Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JamesMaissen 03-20-07, 11:35 AM	Well I've proposed this before, but figured I'd do it on it's own thread and see what people think of it. The idea is: have tiers of challenge levels associated with level ranges and have rewards based upon the lower of the character level and level range played. Players would decide entirely on their own which tier they wished to play (APL need not even be calculated). To whit if a 3rd level character played a mod that the players decided to play at the 1st-2nd level tier (the current APL 2) then they would get 450xp and 450gp at best. If they played 'on level' for this character at the 3rd-4th level tier (APL 4 by current standards) they would get the 675xp and 650gp. If they played a higher tier, say even the current APL 14 then the 3rd level character would still get 675xp and 650gp (rather than far higher as in the current system). I see this as accomplishing several things over the current system, while retaining the desired facets of the current system as I see them. Advantages: 1> Avoids strange calculations. No wierd artifacts of adding a character to the group and LOWERing the APL. Taking a 4 person table and adding a much lower level 5th player can easily do this (adding a 6th person to do this is also possible, though harder because of the wierd bump from 5 players to 6 that doesn't exist from 4 players to 5). 2> Fun challenge level. Letting weaker parties choose to play weaker ranges while more optimized parties could elect for a higher challenge. Avoids missmatched tables being bumped up to levels they aren't comfortable with playing. If the table winds up having less fun because of the challenge level then atleast they had a strong say in the matter. 3> Simpler. No need for 1/2xp/gold or caps and limitations on who may or may not play. No need to even calculate the table's APL even. 4> Balance. Properly solves a 2nd level playing WAY up and getting disproportionate rewards. Also increases expectations of character wealth by level that LG has done so strongly. 5> Less stress. Doesn't push parties at odd APL into choosing the one that they are not comfortable with (ether up or down) simply to avoid someone getting half rewards. Such artificial concerns would get less weight than they currently do. Retains: 1> Better rewards from higher challenges. 2> Caps on the abuse of #1 by lower levels being drung along high level tracks and getting far more gold than they should. 3> Ability of the table to be appropriately challenged (actually improves this as the table can decide more freely). I'm not quite sure on the downside would be to this other than getting used to a new way of doing things. Mind you it's not quite that new or different. Anyway, what do people think? Are there flaws/problems that I'm not seeing to this? Other benefits that I didn't list? Thanks, James
CrystalBlue 03-20-07, 01:08 PM	I have a big downside to this. You're basically saying that the player gets whatever he/she deserves at the range they are in. Let's take this example then. Clr 3 Dru 2 Fgt 2 War 1 So, three of those people can play at your 1-2 range and one can play at a 3-4 range. Here's my problem...what do you throw at them? The slot for level 1-2 or the slot for 3-4? The challanges will be very different. And in the end, the low people get screwed out of exp and gold either way. Take a look at this, You throw the 1-2 range encounter at the part. The thrid level person can do well on this and basically walk the encounter because it's simple for him (reletively speaking) However, in the end, he still gets his level of 3-4 level exp and gold. However, the low people, having fought something very tough for them, squeek by with their 1-2 level exp and gold. That's unfair. And how about if we throw something at the 3-4 range. The cleric is still not going to lose (again, reletively speaking) but he's playing something at his range. However, the other three are having an even tougher time AND STILL getting the lower exp and gold. You're not rewarding people for taking on challanges. If you throw something that's EL6+ at this group, that's an APL 4 and they DESERVE the exp and gold for defeating it.
bitznarf 03-20-07, 01:09 PM	Re-read it again Cyrstal, and it may make more sense for you.
CrystalBlue 03-20-07, 01:20 PM	...Well, I read it again. Still doesn't make sense. You basically want to get rid of the level barrier completely and give people what they should get at their APL (and I'm gonna use the word APL because it works and is familiar). I've only seen one instance of a group of high level people playing with a low level person, and this was two years ago. I don't see any reason to give players or characters any more treasure just because they stood behind a level 15 as he power-attacks his way to greatness. They shouldn't even be at the table, and thanks to the new LGCS, they can't be. Furthermore, I have NEVER presured ANYONE into taking half exp and gold from a mod. In fact, I abhor it and try my best to make it not happen. But, in the same token, I will not let people be pulled from tables that they wanted to play just so something is balanced. There is always a way to work things in a convention or gameday and these types of problems shouldn't happen. Reason I feel strongly about this is that I am CONSTANLY being pulled from tables I want to play by my convention organizers and being put into odd APLs where I have to take half exp and gold just so their gaming friends can have a balanced table. *growls a bit* But no matter how stupid I think this is, it's not the APL systems fault. The system is just fine the way it is written and intended. It's the people using and enforing it that are the problem.
magebeast 03-20-07, 01:34 PM	You're still reading it wrong. You get the reward based on your "character level range" or on your "mod level range" - whichever of the two is lower. So a 2nd level character can play up to in an APL 10 mod, but he still gets APL 2 rewards. An 8th level character playing an APL 4 mod gets APL 4 rewards because that's the challenge level he played at - even though he's capable, potentially, of getting APL 8 rewards. Only if he plays APL 8.
Mattastrophic 03-20-07, 01:40 PM	You're missing a key point here, Crystal. Rewards received = Tier played OR character level, whichever is lower. James, you probably know by now that I've been a proponent of an identical system for quite awhile. It's so simple it's beautiful. The only potential problem I can foresee with leaving tier choice in the hands of the players is exactly that, it's up to the players. I can foresee people getting screwed out of a game at a tier that's fun for them because a couple other party members enjoy playing down, or the opposite where a lower-level is dragged upwards because a couple other party members enjoy playing up. However, that's exactly what would happen... in the short term. In the long term, as you've said, social pressures will fix it. It'll be a drag for a couple of months, but then everything will work out quite well. -Matt
echoota 03-20-07, 01:58 PM	I like it. For myself I feel it's really important to accomodate a group of players needs rather than a system of challenges. It seems most of you play at cons, I've only played 5% of my mods at cons, the rest are at home or at the local store (which in tone and regularity is essentially a home game) and it's here that I want our needs catered for. The problem is that you have new people coming into the group or you have a friend coming in from out of town who hasn't played much, and the end result is that you can't run the game and have everyone particpate. I have to stress that point, it isn't some con situation where you have more or less a bunch of strangers, instead it's a bunch of friends playing together. The DM has a 6+ APL mod ready and you want everyone to be able to particpate because it's FUN for everyone to be involved, it's not FUN to cancel the game or have someone sit out. We aren't chess masters wanting some "challenging" experience, instead we want to roleplay and fight some monsters. If the fight isn't tweaked perfectly to give some probable expenditure of player resources then so be it, it ain't a big deal. The important thing is that friends were able to get together and play. This system would address that. It would allow newer players to jump in games, knowing it might be above their heads, but no big deal as long as they know what is up. It lets people play more LG, get involved in it easier and want to come back for more. Not because it was mathematically perfect, but because it's a fun community of people to be involved in.
DroidTrooper 03-20-07, 02:30 PM	You really have to look at the extremes. What your rules are suggesting, is that 15th level character can adventure with 3 level 1 characters at APL2. That really takes all of the challenge out of it. Yes that's an extreme example. But even a 13th level character playing down to APL 8 is a huge advantage. In essence, you can turn every single mod into a cakewalk. And if you make these the official rules, then you really have no means/justification to turn the 12+ level character away.
Mattastrophic 03-20-07, 02:40 PM	The beauty of the fix is that it would allow us to sit back and relax instead of worrying about APLs and getting the right amount of rewards. Let's say that L15 sat down with some L1-2s. Maybe he's a famous Bard that the L1 sorceress gets butterflies over. Maybe he's a powerful Wizard whom the L2 Wizard can look up to. Maybe he's a mighty, heroic Fighter, one of those people whom the other characters look to when great deeds are necessary. Or in my case, at the end of the month my significant other's L3 Bard/Rogue gets to play with my primary L14 Virtuoso at an interactive; how cool is that? All of these scenarios can potentially be a lot of fun. What you're missing is that a fix in the APL system will relax the game so that we the players can have the game we want as opposed to the game the rules dictate to us. A relaxed APL system will lead to a relaxed mentality. Doubly so if we remove TUs, so there's no rush to race towards higher rewards. If there weren't TUs, why would we care how quickly we advance? And thus, why would we care about getting max rewards on each AR? You're looking at the smoke, DruidTrooper. With a relaxed tiering system, there would be no fire. It's a paradigm shift, really. And a good one. This APL fix focuses on player enjoyment, not player control. And that's why it's awesome! -Matt
kenobi65 03-20-07, 03:03 PM	Doubly so if we remove TUs, so there's no rush to race towards higher rewards. If there weren't TUs, why would we care how quickly we advance? I think you've got a different view of the need for TUs than some (including, likely, the Circle). It sounds like you, currently, want to make sure you spend every TU, every year. TUs are a limiter that put the brakes on "racing towards higher rewards". Without TUs, someone with the time and budget to travel a bit (or who lives near several regions) could easily take one PC from 1st to 10th or higher in a year; that seems to be a scenario that the Circle doesn't want to encourage. In addition, TUs serve as an "opportunity cost", for things like metaorgs, crafting, additional rewards / penalties in modules, etc. Removing the TU system would likely require reworking of those systems, as well.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-20-07, 03:03 PM	The beauty of the fix is that it would allow us to sit back and relax instead of worrying about APLs and getting the right amount of rewards. Let's say that L15 sat down with some L1-2s. Maybe he's a famous Bard that the L1 sorceress gets butterflies over. Maybe he's a powerful Wizard whom the L2 Wizard can look up to. Maybe he's a mighty, heroic Fighter, one of those people whom the other characters look to when great deeds are necessary. Or in my case, at the end of the month my significant other's L3 Bard/Rogue gets to play with my primary L14 Virtuoso at an interactive; how cool is that? All of these scenarios can potentially be a lot of fun. What you're missing is that a fix in the APL system will relax the game so that we the players can have the game we want as opposed to the game the rules dictate to us. A relaxed APL system will lead to a relaxed mentality. Doubly so if we remove TUs, so there's no rush to race towards higher rewards. If there weren't TUs, why would we care how quickly we advance? And thus, why would we care about getting max rewards on each AR? You're looking at the smoke, DruidTrooper. With a relaxed tiering system, there would be no fire. It's a paradigm shift, really. And a good one. This APL fix focuses on player enjoyment, not player control. And that's why it's awesome! -Matt I don't think the campaign could function if it got that relaxed. The TU system definately has to remain in place to keep an element of realism and timeline in the campaign. It makes sense that a character can only do so much adventuring in a year. With leaving APL up to player choice, there will be more chances for tables to form, but in all likelihood less tables will want to form because you never know what levels you could end up playing with. The current APL system creates a level of reliability for players. You have a pretty good idea of the level of players you can expect to play with, and therefore have a good idea of what will be expected of you and what you can expect of others. With APL up to the players, a 10th level character never knows whether he'll be laughing at APL 2 or fighting for his life at APL 16. Leaving the apl up to the players also opens things up for table arguments, whereas the current system leaves almost no choice (except when the average works out odd, and then it's limited to 2 options), and therefore leaves no room for argument. If you want to use a level 2 character with a bunch of 10th level PCs, and the APL works out to be 8-10, you either accept the risk, play a different character, or play a different mod.
Mattastrophic 03-20-07, 04:08 PM	The TU system definately has to remain in place to keep an element of realism and timeline in the campaign. It makes sense that a character can only do so much adventuring in a year. The TU system has become anything but realistic. We have scenarios in which days are counted (Red Hand of Doom) that miraculously take up 51 weeks. Realistic? No way. Necessary? Not anymore. To Kenobi's comment: What does it matter if someone goes from 1st-14th in one real-life year? Would it really rob you of your own fun if someone played his character as often as he'd like? Also, I'm not concerned with using all my TUs every year; I feel very restrained by the fact that my play of characters of my choice is limited in the first place. But anyways... the point of a change would be to place the fun in the hands of the players, not in the campaign rules. More tables will form, because the campaign will take on a "so what if I play up/down today?" quality. Removing TUs, and thus any rush for XP/GP, will relax the game and make it more fun, since we won't care about how quickly we advance, since we can always play another module. Also, when weighing pros and cons, isn't it best to choose the option that leads to more tables and thus more fun? -Matt
kenobi65 03-20-07, 04:14 PM	To Kenobi's comment: What does it matter if someone goes from 1st-14th in one real-life year? Would it really rob you of your own fun if someone played his character as often as he'd like? It doesn't matter to *me*. As I said, it appears to be something that the campaign administration has decided they don't want. Removing TUs, and thus any rush for XP/GP, will relax the game and make it more fun This is twice now that you've asserted this. Can you please explain how you believe removing TUs would remove the "rush for XP/GP"? Maybe I'm just thick-skulled, but I honestly don't see how one leads to the other. In fact, I could easily foresee how removing TUs would increase that rush, since there's nothing stopping players from playing the same PC as much as they can. Also, when weighing pros and cons, isn't it best to choose the option that leads to more tables and thus more fun? I think that's one good criterion. I don't think it's the only one. I think "as little ambiguity as possible" is another good criterion.
Mattastrophic 03-20-07, 04:19 PM	Can you please explain how you believe removing TUs would remove the "rush for XP/GP"? Maybe I'm just thick-skulled, but I honestly don't see how one leads to the other. Twice is enough. Maybe in another thread. -Matt returns to the original topic now.
zigspatty 03-20-07, 04:34 PM	The current APL system creates a level of reliability for players. You have a pretty good idea of the level of players you can expect to play with, and therefore have a good idea of what will be expected of you and what you can expect of others. .. Leaving the apl up to the players also opens things up for table arguments, whereas the current system leaves almost no choice (except when the average works out odd, and then it's limited to 2 options), and therefore leaves no room for argument. If you want to use a level 2 character with a bunch of 10th level PCs, and the APL works out to be 8-10, you either accept the risk, play a different character, or play a different mod. And our current system DOESN'T open things up for table arguments??!! I guess you havn't experienced the "fun" of a heated debate about which characters should take half xp/gp because the mustering has 2 level 11's and 2 level 7's with a level 9 at the table. Which characters should be penalized for playing that mod? The clr11 because otherwise the table would have no healer? Or the ftr7 who'd be expected to fill the role of tank? No choice often means that people don't play or are unhappy with the limited choice they're given. Some mods are extremely challenging - why would it be so terrible for a table of 4 to play down to a lower APL for the lower APL rewards? Why would it be so terrible for the table of 4 rogues, a druid, and an archer (yes, I've seen that table) to play APL 6 when the numbers say they must play APL8 because there are 6 of them? And why would it be so terrible for that uber-cheesey table of players who've tweaked every advantage to play a higher tier even if they don't gain higher rewards? I think this is a terrific proposal. I'd like having the choice of APL more often. Patty
DroidTrooper 03-20-07, 05:31 PM	Playing up I really don't see any problem with. If a group of second level adventurers want to play APL 10 go for it. The issue at hand is playing down. And I don't mean playing down one APL step. I would be perfectly fine with let the party decide between the average APL of the table, or APL +2 or -2. Heck I'd perfer if mods came broken down to individual levels. The biggest technical problem with your suggestion is the awarding of experience. The experience would really need to be altered a great deal. A 15th level character encountering 3 APL 4 encounters probably is not going to generate APL 4 level experience. The encounters simply would not be any challenge at all. And thus the XP for overcoming those encounters would need to be adjusted substantially. The biggest enjoyment level is that people stop contributing to the success of the party. If a single character can walk through every encounter, then what are the rest of the characters going to be doing. I see this happen all the time with party spreads of 4 and 5 levels. To widen the Gap to an unlimited number of levels is not going to improve the situation.
solbergb 03-20-07, 06:28 PM	On the TU thing - TU's actually encourage having characters across APL ranges, making it easier to to form tables and of course, giving newbies somebody to play with. The lack of a TU concept reportedly lead to a fairly poisonous thing in Living City where nobody ever wanted to play anything but one character. The TU thing has nothing to do with the APL system anyway. Have another thread for that, I'd come down solidly in favor of TU's. It's a good mechanic, even if some aspects of it are weird (modules where you travel for a month that only take 1 TU, battle interactives and adaptables where the action takes place over days, but consumes weeks or months of TU time). Those things even out, barring anomolies like RHOD. Regarding the rewards thing - I actually proposed something very similar as a solution to the "baby chars playing up and getting vastly rich" issue, but the current half gp/xp won out because it was simpler, especially in the case of modules that don't cover all APL ranges and don't give full xp/gold for whatever reason. Imagine the case of an APL8 minimum module that is played by a level 2, where the party earns 976 xp and 1105gp. Prorating that for the APL2 (or APL4...the max he could play and get full reawards) is awkward. Regarding the table choosing the APL, the idea has some appeal, but it needs some kind of check/balance. Like if the table is playing too far from calculated APL it requires every single player to agree or something. The potential for bullying is even higher here than in a system where you're forced to play one of two APL's at all times.
Grantor 03-20-07, 07:15 PM	It seems to me that the Circle and the adminstrators of the RPGA want to avoid a few things: People playing their character endlessly. (example; change in multiclass penalty rule) Characters going through modules with no risk because the EL of the encounters is below their character level. (Playing down) Characters facing no risk because the challenge is completely met by one or more higher level characters. (Playing with a character four levels higher than APL) Not only does the 'Table chooses the encounter range' system fail to address these requirements of the campaign, it actually circumvents many of them. Also, giving AR access is as much of a reward as the XP/GP awards. Aside from scaling the magic items by the APL, there is no reward vs. risk system for awarding special accesses. That could be a problem with the 'Table chooses the encounter range' system. Also, there is absolutely no incentive to play up, since it is impossible to get rewards equal to the risk if rewards are capped by your level. In fact, with the higher risk of character death (without the funds to pay for it from your small reward), there is a strong disincentive to join players that are desiring a higher APL table. This system also increases the possible list of choices from perhaps two, up to definitely six. With each player having a vested interest in the level that matches their character's level. Regardless of the cooperation or acrimony that might result, the biggest result is that mustering is going to take much more time out of the four hour gaming block as the players negotiate. On a side note: There are some players out there that need to be in the spotlight. They have a pathelogical need to have other players (and perhaps the DM) be impressed with the capabilities of their characters, with the cunning decisions made if creating the character build. I personally do not want to feed that false-esteem by allowing high level characters to play with low level characters. It's not fun for anyone except the attension craving player. Even the DM's tend to be disgusted by it; and what happens if we scare off the DMs...then it doesn't matter whether a table can form or not, there is no one to run the game. In fact, shouldn't it be slightly more important to determine what the DM's want to run? These people are the ones that are often given the fewest choices, but are the most critical to all seven of the people at the table having fun. No XP, GP, or ARs for the DM, just the fun of playing. Dare you risk tampering with that?
clannagh 03-20-07, 07:42 PM	On a side note: There are some players out there that need to be in the spotlight. They have a pathelogical need to have other players (and perhaps the DM) be impressed with the capabilities of their characters, with the cunning decisions made if creating the character build. I personally do not want to feed that false-esteem by allowing high level characters to play with low level characters. It's not fun for anyone except the attension craving player. Even the DM's tend to be disgusted by it; and what happens if we scare off the DMs...then it doesn't matter whether a table can form or not, there is no one to run the game. Indeed .. in addition this sort of player also tends to be very pushy out of game and is highly likely to attempt to bully the rest of the table into playing his preferred APL. At least under the current system the best they can manage is to bully other players into taking alternate PC's.
Sieylianna 03-20-07, 08:31 PM	The biggest enjoyment level is that people stop contributing to the success of the party. If a single character can walk through every encounter, then what are the rest of the characters going to be doing. I see this happen all the time with party spreads of 4 and 5 levels. To widen the Gap to an unlimited number of levels is not going to improve the situation. I don't think this would be an issue. The type of person who would lord it over the lower levels is going to make every effort to play at as high of possible of APL to maximize his XP. If you're really concerned about someone wanting to get less XP, so he can play longer, then let's tie retirement to number of AR's. That fixes all the possible problems with trying to delay retirement. Each PC is allowed ~125 adventure AR's. That's it. Ed
JamesMaissen 03-20-07, 09:02 PM	It seems to me that the Circle and the adminstrators of the RPGA want to avoid a few things: People playing their character endlessly. (example; change in multiclass penalty rule) Characters going through modules with no risk because the EL of the encounters is below their character level. (Playing down) Characters facing no risk because the challenge is completely met by one or more higher level characters. (Playing with a character four levels higher than APL) Not only does the 'Table chooses the encounter range' system fail to address these requirements of the campaign, it actually circumvents many of them. First of all, as Brad's already said the TU issue is NOT part of this thread. So if people wish to discuss it, please start another thread. Secondly, if people wish to always 'play down' and duck and cover from challenge, what really is the harm in them doing so? What are they getting away with in the end? Let the community excert its own pressures on them, or simply allow them to be able to contribute at the level of their own. Most players that wish to always play down, wish to do so for a reason and typically are just as effective at the lower levels as those that wish to play at higher levels are at those higher levels. It lets each find their own respective challenge level. As to any difficulties of figuring out what APL 2 rewards should be for a 10-14 APL module.. I think the rewards are, now, completely standardized. APL 2 gives 450xp and 450gp for each TU played. When modules did vary in rewards perhaps this was a stumbling block, but it isn't any longer. A table could be put in boilerplates for mods that could list xp and gold based on tier/APL/etc. It is not a challenge, and requires even less effort than determining APL and dividing rewards. As to the last issue: Take a table with an 8th level, a 7th level, and four 3rd level characters. They have 27 total levels and are APL 6 by the current system. Now imagine that the 8th and 7th level characters are less than optimal characters. What do you think their chances are of doing well and being properly challenged? Sure giving players choices has it's risks. But since the current system doesn't mind denying players the ability to play the character they wish based on the rest of the table, aren't there other solutions that fully address all the issues? -James
DroidTrooper 03-20-07, 10:47 PM	As to any difficulties of figuring out what APL 2 rewards should be for a 10-14 APL module.. I think the rewards are, now, completely standardized. APL 2 gives 450xp and 450gp for each TU played. When modules did vary in rewards perhaps this was a stumbling block, but it isn't any longer. A table could be put in boilerplates for mods that could list xp and gold based on tier/APL/etc. It is not a challenge, and requires even less effort than determining APL and dividing rewards. First, I don't believe Gold/Exp rewards have been standardized. I might be wrong as I don't have any year 7 mods under my belt with caps other than the standards. But I have more than a half dozen year 6 mods that gave out less XP or Gold per adventure then the standard maximum caps. If you refer to table 2-6 in the DMG you'll notice there is a system of diminishing returns for experience. Meaning the more powerful the characters the less experience he gets from resolving an encounter. In LG the take the average party level to generate the approximent experience that would be earned. However in your system you that number and could well be rewarding many times over the recommended amount. For example, a group of 5, 5th level character overcome a CR5 creature. They should net about 300 experience each. Where as a part of 5, 10th level character overcoming a CR5 creature would only net about 100 experience each. By the end of the adventure the level 10 party is not going to have earned enough experience to reach the cap unless there was an awful lot of overcap going on. Yes it could be resolved with simple book keeping and tables listing every possible player level and what experience they should be getting at each APL encounter level, but its more paperwork for the authors/editors to be sure. Let the community excert its own pressures on them, or simply allow them to be able to contribute at the level of their own. I think this is counter to the RPGA idea of "Allowing for such a massive play experience requires us to make a lot of decisions to about how games, events, and people work together while maintaining a fair and consistent experience world wide. " D&D is not well set up to have partys of vastly diverse levels. The authors don't write expecting to be faced with vastly differing player levels. And such an idea would make it vastly more difficult for an outsider to the community to know what to expect when coming in.
zigspatty 03-21-07, 01:23 AM	D&D is not well set up to have partys of vastly diverse levels. The authors don't write expecting to be faced with vastly differing player levels. D&D is set up to deal with balanced parties, and yet it happens quite frequently that LG parties set off on an adventure without one or more of the iconic roles. A solid APL 6 party could be in for a heap of trouble if they venture into a mod filled with undead without a cleric or a trap-filled dungeon and no rogue. Fighting golems and animated objects with a party of archers and rogues is a far greater challenge than the numbers indicate. PCs that have died & lost everything are less effective than their numbers would indicate. Even just expanding the choice of APLs by a little bit would be helpful. Sometimes a 9.6 APL group would much rather play APL8 for lower rewards than face certain death at APL 10 in a tough mod with an unbalanced party. Patty
pneumatik 03-21-07, 08:51 AM	And our current system DOESN'T open things up for table arguments??!! I guess you havn't experienced the "fun" of a heated debate about which characters should take half xp/gp because the mustering has 2 level 11's and 2 level 7's with a level 9 at the table. Which characters should be penalized for playing that mod? The clr11 because otherwise the table would have no healer? Or the ftr7 who'd be expected to fill the role of tank? Patty So consider the situation you mention under the proposed system by the OP. No matter what, the two level 7s will get APL 8 rewards. The two 11s want to get APL 12 rewards. The players of the two 7s will have no incentive to play APL 10 or APL 12, since they'd still get APL 8 rewards. So instead of having an argument over who takes half xp/gp, they argue over what's more important: the level 11s getting the most rewards or the two level 7s not getting crushed. There's still no good answer. The problem is the characters at the table, not the system. I don't think D&D has a good way to handle a table of 7,7,11,11 for a pre-written adventure.
Lupo 03-21-07, 09:03 AM	D&D is set up to deal with balanced parties, and yet it happens quite frequently that LG parties set off on an adventure without one or more of the iconic roles. A solid APL 6 party could be in for a heap of trouble if they venture into a mod filled with undead without a cleric or a trap-filled dungeon and no rogue. Fighting golems and animated objects with a party of archers and rogues is a far greater challenge than the numbers indicate. PCs that have died & lost everything are less effective than their numbers would indicate. Even just expanding the choice of APLs by a little bit would be helpful. Sometimes a 9.6 APL group would much rather play APL8 for lower rewards than face certain death at APL 10 in a tough mod with an unbalanced party. Patty then the dm should kindly "advice" to go down one APL level, by switching a level 10 character for a level 6 or 7. but often one has no foresight what will happen. if players press the table for playing up, they get what they deserve. anytime i end up at a borderline table (as player AND dm) "just" forced to play the higher tier, i check whether the players are experienced, their characters are durable and able to do their trick well and the characters are "fitting" to each other. last weekend con a very balanced party was minced at APL 6 ALTHOUGH their party mustering was quite solid, it was just some unlucky combinations of banned schools, non-optimal player experience, bad foes for the party and VERY LUCKY dice for the dm :(. the same adventure with APL 4 (the table i was playing, also solid mustering but nothing ueber powerfull) had a great time, were moderately challenged in the last fight and went out shining - ok, until we had to make a moral decision for the outcome of the module ;) - paladins are poor souls :P ciao martin m. ps: overall, i am quite content with the momentary APL system, most of the time it works out fine with some common sense of players and dms.
GrahamWills 03-21-07, 10:28 AM	I have played in several Frankenparties, and, in my experience, they were significantly less fun. If you have a character who can solo monsters the module assumes the party will have difficulty handling, then, unless you are a *really nice guy*, the game will be no fun for the others. I mean, we're talking D&D here -- the focus of the game is on combat. It's an enhanced tactical miniatures games with 75% of the rules based on combat. If we are talking interactives, or if we were talking a more roleplaying system, yeah, it might work. But the situation is that if one person is better at combat than any two others, then MOST MODULES will not be fun to play for the others. Of course, this is not limited to levels. I've played a monk (not exactly the power-gamer's go-to choice) in mods where every encounter had a perfect grappling target. It makes it less fun for the archer and melee specialist to say "don't even bother with combat. I'll auto-grapple and down him in a minute. Why not make tea while you wait?" That's bad mod writing, but there is no way to avoid that situation with mixed-APL parties. I am running RHOD and, if I had a mixed level party, it would be unplayable. It would be too dangerous for the high-levels to pull their punches. And if the low levels try and join in, then to play the NPCs correctly, I will kill the low levels. Absolutely certainly. A group of 3,3, 6,9,9 will see the threes dead in every mod, or they will hide and the two nines will take out the opposition. Yes, I can pull weenie tactics and have highly intelligent, battle-trained committed combatants decide for some strange reason to concentrate on the high levels. Yes, I could roll dice behind a screen and have empowered scorching rays roll 8d6 * 1.5 and come up with 20 points of damage. Sure, I can just lose a few combatants here and there and let the party steamroll the combats and stress the RP aspects. But that's not the game. The game stresses combat, it stresses teams working together and it stresses challenges. The current APL system supports that by effectively forcing groups to be close in level. Breaking the system to fix the relatively few cases where it screws over people seems a poor choice. Sure, bright and friendly people will make the proposed change work, but then since they already make the current system work, why change?
Mattastrophic 03-21-07, 10:48 AM	Changing gears here... Setting aside the "15th playing with 2nds" bit, as I notice it's all a bunch of complaints about a high-level playing down. Low-levels playing up cause the same trouble, you know... What about allowing tables to choose their APL? Personally, I believe it would be wonderful to let a table choose the APL they want. -Matt
kenobi65 03-21-07, 11:01 AM	Setting aside the "15th playing with 2nds" bit, as I notice it's all a bunch of complaints about a high-level playing down. Low-levels playing up cause the same trouble, you know... Well, they cause trouble; I'm not sure that I'd say they cause "the same trouble." While a low-level playing up might pull the APL down a bit, mostly the issue becomes that most low-level PCs aren't going to be able to do much of anything productive, especially in combat (and, even less so if they get killed). Sure, you can probably come up with examples of a low-level cleric helping heal other party members or something, but, largely, I'd expect a low-level PC to be "along for the ride". At a minimum, they won't contribute; worst-case, other PCs could end up putting themselves in jeopardy trying to protect the "squishy."
Mattastrophic 03-21-07, 11:07 AM	At a minimum, they won't contribute; worst-case, other PCs could end up putting themselves in jeopardy trying to protect the "squishy." Or they could drop the APL away from what the rest of the table is after, or even kick someone out of the table by averages... my side-rant here is that I'm getting sick of "YOU have to change characters," "YOU'RE a jerk because you want to play your character," and "YOU are going to spoil our fun," attitude being put on those of us with high-levels and enjoy playing them though storylines and in modules whose subjects cater to us. But again, setting it aside... giving a table the ability to set their own challenge level based on what they have in front of them would be wonderful. A tricked-out crew could play up solely for additional challenge, ("Hard Mode,") while a weak table could elect to play down for survivability. -Matt
Grantor 03-21-07, 12:41 PM	I don't think the APL system is broken. What I am hearing, instead, are attempts to solve this problem: I want to play my high/low level character when I choose to and not have to deal with table politics. There are other solutions that have not been proposed on this forum: Write modules in bands of APLs, such that high level characters and low level characters cannot mix (current bands of APL used are generally 2-10 and 8-14, with many core mods written as 2-16) Only allow characters to play within a certain band of APLs (the APL +4 level rule currently used by the RPGA) Penalize players that drift from playing in the "approriate" APL through XP/GP penalties (currently used by the RPGA) Force mandatory retirement on very high level characters (current retirement is at level 16) Can we come up with unique solutions that do not create table politics for either the low level guy or the high level guy, in addition to the ones that the RPGA uses? I haven't read any yet that don't cause problems for either the bottom or the top of the totem pole.
Grantor 03-21-07, 12:44 PM	First of all, as Brad's already said the TU issue is NOT part of this thread. So if people wish to discuss it, please start another thread. -James Just to clarify, there was no intended reference to TUs in my posting. When refering to playing your character "forever" I was refering to playing adventures with no or low xp in order to prevent your character from reaching mandatory retirement.
CrystalBlue 03-21-07, 01:15 PM	I don't think the APL system is broken. What I am hearing, instead, are attempts to solve this problem: I want to play my high/low level character when I choose to and not have to deal with table politics. There are other solutions that have not been proposed on this forum: Write modules in bands of APLs, such that high level characters and low level characters cannot mix (current bands of APL used are generally 2-10 and 8-14, with many core mods written as 2-16) Only allow characters to play within a certain band of APLs (the APL +4 level rule currently used by the RPGA) Penalize players that drift from playing in the "approriate" APL through XP/GP penalties (currently used by the RPGA) Force mandatory retirement on very high level characters (current retirement is at level 16) Can we come up with unique solutions that do not create table politics for either the low level guy or the high level guy, in addition to the ones that the RPGA uses? I haven't read any yet that don't cause problems for either the bottom or the top of the totem pole. Actually, I think this is the way many mod writters and Triads are trying to turn now. If you look at Highfolk, Year 5 started a story arc with Twilight. Twilight was an APL 2 mod. Anyone wanting to play the storyline through to it's most effectiveness would have to start a new or reletively new character in Twilight and play most year 6 mods with that character. I think there is only one mod this year, Column of Five, that is intened for APL 10+. But we can't all rely on the writers do do this for us. They can only do so much. We have to come to games with our prefered character and, at mustering, try to find players with similar character levels in that storyline. And for the love of all that is good and righteous...stop kicking people off of tables or making them play other characters. This really bugs the hell out of me.
Mattastrophic 03-21-07, 03:06 PM	And for the love of all that is good and righteous...stop kicking people off of tables or making them play other characters. This really bugs the hell out of me. PREACH IT, BROTHER! -Matt
Mommy was an Orc 03-21-07, 03:27 PM	Can we come up with unique solutions that do not create table politics for either the low level guy or the high level guy, in addition to the ones that the RPGA uses? I haven't read any yet that don't cause problems for either the bottom or the top of the totem pole. If you know you have to play a particular mod with character x, apl y, and slot z, go to the internet groups most likely to have a large number of people going to a particular game day. Politely post what you want well beforehand. See if you can form a table. Once you have a table, email the game coordinator(again, politely) and ask if they can help you out with this. It doesn't matter if the game day premusters or not. You show up with a group of 5 'friends' and they'll generally sit you at a table unless something particularly strange is going on. And the game coordinators will be happier because instead of you being the problem player, you'll be the guy who helped things work.
rutrow424 03-21-07, 04:55 PM	PREACH IT, BROTHER! -Matt This idea that we need to change the existing APL rules as expoused in this thread (and the APL +3 threads) to prevent people being kicked off tables or made to play different PCs than they desire simply floors me. These threads support turning the policing of table composition and APLs into the hands of the players (via peer pressure and player freedom) instead of codified campaign and RPGA rules; many of the same people who support these concepts are the ones complaining about being screwed over during mustering by their fellow players! I think we all agree that in a perfect world we all would get to play every mod when we want, with the PC we want, and with a nice group of fellow gamers who will do their utmost to accomodate everyone's needs and desires. Anyone who would compose a table to keep a player from participating is a jerk and should be called out for it. However, it is not anyone's right to play any mod with any PC. For these new proposals to work, EVERYONE has to be willing to not play under an optimal situation for his or her own self for the good of the group. They apparently are not willing to do so now, and no reasonable argument has been given to satisfy why new or often fewer ("simpler") codified rules would improve anything. I would fully support a rule that would allow a table to play down an APL for fewer rewards; I have been in several instances where that would have been prudent given the table composition (no tank, no arcane caster, cohort cleric for a 5th PC). But I also have not enjoyed in general the situations where a PC played down from +4 levels, and I have been on both sides. A lower level PC playing up causes different issues than one playing down; both should be avoided if at all possible, including players willing to use "backup" or incorrect PCs. James' suggestion does not fix any ills that he claims it does other than possibly simplification. I have always had a bigger problem with Sunday Con slots getting eliminated because all the players play the mods in question during Midnight Madness. I do not have much sympathy for anyone who accepted not playing because they could not use their preferred PCs, then complains about it when they did have the option to play with a different PC, but opted against it. If you are determined to play X mod with Y PC, then you need to be prepared in a random Con or Gameday muster that you may have problems.
MatteBlack 03-21-07, 05:50 PM	I am of the belief that playing a character too high over the adventure's APL either leaves you with the "one man show syndrome" where one character dominates and may suck the fun out of the adventure or creates a situation where players bolstered by the higher level character don't get the real challenge and fear of defeat because their "big brother" can always step in and take care of big problems. Cut it anyway you like but, high level characters playing down is the majority of the problem. The current way tends to favor the low level character (I agree with this philosophy) while other might favor the higher level player. What is lacking currently is a way for all players to play the character they want in a given adventure. Instead of adjusting the tables, why not adjust the players? There are several ways a player could end up with negative levels. Why not allow them to suffer a temporary level handicap in order to play at an appropriate level? The only adjustment I would imagine needed is to bring items in line with the new lower level. Explain it as a random undead attack that you are healing from and waiting to recover your lost items. After the adventure, "poof" your all better. This allows players the flexibility they want to get on adventures they "need" while protecting the challenge and enjoyment of the adventures. If this would create a break, i am not aware of it. Lee
Mattastrophic 03-21-07, 06:15 PM	--
Madfox11 03-22-07, 08:23 AM	However, that's exactly what would happen... in the short term. In the long term, as you've said, social pressures will fix it. It'll be a drag for a couple of months, but then everything will work out quite well. If social pressure would work, there would be no problem in the first place because people will switch out characters and tables without a problem. The fact is that social pressure is non-existent in the bigger conventions, and not even very effective in the smaller conventions. Besides, jerks (whether the person is a jerk on purpose, due to lack in social skills and/or insenstiveness to social signs) don't care that much about social pressure, while the more social players are and hence are actually less likely to force the issue. I know local players with a less than perfect record who still get games easily simply because the others do not want to send away one single player at a convention or gameday (although these players are rarely invited for home-games). One thing though to keep in mind while discussing this (and it is an interesting discussion) is that we have to follow the core rules more or less. The core rules say that a character gets experience based on the challenge, and hence we cannot give a person less xp if they face a bigger challenge - although we can change the amount of xp per challenge. It is the whole reason the 1/2xp,1/2gp rule was made in the first place (well... the gp rule was added after complaints about low level characters lifting on high APL games and getting a huge amount of treasure).
pneumatik 03-22-07, 09:43 AM	If you know you have to play a particular mod with character x, apl y, and slot z, go to the internet groups most likely to have a large number of people going to a particular game day. Politely post what you want well beforehand. See if you can form a table. Once you have a table, email the game coordinator(again, politely) and ask if they can help you out with this. MwaO said pretty much what I was thinking. If it's important for you to play a particular character in a particular mod, it's your responsibility to muster the table and, in some cases, the judge and the event. Don't go to a con expecting to be able to choose which PC to play in which mod. Sometimes it just doesn't work out.
amnuxoll 03-22-07, 10:04 AM	I am with James 100% on this one. The APL system often forces folks to play D&D in a manner they don't prefer.
MatteBlack 03-22-07, 10:28 AM	MwaO said pretty much what I was thinking. If it's important for you to play a particular character in a particular mod, it's your responsibility to muster the table and, in some cases, the judge and the event. Don't go to a con expecting to be able to choose which PC to play in which mod. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. I agree with the concept that you need to be proactive to better insure the type of group you'd like for a mod. I suggest it highly but, I wonder what percentage of those complaining are those who have "earned" the aforementioned social pressure and can't find willing party members because of past acts? Along side with arranging the right mod, we all need to pay attention to how easy we and our characters may be to work with. Lee
gomeztoo 03-22-07, 11:40 AM	The main problem with this system is that the 'bullying people so I don't get half xp' may turn into 'bullying people so I can play as high as possible'. I already had issues with a player who wanted the rest of the table (against their wishes) to play up to a higher APl than originally scheduled. So it doens't solve a problem, it just moves it.
Lupo 03-22-07, 12:23 PM	The main problem with this system is that the 'bullying people so I don't get half xp' may turn into 'bullying people so I can play as high as possible'. I already had issues with a player who wanted the rest of the table (against their wishes) to play up to a higher APl than originally scheduled. So it doens't solve a problem, it just moves it. as a DM i would NEVER let a table play up when a player of a low level character isn't fine with it, period. the low level player is the one who runs the highest risk of getting smashed, so he has the final word. anything like "bullying" a player of a low level character is going to get me "annoyed" at least with the player doing it. ciao martin m.
Samwise 03-22-07, 03:12 PM	Any rules for mustering will "penalize" people by not letting them play, or "force" them to play in a way they don't want to. Some want to play with more than six. Some want to play with less than four. Some want to play up without limit. Some want to play down without limit. Some want access to every adventure with every character. Some want access to adventures multiple times. No matter how you phrase it, in the end it comes down to either having rules about how the adventures can be played or not having any rules at all because there will always be someone who can't play or can't play the character they want to play for some reason. We need some rules. The current ones work for me.
JamesMaissen 03-22-07, 05:10 PM	One thing though to keep in mind while discussing this (and it is an interesting discussion) is that we have to follow the core rules more or less. The core rules say that a character gets experience based on the challenge, and hence we cannot give a person less xp if they face a bigger challenge - although we can change the amount of xp per challenge. It is the whole reason the 1/2xp,1/2gp rule was made in the first place (well... the gp rule was added after complaints about low level characters lifting on high APL games and getting a huge amount of treasure). So are you saying that characters don't get less xp for playing up now? Or am I missreading this? Also how is this consistant with awards for interactives? I try to respect that the circle gets painted into corners in some places, but I am not understanding it in this case. -James
Japangirl 03-22-07, 05:56 PM	as a DM i would NEVER let a table play up when a player of a low level character isn't fine with it, period. the low level player is the one who runs the highest risk of getting smashed, so he has the final word. anything like "bullying" a player of a low level character is going to get me "annoyed" at least with the player doing it. ciao martin m. But is it somehow OK for a low-level character to insist that a higher level one take 1/2 gold and xp to satisfy their urge to play this particular mod right now with this character, especially if they have a higher one? Bullying is bullying, whether from a high or low level character, and I've seen both. Low level people in my experience* seem to be whinier about tables even though low level tables are far easier to muster and get games for. Smashing combats without challenge isn't any more fun than risking dying by being squishy. *Disclaimer added for protecting my own heinie purposes. This may vary for other people.
Lupo 03-22-07, 08:49 PM	But is it somehow OK for a low-level character to insist that a higher level one take 1/2 gold and xp to satisfy their urge to play this particular mod right now with this character, especially if they have a higher one? Bullying is bullying, whether from a high or low level character, and I've seen both. Low level people in my experience* seem to be whinier about tables even though low level tables are far easier to muster and get games for. Smashing combats without challenge isn't any more fun than risking dying by being squishy. *Disclaimer added for protecting my own heinie purposes. This may vary for other people. let's see, this can happen with one of the following: level 3, level 4, level 5, level 6 and level 7 or a similar distribution where the players have a choice and ANY choice would allow all players to play. (please let's not look at pushing one character actually OUT from playing that is a different cup of tea). a lot of modules would probably kill not only the level three character but also endanger the level 4 character when played at APL 6 because the whole group has to allocate resources to keep the low level alive. and a single level 7 or even two level 7 characters are not strong enough to protect the low ones at APL 6, they are just one level ahead of the APL (nerds who tell players of low characters at such a level distribution "i will protect you against everything" are seldom capable of actually doing this :weep: ) an experienced player with several characters - at least one fitting for the table in place of the low one - and then doing the whining thingy would be different, maybe he is able to convince the table to play down, maybe not, and if you are the level 7 you only need to convince another player to leave the table . . . or you can find another player to irrevocably push the APL up . . . (buy some riding dog with every other player ;) is the nasty way, and ask the DM to include them into the calculation). maybe he really needs the adventure with exactly this character so maybe you should be nice. players who do this repeatedly without good reason and to the disadvantage of other players seldom get seats at the "good" tables after a short while ;). having the word about such players makes DMs not favorable for them . . . . and yes, DMs shouldn't be biased but on the other hand such players often try to pull grey area tricks as well . . . . ciao martin m.
thorinXXX 03-22-07, 10:22 PM	The main problem with this system is that the 'bullying people so I don't get half xp' may turn into 'bullying people so I can play as high as possible'. I already had issues with a player who wanted the rest of the table (against their wishes) to play up to a higher APl than originally scheduled. So it doens't solve a problem, it just moves it. I have had this happen with the current system. The player said either we play at this APL (he would not have had an XP penalty at the lower level) or I walk and break the table.
Madfox11 03-23-07, 06:39 AM	So are you saying that characters don't get less xp for playing up now? Or am I missreading this? No. That was added at the time, because the low level characters would on average add nothing to the table. They would not be challenged, because all they would do was running away. Mind you, these rules have been there long before I got involved with the Circle and very few people (including Triads) have complained about it. Also how is this consistant with awards for interactives? Interactives have the problem that they can be purely LARP with no threat of combat at all. They simply do not follow the standard rules because the core rules do not discuss LARPing. Note that the triad can choose to use traditional xp methods if the whole interactive consists of traditional adventures with no LARPing at all.
MatteBlack 03-23-07, 09:33 AM	Interactives have the problem that they can be purely LARP with no threat of combat at all. They simply do not follow the standard rules because the core rules do not discuss LARPing. Note that the triad can choose to use traditional xp methods if the whole interactive consists of traditional adventures with no LARPing at all. Forgive my inexperience here as I have been in very few interactives but what do you mean by "LARP"? I have played in a number of actual Live-action Roleplaying campaigns and what I have heard going on in some interactives sounds more like unstructured socially-oriented roleplay. Lee
JamesMaissen 03-23-07, 09:35 AM	No. That was added at the time, because the low level characters would on average add nothing to the table. They would not be challenged, because all they would do was running away. Mind you, these rules have been there long before I got involved with the Circle and very few people (including Triads) have complained about it. So I guess I didn't follow what your prior comment was trying to say. Are you saying that the Circle could not choose to implement such a system even should they so desire? Tabling for a second whether or not it is an improvement, is it allowable for the circle to choose? Assuming that it is, then wouldn't this better address the overpenalizing of a person playing up 3 levels (where at many tables they are just as contributing as the next person) and the underpenalizing the 2nd level at the APL 14 table (where 1/2 rewards are still ludicrous)? Now for the second part to my suggestion: letting the table decide the APL to be played, it is separate from the above, but also something that I think should be strongly considered. Many of the discussions here stem from missmatched tables, which objectively would be better served by playing down. It doesn't solve all of them by far, as I do not believe that anything will do within the framework of LG. However I do think it does address and ameliorate some of the factors I've laid out previously in this thread. -James
Madfox11 03-23-07, 10:20 AM	Are you saying that the Circle could not choose to implement such a system even should they so desire? In case of xp penalties for people playing above APL it is very unlikely we can change the system even if we would want to. Also note that xp and gp ratio is intrensically tied to game balance and in an unlineair fashion at that, limiting options in this regard even more. I know that a 2nd level character playing at APL 14 gets relative big amount of rewards, but right now the rules are relatively simple and streightforward. You could change them, but why make things more complicated just for a few extreme cases that are very likely to result in the death of the character anyway? I also sincerely doubt we are going to change the APL system since it will make table-forming even more difficult (like has been said: it makes bullying people even more effective and adds an additional discussion point to table mustering), and the challenge of an adventure for a particular group even more unpredictable. It is something though we could in theory change and I like following this discussion.
JamesMaissen 03-24-07, 08:08 AM	In case of xp penalties for people playing above APL it is very unlikely we can change the system even if we would want to. Also note that xp and gp ratio is intrensically tied to game balance and in an unlineair fashion at that, limiting options in this regard even more. I know that a 2nd level character playing at APL 14 gets relative big amount of rewards, but right now the rules are relatively simple and streightforward. You could change them, but why make things more complicated just for a few extreme cases that are very likely to result in the death of the character anyway? I also sincerely doubt we are going to change the APL system since it will make table-forming even more difficult (like has been said: it makes bullying people even more effective and adds an additional discussion point to table mustering), and the challenge of an adventure for a particular group even more unpredictable. It is something though we could in theory change and I like following this discussion. Well to the first comment: my suggestion actually makes players MORE tied to expected wealth than the current one does. In it you don't have the case where level 8 and 9 PCs decide between APL 8 and APL 10 with nearly a 1000gp difference between them. Rather unless you play down in APL you can expect to have certain totals in exp and gold. Secondly, other than the current system is the one we know I don't see it as any simpler in practice. You look at a chart and you look up the lower of the level played and the level of the character. You don't need to calculate APL for the party, factor in animals, nor compute 1/2 rewards. Now I'm not sure how it would affect bullying tables. But atleast it removes the external factor of some people getting half rewards that frequently conflicts with group expectation of it's abilities to handle different APLs. Some conflict, alas, is always going to happen in the worse cases and I don't think that one can legislate good behavior instead that needs to be handled by social pressures. Bad apples will be resistant to such, but it is community pressure rather than individual or legislated rules that is the only thing that can bring that in line. -James PS: Just as a note I've toyed with the idea of illustrating the problem inherent in 1/2 rewards by making a newbie, playng intro mods with him until 2nd level then getting friends to drag him through APL 14 mods until he dies down to 1st level where he starts playing intro mods again. More likely than not the 6600gp which doesn't include over the cap will cover the raise and still leave more than his share of the gold left for the module. Heck just done once and he's way ahead of the curve until 8th level. If the 1/2 rewards was meant to stop out of bounds characters then it imho overly punishes those just on the fringes (ie 5th level in APL 8, etc) while still allowing the extreme cases to get extreme rewards.