Petition to remove the +3 level rule [Archive] - Wizards Community

Petition to remove the +3 level rule [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
bhale187
03-13-07, 12:00 PM This post is a show of support for a change of the new rule banning players from playing PCs more than 3 levels above the table APL.

If you support changing the rule please post here ONCE.

If you do not support the petition or want to debate the rule please start a different thread.

*
bitznarf
03-13-07, 12:25 PM /signed
Japangirl
03-13-07, 01:06 PM I would prefer this rule disappear as well.
Alpha_Nerd
03-13-07, 01:29 PM I also agree with the petition. /signed
Jay_Ibero_911
03-13-07, 01:35 PM /fancy script signiture that's almost impossible to read...
Mattastrophic
03-13-07, 02:04 PM I posted opposition to this one the day the draft was released. After seeing the results of this terrible rule, my opposition is only stronger.

-Matt
Mithreinmaethor
03-13-07, 03:26 PM /signed

This has kept our local group from being able to play a couple of modules.
JamesMaissen
03-13-07, 03:34 PM This perceived problem can be best solved by social pressures. The current solution creates more problems than it solves.

Removing this new rule (and in fact changing how we work with APL) would be a good thing,

-James
pedr
03-13-07, 03:43 PM agreed
Crazy Boro
03-13-07, 04:53 PM /signed in blood and happy tarts for a +4 level rule
Cardinal Teplin
03-13-07, 05:38 PM I'm not in favour of this rule.

Getting tables together is the major limiting factor on the campaign. Put whatever penalties you like on it, but please not an outright ban.
Sieylianna
03-13-07, 10:17 PM I don't think the Circle is going to pay attention to this, but I'll sign it on the off chance that they do.

Ed
copper_wyrmling
03-13-07, 10:35 PM /signed

*nods at Sieylianna, but no reason not to try* ;)
Sargh
03-14-07, 10:58 AM signed

For those signing to keep this saying cons are pre mustered... what cons are you going to? :)

Half the cons I've been to don't pre muster, and even the ones that do, even if they have APL, rarely ever actually end up that way when the dust settles.
Jenner2057
03-14-07, 11:28 AM signed.

I'm a relative newbie (in the RPGA less than a year) and in our small group this rule has already caused problems mustering a game.
Anguus
03-14-07, 05:08 PM This rule flat out shoots many new people in the foot if they don't get lucky and have a core group to start with.
echoota
03-14-07, 06:50 PM Yep, this is my biggest problem with LG. It makes getting tables together harder, and it makes it harder for a new player to join an existing group.

Fun should be paramount for the system, and when you have silly and fussy rules that make it difficult for people to get together and play then it isn't helping the game achieve it's goal.

Why the rule can't simply be that you get xp and gold set at your APL, regardless of what the module is set at, is beyond me. If someone wants to be 1st level in a APL 16 let them do it.
Madfox11
03-15-07, 08:02 AM Why the rule can't simply be that you get xp and gold set at your APL, regardless of what the module is set at, is beyond me. If someone wants to be 1st level in a APL 16 let them do it.

It is the otherway around that is the basis of the APL rules, and the fact that it is a core rule in D&D that you get xp and gp based on the challenge. We already get complaints about people who thinks the xp rewards compared to the challenge of a game is too low...

In any event, the APL rules are not open for discussion. The +3 rule is, but if you are worried about new players, than I would actually stick to it. Games with a disproportional challenge, whether too low or too high, in general tend to be much less fun (except when it is primarily a RP adventure) for several players at the table.
RanielK
03-15-07, 03:17 PM I'd be all for a +4 rule at most. Otherwise, I agree anything that keeps tables from going off is bad.
zigspatty
03-20-07, 12:58 AM The very rare few times that I've seen tables that had a PC more than +3 levels from the APL have been caused by the difficulties of getting a table together at all and though the PCs may have been somewhat mismatched, the players still had fun. Though the intent behind the rule may be good, the result will be that some tables won't "make" and players will miss a chance to play that they might otherwise have enjoyed.

This rule hurts more than it helps, IMO.

Patty

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bhale187 03-13-07, 12:00 PM	This post is a show of support for a change of the new rule banning players from playing PCs more than 3 levels above the table APL. If you support changing the rule please post here ONCE. If you do not support the petition or want to debate the rule please start a different thread. *
bitznarf 03-13-07, 12:25 PM	/signed
Japangirl 03-13-07, 01:06 PM	I would prefer this rule disappear as well.
Alpha_Nerd 03-13-07, 01:29 PM	I also agree with the petition. /signed
Jay_Ibero_911 03-13-07, 01:35 PM	/fancy script signiture that's almost impossible to read...
Mattastrophic 03-13-07, 02:04 PM	I posted opposition to this one the day the draft was released. After seeing the results of this terrible rule, my opposition is only stronger. -Matt
Mithreinmaethor 03-13-07, 03:26 PM	/signed This has kept our local group from being able to play a couple of modules.
JamesMaissen 03-13-07, 03:34 PM	This perceived problem can be best solved by social pressures. The current solution creates more problems than it solves. Removing this new rule (and in fact changing how we work with APL) would be a good thing, -James
pedr 03-13-07, 03:43 PM	agreed
Crazy Boro 03-13-07, 04:53 PM	/signed in blood and happy tarts for a +4 level rule
Cardinal Teplin 03-13-07, 05:38 PM	I'm not in favour of this rule. Getting tables together is the major limiting factor on the campaign. Put whatever penalties you like on it, but please not an outright ban.
Sieylianna 03-13-07, 10:17 PM	I don't think the Circle is going to pay attention to this, but I'll sign it on the off chance that they do. Ed
copper_wyrmling 03-13-07, 10:35 PM	/signed nods at Sieylianna, but no reason not to try ;)
Sargh 03-14-07, 10:58 AM	signed For those signing to keep this saying cons are pre mustered... what cons are you going to? :) Half the cons I've been to don't pre muster, and even the ones that do, even if they have APL, rarely ever actually end up that way when the dust settles.
Jenner2057 03-14-07, 11:28 AM	signed. I'm a relative newbie (in the RPGA less than a year) and in our small group this rule has already caused problems mustering a game.
Anguus 03-14-07, 05:08 PM	This rule flat out shoots many new people in the foot if they don't get lucky and have a core group to start with.
echoota 03-14-07, 06:50 PM	Yep, this is my biggest problem with LG. It makes getting tables together harder, and it makes it harder for a new player to join an existing group. Fun should be paramount for the system, and when you have silly and fussy rules that make it difficult for people to get together and play then it isn't helping the game achieve it's goal. Why the rule can't simply be that you get xp and gold set at your APL, regardless of what the module is set at, is beyond me. If someone wants to be 1st level in a APL 16 let them do it.
Madfox11 03-15-07, 08:02 AM	Why the rule can't simply be that you get xp and gold set at your APL, regardless of what the module is set at, is beyond me. If someone wants to be 1st level in a APL 16 let them do it. It is the otherway around that is the basis of the APL rules, and the fact that it is a core rule in D&D that you get xp and gp based on the challenge. We already get complaints about people who thinks the xp rewards compared to the challenge of a game is too low... In any event, the APL rules are not open for discussion. The +3 rule is, but if you are worried about new players, than I would actually stick to it. Games with a disproportional challenge, whether too low or too high, in general tend to be much less fun (except when it is primarily a RP adventure) for several players at the table.
RanielK 03-15-07, 03:17 PM	I'd be all for a +4 rule at most. Otherwise, I agree anything that keeps tables from going off is bad.
zigspatty 03-20-07, 12:58 AM	The very rare few times that I've seen tables that had a PC more than +3 levels from the APL have been caused by the difficulties of getting a table together at all and though the PCs may have been somewhat mismatched, the players still had fun. Though the intent behind the rule may be good, the result will be that some tables won't "make" and players will miss a chance to play that they might otherwise have enjoyed. This rule hurts more than it helps, IMO. Patty