted version of "find the queen" with dice.
Madfox11 04-04-07, 03:32 AM	Ther writer should always allow for a good way out of a situation because the players at some table will think of one -and they'll really hate a module in which their good plan is arbitrarily disallowed just because the author didn't think of it. An author is not hundreds of players, and nor are the reviewers, and as such they simply CANNOT think of all possible situations. An author should provide enough information so that a DM can deal with the unexpected. A DM is called a DM and not a judge for a reason. Sometimes an adventure really lacks the information to roll with the punches, but I cannot remember ever having been placed in such a situation. Granted, sometimes I needed to make an estimated guess about logical events, but it is much more fun for the players to go with what they do than the small risk of doing something that is contradicted later in the series. Besides, the players already accepted the fact that their actions might not be what eventually happened by just sitting at the table.
Jesse Heinig 04-04-07, 03:40 AM	It's still the writer's responsibility to acknowledge that there may be alternative resolutions to a problem, as opposed to shoehorning the players into their "one really clever" solution. An author is not hundreds of players, and nor are the reviewers, and as such they simply CANNOT think of all possible situations. An author should provide enough information so that a DM can deal with the unexpected. A DM is called a DM and not a judge for a reason. Sometimes an adventure really lacks the information to roll with the punches, but I cannot remember ever having been placed in such a situation. Granted, sometimes I needed to make an estimated guess about logical events, but it is much more fun for the players to go with what they do than the small risk of doing something that is contradicted later in the series. Besides, the players already accepted the fact that their actions might not be what eventually happened by just sitting at the table.
Madfox11 04-04-07, 03:57 AM	A bit difficult isn't it when you also try to keep an eye on word count ;) I am sorry, but it is a bit of a personal irritation to see how many DMs stick litterally to an adventure even ignoring core D&D rules simply because the author forgot to add the text that surprise checks should be done as normal. Look, in every adventure a DM should be able to go with alternative sollutions (not necessarily clever) and an author really should not have to write down the obvious :rolleyes:
Haro 04-04-07, 04:56 AM	I am sorry, but it is a bit of a personal irritation to see how many DMs stick litterally to an adventure even ignoring core D&D rules simply because the author forgot to add the text that surprise checks should be done as normal. Look, in every adventure a DM should be able to go with alternative solutions (not necessarily clever) and an author really should not have to write down the obvious :rolleyes: Pieter, Britt and yourself should release a compilation of shared wisdoms such as the above. It should be a nice, weighty tome that I can whack silly people with. The deep tissue bruising should serve as a reminder to them that they should read it. :) Joe
Jesse Heinig 04-04-07, 06:14 AM	An author should include enough to give the DM something to work with so that the adventure is not a railroad. Some writers, however, seem to think that their modules are so great that the PCs should be thrilled to get on the rails and anything that gets off is punished. A bit difficult isn't it when you also try to keep an eye on word count ;) I am sorry, but it is a bit of a personal irritation to see how many DMs stick litterally to an adventure even ignoring core D&D rules simply because the author forgot to add the text that surprise checks should be done as normal. Look, in every adventure a DM should be able to go with alternative sollutions (not necessarily clever) and an author really should not have to write down the obvious :rolleyes:
gomeztoo 04-04-07, 07:12 AM	There may be troublesome authors. But those do not generally last long, as they probably won't take criticism wel and therefor get to be avoided next time. But general comments won't work in these cases, specific feedback is better. Target the specific scenarios that have issues and send your comments to the author and the responsible triad, metaregional coordinator and/or Circle member. Note though that there is a difference between railroading and not listing an unlikely option. Also, if you have a legitimate complaint, that does not mean the author did it on purpose. Let's assume we all try to create fun scenarios together.
Timlagor 04-04-07, 12:11 PM	An author is not hundreds of players, and nor are the reviewers, and as such they simply CANNOT think of all possible situations. An author should provide enough information so that a DM can deal with the unexpected. Indeed. My point is that the Writer should not put something along the lines of "Whatever the PCs do X does Y". When that appears in a module the judge really has no choice but to have X do Y. When this comes up it is usually (ime) in the nature of NPCs absolutely refusing to act in a reasonable or rational manner whatever the PCs may do to persuade them. There should also not be situations where the Writer assumes that there is no way out except Option A or Option B. I do agree that this is more likely to come down to the judge though. I also find it irritating to get somewhere and find out that "X happened yesterday" regardless of how you travelled from A to B. A judge could overrule that but sometimes it's the whole premise of the module... A DM is called a DM and not a judge for a reason. Since when? Hmm I notice that the new LGCS doesn't make much mention of either Judges or DMs.. [EDIT: Looking under "GM" was a lot more productive but "judge" does still appear twice] I'm sure it used to be the case that the Circle was considered the "DM" for the campaign and that people running tables were officially called "judges". In any case my point was about restrictive writing (see above).
solbergb 04-04-07, 01:19 PM	Most railroading is done by judges, not authors. Every single autosurprise I've seen in game wasn't in the module. The module didn't say one way or another and provided statblocks and terrain. I'm not saying there isn't any written into modules, I just have not seen them. I've seen very stealthy statblocks, fancy monster abilities that facilitate surprise, etc. But no autosurprise. That includes my most recent example, where a 30 spot check didn't find four apes in a 20x40 space brightly lit (they had cover to hide if they squeezed, but their hide modifier was -2) To be fair to the judge, the module implied that they were good at hiding, and I think he misunderstood the lighting situation as we'd just moved a dancing lights in a prior phase but the statblocks didn't support it, and there was neither total cover nor total concealment. But it did require my 8 charisma low AC druid/barbarian to roll a 20 on animal empathy to extract myself from a situation that shouldn't have happened at all. (should have been "no surprise, with apes downstairs squeezed behind clutter" and me upstairs, which would have been a lot less dangerous)
Samwise 04-04-07, 01:45 PM	It's still the writer's responsibility to acknowledge that there may be alternative resolutions to a problem, as opposed to shoehorning the players into their "one really clever" solution. How? How exactly do you provide for doing something you didn't think of without using language that will allow some DMs to completely ignore the adventure if they decide they don't like it? Adventure Text: "If the PCs do something else, improvise." Obnoxious DM: "Well the PCs cast buff spells and the adventure didn't note that, so I'll just upgrade the monsters to the next APL. It says I can improvise!" Add in word count issues, and you reach a point of diminishing returns.
Jesse Heinig 04-04-07, 05:38 PM	How about not doing things like: * There is only one solution to this puzzle, otherwise the PCs automatically fail and/or die * Using the rules for taking 10 or taking 20 automatically fails and is punished (because hey, we can't use time-savers here!) * The encounter is statted so that PCs at the given APL will only hit the opponents on a natural 20 even if they are ridiculous ubertwinks Yeah, those would be some good starts. How? How exactly do you provide for doing something you didn't think of without using language that will allow some DMs to completely ignore the adventure if they decide they don't like it? Adventure Text: "If the PCs do something else, improvise." Obnoxious DM: "Well the PCs cast buff spells and the adventure didn't note that, so I'll just upgrade the monsters to the next APL. It says I can improvise!" Add in word count issues, and you reach a point of diminishing returns.
Mystical_Tutor 04-04-07, 06:42 PM	Hmm I notice that the new LGCS doesn't make much mention of either Judges or DMs.. [EDIT: Looking under "GM" was a lot more productive but "judge" does still appear twice] Did I make an invalid assumption then when I started playing LG? I assumed that the distinction between DM and GM was intentional. I have never expected as much from a GM as I would from a DM in that they are sometimes put in an awkward situation if the mod is not clear or something comes up that the mod did not anticipate and they have to create a work around on the spot. It seems that a GM is much more handycapped because of a lack of latitude on what he/she is allowed to do in a LG adventure. As opposed to the 'god' DM of a home game. I really cut slack for that RPGA volunteer at GenCon that gets a mod they played a year ago, and a greatly different APL, 20 min before they are to sit their table......
Haro 04-04-07, 07:03 PM	How about not doing things like: * There is only one solution to this puzzle, otherwise the PCs automatically fail and/or die * Using the rules for taking 10 or taking 20 automatically fails and is punished (because hey, we can't use time-savers here!) * The encounter is statted so that PCs at the given APL will only hit the opponents on a natural 20 even if they are ridiculous ubertwinks Yeah, those would be some good starts. Ladies and Gentlemen! Do you miss the sarcasm and tone of Bob_the_theurge's posts? Well, you never have to worry again! Jesse Heinig is your new, one stop shop for all your sarcasm needs. Want someone who'll take shots at Circle of Six members and core reviewers because they don't know what a writer's responsibilities are? Jesse's your man too! Come see the amazing Jesse in action on the RPGA boards where, if you are lucky, you'll be on the receiving end of his condescending tone as well! Sign up now and get a free 10 minute webcam session, where Jesse will expose you to all the facial features, such as sneers and smirks, that you can only imagine he's doing while writing his posts. Spectacular value!
garyjohnson 04-04-07, 07:17 PM	How? How exactly do you provide for doing something you didn't think of without using language that will allow some DMs to completely ignore the adventure if they decide they don't like it? Perhaps it's the difference between "The PCs can persuade the NPC to help them by saying X and Y." and "The PCs can persuade the NPC to help them by changing their attitude from indifferent to friendly or better. If they say X or Y, they get a circumstance bonus to the Diplomacy check." I've experienced DMs who ruled that, because the scenario says the PCs have to say X and Y, the NPC won't help them until the PCs say X and Y, regardless of what else the PCs say or do, or what their interaction skill check results are. Cheers, Gary Johnson
garyjohnson 04-04-07, 07:28 PM	Ladies and Gentlemen! Do you miss the sarcasm and tone of Bob_the_theurge's posts? Be nice, Haro. I've encountered "only one solution to this puzzle or the adventure hits a roadblock" and "taking 10 and/or 20 doesn't work and/or has negative consequences" in LG scenarios, and I didn't find them much fun either. Jesse's last dot-point seems like hyperbole to me, but the first two are reasonable examples of things that shouldn't be "hard-wired" into the text of a scenario, IMO. Cheers, Gary Johnson
Haro 04-04-07, 07:36 PM	Be nice, Haro. I've encountered "only one solution to this puzzle or the adventure hits a roadblock" and "taking 10 and/or 20 doesn't work and/or has negative consequences" in LG scenarios, and I didn't find them much fun either. Jesse's last dot-point seems like hyperbole to me, but the first two are reasonable examples of things that shouldn't be "hard-wired" into the text of a scenario, IMO. You know me Gary, I'm as sweet as pie. :) I'm just trying to illustrate that while Bob_the_theurge's posts often contained quite valid and thought out arguments, the method with which they were delivered drowned out the content. I don't have a problem with some of Jesse's points (such as the ones you mentioned), however, language such as "How about not doing things like" and "Yeah, those would be some good starts" are counterproductive if he is trying to enact real change (like Bob?). Joe
garyjohnson 04-04-07, 08:06 PM	You know me Gary, I'm as sweet as pie. :) Indeed. :) I'm just trying to illustrate that while Bob_the_theurge's posts often contained quite valid and thought out arguments, the method with which they were delivered drowned out the content. I don't have a problem with some of Jesse's points (such as the ones you mentioned), however, language such as "How about not doing things like" and "Yeah, those would be some good starts" are counterproductive if he is trying to enact real change (like Bob?). I figured that was your intention, but I don't follow the forums closely enough to know if you've told Jesse the above information before in another thread. Your post seemed harsh for a "first warning" in this thread about delivering criticisms in a constructive way - hence my "be nice". :ayyyy!: Off-topic I know, but I have to share. While looking for the right emoticon for the above paragraph, I found :mrt: Cheers, Gary Johnson
Timlagor 04-04-07, 08:37 PM	How? How exactly do you provide for doing something you didn't think of without using language that will allow some DMs to completely ignore the adventure if they decide they don't like it? Just avoid phrases like "Whatever the PCs do" and always include a Conclusion that ends well for each faction (it need only be a few lines). APL2 modules where all the NPCs are teleporting about like Trekkies and the PCs are still expected to play a pivotal role should be a major warning sign that other things may be amiss. This "word limit" you keep talking about I can't comment on since it's part of the 'invisible rules' that go on behind the scenes.
Britt 04-04-07, 08:38 PM	Did I make an invalid assumption then when I started playing LG? I assumed that the distinction between DM and GM was intentional. I have never expected as much from a GM as I would from a DM in that they are sometimes put in an awkward situation if the mod is not clear or something comes up that the mod did not anticipate and they have to create a work around on the spot. It seems that a GM is much more handycapped because of a lack of latitude on what he/she is allowed to do in a LG adventure. As opposed to the 'god' DM of a home game. I really cut slack for that RPGA volunteer at GenCon that gets a mod they played a year ago, and a greatly different APL, 20 min before they are to sit their table...... I purposely changed as many instances as I could from DM to GM, as I prefer consistent language and wanted one term throughout the document. As for why I chose Game Master over Dungeon Master, first, I noticed that the RPGA generally uses Game Master as it applies to games that lack dungeons or that type of flavor. Second, Game Master has fewer negative connotations attached to it than Dungeon Master does, so when explaining it to people, you are less likely to drive them away just from the terminology. For example, if you are trying to get a friend to play and your friend is not at all involved in the fantasy genre, perhaps even has some negative stereotypes associated with "geeky" past times, you are more likely to succeed if you use the term Game Master rather than Dungeon Master. I know there are a lot of sentimental attachments to "dungeon master", but I think as RPGs evolve, "game master" is going to be a more useful term.
Samwise 04-04-07, 08:42 PM	How about not doing things like: * There is only one solution to this puzzle, otherwise the PCs automatically fail and/or die That would destroy the concept of a "puzzle." Very few puzzles have more than one solution. Indeed, I think it is fairly said that to be a puzzle it can have only one actual, correct solution. There are not ten different ways to solve a crossword puzzle. If instead you mean you would like more than one way for the solution to be discovered, such as the PCs can just solve it, they can make a Knowledge skill check, they can make some other skill check (with the skill checks being at a reasonable level), then in fact that has already been added to the core writer's guidelines for 2007. * Using the rules for taking 10 or taking 20 automatically fails and is punished (because hey, we can't use time-savers here!) Taking 10 is a time saver out of game and can be one in game, and I agree that telling PCs they can't is silly. Taking 20 is a time saver out of game, but is in fact a time consumer in game, and can reasonably lead to difficulties when there is a time limit to completing a task. This is particularly so when players refuse to recognize just how large a particular area is, and want to take 20 searching an outdoor campsite. What is that, say 50 feet by 50 feet, 100 squares, at 2 minutes per square? OK, 3 hours and 20 minutes later you find the critical clue to tracking down the bad guys who will kill the hostage in 2 hours. Oops. Yes, this can be overdone, but it is not always wrong just because. * The encounter is statted so that PCs at the given APL will only hit the opponents on a natural 20 even if they are ridiculous ubertwinks As opposed to PCs that are unhittable at a given APL? I find those to be a lot bigger problem than the few overbuilt NPCs.
Samwise 04-04-07, 08:49 PM	Perhaps it's the difference between "The PCs can persuade the NPC to help them by saying X and Y." and "The PCs can persuade the NPC to help them by changing their attitude from indifferent to friendly or better. If they say X or Y, they get a circumstance bonus to the Diplomacy check." I've experienced DMs who ruled that, because the scenario says the PCs have to say X and Y, the NPC won't help them until the PCs say X and Y, regardless of what else the PCs say or do, or what their interaction skill check results are. Cheers, Gary Johnson Generally, I agree. Things like that tend to raise the dreaded specter of "role-playing vs. roll-playing," and causes many authors to avoid such generic requirements. That also connects to issues of rewards on ARs, as many adventures mention "If you tell the patron about X." Yes, in most cases you will just automatically tell the patron about everything, but sometimes there are issues of pledged secrets, and it strains things somewhat to require the DM to constantly remind the players of such issues. It also all too often raises the specter of authors who want to tier DCs by APL rather than by the defaults, and don't want to consider a table being able to succeed by "only" getting a 15.
Samwise 04-04-07, 09:06 PM	Just avoid phrases like "Whatever the PCs do" and always include a Conclusion that ends well for each faction (it need only be a few lines). Why? NPCs do have their own motives and plans, and will often carry through on the no matter what the PCs do. As for a conclusion that ends well, hopefully everyone can succeed, but it might not always be possible for everyone to succeed at the same time. Sometimes goals conflict, and unless everyone is assigned a motive, there is no way to get around that. APL2 modules where all the NPCs are teleporting about like Trekkies and the PCs are still expected to play a pivotal role should be a major warning sign that other things may be amiss. I've got to drop a "No Comment" on that. This "word limit" you keep talking about I can't comment on since it's part of the 'invisible rules' that go on behind the scenes. Yes it is. I would note though that the more non-linear an adventure is, the longer the text must be to account for just reasonable PC actions. As it is, I've seen well over a dozen adventures completely short-circuited, some multiple times, because the PCs simply insist on doing the encounters "out of order," make some skill check, or make some intuitive (or just plain blatantly obvious trope identification) conclusion, and skip from the first encounter to the last one in 15 minutes. And several times I've had to "encourage" players to pretend they were a tad more obtuse just so they could face every encounter and do the full gp/xp thing.
catsclaw 04-04-07, 11:04 PM	I know there are a lot of sentimental attachments to "dungeon master", but I think as RPGs evolve, "game master" is going to be a more useful term.Well, I'm personally offended by the use of the term "game master" rather than "dungeon master". Of course, I'm also a mostly bald, 3' tall homunculus with long white hair and a penchant for red robes, so maybe it's just me.
Britt 04-04-07, 11:42 PM	Well, I'm personally offended by the use of the term "game master" rather than "dungeon master". Of course, I'm also a mostly bald, 3' tall homunculus with long white hair and a penchant for red robes, so maybe it's just me. :rofl: Brilliant!
_metz_ 04-04-07, 11:58 PM	we aint playing games and dragons are we... next it will be "games administrative person", as master will not be appropriate either. FInally, "game's administrative reader and dice calculator". Honestly, if anyone argues it should be games rather than dungeon master, is kinda missing the point...
Britt 04-05-07, 12:03 AM	we aint playing games and dragons are we... Oh, good point. I guess we should call it a Roleplaying Dungeon, then.
Lupo 04-05-07, 01:11 AM	Well, I'm personally offended by the use of the term "game master" rather than "dungeon master". Of course, I'm also a mostly bald, 3' tall homunculus with long white hair and a penchant for red robes, so maybe it's just me. yea, glorious times when a role playing game box included a mask to disguise the "master" :D ciao martin m.
_metz_ 04-05-07, 01:40 AM	Oh, good point. I guess we should call it a Roleplaying Dungeon, then. ooh "roleplaying master"! sounds kinda kinky doesn't it... Boxed set comes with nurses outfits, leather, handcuffs, etc...
Britt 04-05-07, 01:47 AM	ooh "roleplaying master"! sounds kinda kinky doesn't it... Boxed set comes with nurses outfits, leather, handcuffs, etc... I don't think we want to go there :p
Lupo 04-05-07, 03:15 AM	ooh "roleplaying master"! sounds kinda kinky doesn't it... Boxed set comes with nurses outfits, leather, handcuffs, etc... I don't think we want to go there :p i though that was the point with the hype for the healer class, female characters in nurse's outfits riding a unicorn :P ciao martin m. ok, seems to be the time to swap this strain of the thread over to the "Stupidly Titled Thread" :angelhide
Timlagor 04-06-07, 11:16 AM	I don't think we want to go there :p Hmm I think you may need to realign with your core marketplace :rolleyes: