Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MichaelAhlf 08-22-07, 06:22 PM	Whether or not WotC ever comes to their senses regarding LG or not, it's a reality that 4E is a fact. With that in mind, I'm sure that we all have a few things to point out on the design front, be it the design of LG or the design of 3.0/3.5, that offer up some helpful suggestions for designers to consider before they dig 4.0's grave in design mistakes. Here's a few of mine. Please, let's keep this thread civil: the point is to help whatever comes along next, no matter what it is. #1 - Odd geographical issues. One of the big things I can't help but notice is that there are many more conventions on the east coast and in the midwest in the US compared to the southern or western areas. Why is this? I think it's because the regions were oddly mismanaged - it was far easier to get people to travel (a few hours' car ride) to other regions in those areas (such as the tri-state area around Chicago or the tiny states in the east coast) than it was to get people from, say, San Antonio to go all the way to Kansas just to get out of their region. The more people have opportunities to play, the more they will play and enjoy the game. Stick people in large states with neighboring states that are in the same region, and you reduce their play opportunities. #2 - Overemphasis on "The Big Nine" or whatever you call the list of magic items. Like I said earlier, this is a failing of the system, but also of LG: the standard equipment "every adventurer" of X level is expected to be carrying (+x / adamantine weapon, Armor +X, Stat Bump Item +X, Clothing Item of Resistance, etc) begins to look less like something character-defining and fun and more like the annoying "epic sets" that people grind for in games like WoW and EQ. #3 - Things that just don't scale. As much as it simplifies things to do the 2-point +/- scale centered on a 10, it created a problem for hitpoints. Put simply, values that ought to be perfectly reasonable (and are relatively safe at low levels, like a 14 Con) simply don't fly at high levels. Hitpoints in the system don't scale properly. Damage in the system from fighters, especially with the change from 3.0 Power Attack to 3.5 Power Attack (to give double bonus damage to two-handed weaponry) scales far too fast. The saving throw DC's just don't scale properly. PC's have an inordinately difficult time achieving DC's that can make spells or effects hit reliably, but monsters get it easily - a single CR bump can usually add +4 to their DC (3-4 HD plus Ability Focus) and it keeps going from there. PC special abilities also have an inordinate number of static-DC effects that work very well at lower levels, but are "grown out of" too rapidly since monsters quickly advance to the point where they fail only on a natural 1. The 10-point "death" zone (you die at -10 HP) is a good buffer at low level, but again it doesn't scale. By level 10, monsters and fighters alike are dishing out damage on the order of Dice+40 per hit. The chance that you land in that 10-point zone rather than just being smacked dead? Pretty small.. #4 - Feats that are just way too cheap, or easily obtained, that obsolete their brethren. A good exxample is Improved Toughness: even the mage classes can get into this easily by 6th level. It ought to have required Toughness as a prerequisite. And let's face it, Improved Toughness only added to the arms race for damage: I know of almost no fighter builds without it, since it's worth your level in HP. Here are a few suggestions to make these work better: #1 - Redrawing the map? Watch your boundaries and try not to stick big landmasses in the same Region, game-world-wise. Louisiana and Arkansas probably shouldn't be in the same region, neither should Texas and Oklahoma, neither Missouri and Kansas. Sure, there's a lot of space to drive through anyways, but it's easier to justify going to a con in Oklahoma from San Antonio if you know you're getting to another region. #2 - Seriously look at the magic items versus PC stats. It's hard to find players wearing some of the niftier "effects" items in the game, even when they have access, because it's too hard to wear them after you've filled your entire body slot quota with the "Epic Set." If (for example) you didn't have to have a 26 Int to be an effective 12th level Wizard, then that slot might reopen for some other, more unique/fun items. The current template has technically 16 slots: "Slotless" - things you hang from your belt, Ioun stones, etc. "Head" - caps, headbands, crowns, helmets "Neck" - Necklace, Periapt, etc "Eye" - Goggles/Lenses "Face" - Masks "Ear" - Earmuffs/Earrings "Shoulder" - Capes/cloaks/mantles "Arms" - Bracers "Hands" - Gloves "Finger" - Rings. You get two. "Skin" - Tattoos "Full body" - major armor "Utility" - bags/sacks "Torso" - Vests/shirts/vestments "Belt" - belts/sashes "Feet" - boots/shoes/sandals/hobbit hair Of these, how many are usually used by a PC? Far too few. Most magic items vie for prime real estate on the main body (feet, belt, arms, shoulders, neck, head). I've yet to actually see a magic earring in play, or a nose ring (wouldn't that be entertaining, given how many D&D'ers seem to have them?). Rings are almost universally expensive, save for the Ring of Protection. On and on and on... by the time an adventurer is equipped for battle, it's a pain and a half to trade his Amulet of Con for a Choker of Eloquence (for instance). Just finding that Choker should be a character-defining moment for many classes, but most players pass it by because it's not combat-optimal and they will have too much trouble using it in the current system. Likewise, in the base set, it seems obvious that the items favor fighters and wizards. Fighters can put on a Cloak of Resistance, Amulet of Constitution, Belt of Giant Strength, Gloves of Dexterity, and they all fit. Wizards have the Headband of Intelligence, Amulet of Constitution, Gloves of Dexterity, Cloak of Resistance. Clerics/Druids have the neck slot fighting between Wisdom and Constitution: Sorcerors have the shoulder slot fighting over Resistance and Charisma. The later addition of the Vest of Resistance gave some help to the Sorceror, but still left the Clerics/Druids hanging. #3 - In a like vein, look at the various scales that exist in the game: expected hit points, expected damage, expected saving throw bonuses, expected saving throw DC's. The more these can be equalized, the better. If an ability is obsolete or "not worth trying" any time after it's acquired, something in your system is off. #4 - PLEASE be careful with the inflation of numbers. Your own example shows an Ancient dragon with over 1000 hitpoints, in 3e it had a bit over 500... inflating the numbers only ensures you have more scaling problems.
ankhwearer 08-22-07, 06:41 PM	You make several valid points, about a wide range of topics. But, I would hazard that your topics are too wide for this sub-forum of the RPGA. Your rules requests should go somewhere in here: D&D 4E Discussions (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=686) It is far more likely that the designer of the rules will read that than they will the Living Greyhawk forums. Your RPGA comments and requests might be better attended to in here: Living Forgotten Realms discussion (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=908528)
Istaran 08-22-07, 06:49 PM	I think it would honestly be nice to drop the +stat items from the game entirely. If not, maybe make at least 2-3 slots that those items can be fit into each. Right now they are practically required adventuring gear -and- render a good number of staple buff spells obsolete by not stacking. Similarly for all of the +AC gear. It would be nice if rather than needing a bunch of bumps to your basic numbers to remain competitive, you instead had to chose from a wide variety of more interesting and conditionally useful items that do interesting things rather than just permanently bumping some numbers on your character sheet. Of course, to make that work they would have to rebalance the whole game from scratch.. you know, like a new edition or something.
kenobi65 08-22-07, 08:41 PM	#1 - Odd geographical issues. One of the big things I can't help but notice is that there are many more conventions on the east coast and in the midwest in the US compared to the southern or western areas. Why is this? I think it's because the regions were oddly mismanaged - it was far easier to get people to travel (a few hours' car ride) to other regions in those areas (such as the tri-state area around Chicago or the tiny states in the east coast) than it was to get people from, say, San Antonio to go all the way to Kansas just to get out of their region. The more people have opportunities to play, the more they will play and enjoy the game. Stick people in large states with neighboring states that are in the same region, and you reduce their play opportunities. I'm not sure that the presence (or absence) of conventions in an area is caused by the way that the LG regions were apportioned. The LG regions were originally created based on the Living City player base in each area. So, density of population, and established player bases, were the primary factors (and the latter is why a relatively low-population state like Wisconsin got its own LG region -- as the original home of D&D and GenCon, it likely always had a strong player base). In addition, it seems like the East Coast, in particular, simply has a stronger tradition of gaming conventions, a tradition that predates LG. That said, I'm all for doing what can be done to give people as many play opportunities as reasonably possible.
LGMoses 08-23-07, 01:51 AM	If there are a version of meta-orgs in the future LR game I would like rules keeping triads or whatever from putting 3 year waits on joining them. 1 year is a long time to wait. 3? thats half the campaign's life. So no more of that crap.
CdrcJsn 08-23-07, 01:51 AM	Most of the things you're talking about are already being addressed 1) Regions don't matter anymore since you can play mods anywhere (as stated in the RPGA meeting at GenCon). Triads are going to be more like Xendrik faction leaders guiding the regional stories. 2) The Big Nine are also being changed in 4.0 in the designer notes released on DNDInsider.com. Looking at the MIC might be a preview of how they're changing their viewpoint on item use, making it more attractive than the standard items. Also, if Saga rules is a preview, you get extra stat boosts, negating some of the need for stat items. 3) There is an optional rule in one of the 3.5 rule books that say to add your character level before dying. But really, this system is fine as is. 4) Improved Toughness is your definition of an uber feat? I know a ton of fighter types that don't care about it, since there are so many better feats. Likewise for casters.
Arassuil 08-23-07, 12:25 PM	4) Improved Toughness is your definition of an uber feat? I know a ton of fighter types that don't care about it, since there are so many better feats. Likewise for casters. I think his point about Improved Toughness was the fact that it (almost) completely negated the original feat of Toughness. After level 3, Improved Toughness was much much better than Toughness. The only reason to take Toughness would be as a pre-requisite for a Prestige Class, etc. And even then, (for home games) some DMs allow Improved Toughness to replace it. But then, I could be wrong.
MichaelAhlf 08-23-07, 12:55 PM	Most of the things you're talking about are already being addressed 1) Regions don't matter anymore since you can play mods anywhere (as stated in the RPGA meeting at GenCon). Triads are going to be more like Xendrik faction leaders guiding the regional stories. In other words, there's no reason to travel to other regions at all. Fantastic. They just took a number of local cons/gamedays and shot them dead. 2) The Big Nine are also being changed in 4.0 in the designer notes released on DNDInsider.com. Looking at the MIC might be a preview of how they're changing their viewpoint on item use, making it more attractive than the standard items. Also, if Saga rules is a preview, you get extra stat boosts, negating some of the need for stat items. Link? There is no "designer notes" listing on there, and the Design & Development column has nothing on magic item stuff either. 3) There is an optional rule in one of the 3.5 rule books that say to add your character level before dying. But really, this system is fine as is. No, it's not. 4) Improved Toughness is your definition of an uber feat? I know a ton of fighter types that don't care about it, since there are so many better feats. Likewise for casters. Improved Toughness is a textbook example of a bad feat for the following reasons: #1 - It is just as easy to get into as the feat it's an "improved" version of. Most of the classes it is intended for (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk) already have the requirement at 1st level. #2 - It does not require its predecessor as a prereq. #3 - The effect it gives (1 HP per level) far outstrips the original feat (a static +3 HP). By 6th level it's the equivalent of having taken Toughness twice, and so on. And it has no upper limit, which becomes insane for monsters as well - start advancing a monster by HD, you get the feat slot virtually for free, and your "CR 12" HD-Advanced Aberration with 30 hit dice is that much tougher for an amazingly minimal cost. It's also a bad feat because it contributes even more to the ever-inflating numbers game. Monsters and the HP-tank PCs have ever more HP, requiring ever more high-damage attacks/feats, requiring ever more HP...
KarmaInferno 08-23-07, 12:57 PM	I'm not sure that the presence (or absence) of conventions in an area is caused by the way that the LG regions were apportioned. The LG regions were originally created based on the Living City player base in each area. So, density of population, and established player bases, were the primary factors (and the latter is why a relatively low-population state like Wisconsin got its own LG region -- as the original home of D&D and GenCon, it likely always had a strong player base). In addition, it seems like the East Coast, in particular, simply has a stronger tradition of gaming conventions, a tradition that predates LG. That said, I'm all for doing what can be done to give people as many play opportunities as reasonably possible. I'll second that, the play activity breakdown of each area hasn't changed THAT much since before Living campaigns even existed in the RPGA. Conventions aren't placed by the RPGA, after all, they are run by locals. If you have enough of a player base in an area, someone will eventually try to run a convention. Sometimes they are successful. Sometimes not. The LG regions were based on existing play patterns, not the other way round. -karma
bhale187 08-23-07, 01:14 PM	I'm not sure that the presence (or absence) of conventions in an area is caused by the way that the LG regions were apportioned. The LG regions were originally created based on the Living City player base in each area. So, density of population, and established player bases, were the primary factors (and the latter is why a relatively low-population state like Wisconsin got its own LG region -- as the original home of D&D and GenCon, it likely always had a strong player base). In addition, it seems like the East Coast, in particular, simply has a stronger tradition of gaming conventions, a tradition that predates LG. That said, I'm all for doing what can be done to give people as many play opportunities as reasonably possible. Agreed, in fact nearly every CON in my area has a schedule of so many different games that the RPGA-LG gamers are a minority of the overall attendance. I'm sure this will vary from region to region, but the RPGA has very minimal effect on the quantity of CONs locally.
kenobi65 08-23-07, 01:19 PM	Conventions aren't placed by the RPGA, after all, they are run by locals. That's an important point. One sees, fairly frequently, complaints on these boards about "how come RPGA doesn't have any conventions near me," with the implicit assumption that the RPGA chooses where and when to have events. With the exception of DDXP (and the RPGA line-ups at certain big cons), the RPGA has *no* involvement in deciding where or whether there'll be a convention in a certain place. It's entirely in the hands of the local player base.
MichaelAhlf 08-23-07, 04:16 PM	That's an important point. One sees, fairly frequently, complaints on these boards about "how come RPGA doesn't have any conventions near me," with the implicit assumption that the RPGA chooses where and when to have events. With the exception of DDXP (and the RPGA line-ups at certain big cons), the RPGA has *no* involvement in deciding where or whether there'll be a convention in a certain place. It's entirely in the hands of the local player base. However, a lot of the decision on whether or not to try to run a Con is based on how many people you think you can get to show up. People having to travel further to reach you is a negative. The closest people to you being the same region is a negative. This inhibits the formation of new Cons.
UMiskatonic 08-23-07, 04:38 PM	While I agree with the sentiment over region assignments, some of these other points I'm going to have to disagree with. 1) The -10 rule. While yes, it's easier to die at higher levels vs. creatures that do huge damage, it's also easier to overcome death. At APL 12+, death is an inconvenient condition, like paralysis at APL 2. 2) Scaling damage with power attack. I'm totally fine with this, I think it's an integral part of game balance, and you tinker with it at your peril. I remember 2e, when even the most powerful of fighters did 1d8 + 4 damage. It made combat incredibly slow, and therefore boring at middle and high levels. PLEASE do not bring us in that direction.
bitznarf 08-23-07, 06:26 PM	In other words, there's no reason to travel to other regions at all. Fantastic. They just took a number of local cons/gamedays and shot them dead. The melodrama doesn't help. Regardless, being able to play other regions mods was never the only reason for me to go to out of region cons. It was a part of the draw, but not the only part. Improved Toughness is a textbook example of a bad feat for the following reasons: #1 - It is just as easy to get into as the feat it's an "improved" version of. Most of the classes it is intended for (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk) already have the requirement at 1st level. #2 - It does not require its predecessor as a prereq. #3 - The effect it gives (1 HP per level) far outstrips the original feat (a static +3 HP). By 6th level it's the equivalent of having taken Toughness twice, and so on. And it has no upper limit, which becomes insane for monsters as well - start advancing a monster by HD, you get the feat slot virtually for free, and your "CR 12" HD-Advanced Aberration with 30 hit dice is that much tougher for an amazingly minimal cost. None of this shows Improved Toughness as 'a textbook example of a bad feat.' The first is irrelevant for what the feat does at the time. The second is irrelevant as 'Improved Toughness' should have simply been an errata for the original 'Toughness' in my opinion. This applies to the first part of number three. For the second part of number 3, by the time a creature has 30 HP, another 30 HP is a drop in the bucket relatively. The issue lies elsewhere.
Mithreinmaethor 08-23-07, 07:05 PM	With Star Wars Saga being a prequel to some of what we will see for 4e here is how the HPs are handled in it. Star Wars Roleplaying Game - Saga Edition (Pg37) Noble, Scoundrel > 18 + Constitution Modifier Scout > 24 + Constitution Modifier Jedi, Soldier > 30 + Constitution Modifier Per level benefits Noble, Scoundrel > 1d6 + Constitution Modifier Scout > 1d8 + Constitution Modifier Jedi, Soldier > 1d10 + Constitution Modifier
ragecage79 08-24-07, 01:58 PM	The melodrama doesn't help. Regardless, being able to play other regions mods was never the only reason for me to go to out of region cons. It was a part of the draw, but not the only part. Actually, underneath the melodrama, I think there is a good point here. Not so much for the gamedays, but a large part of the initial draw to visit another regions conventions is to play the adventures of a region that you wouldn't normally have the opportunity to experience. After you go to a con, you meet new friends or really enjoy the experience whether it be the convention staff, the hotel or the city where the convention is held. But if all else fails and the experience sucks, at least you got to play some new mods. With the ability to play any module anywhere and at anytime you want, I predict far fewer people interested in gambling the amount of money it would cost to travel to a new convention on the chance that their experience might, in fact, suck and they could have played the mods at home with their regular gaming group for free.
Redfist 08-24-07, 02:04 PM	If I could play all mods for free at home, why would I pay to travel to play them elsewhere? I've travelled to quite a few cons (mostly regional) exactly for that reason - getting in new play opportunity. I've had a blast meeting new people along the way, but wouldn't have made the trip unless I had the "new mod" enticement. That being said, I'm ok with either solution. I either travel to play mods and meet new people **OR** I play in my home city and save $$. Both are good.
CdrcJsn 08-24-07, 02:47 PM	Well, back in LC, everyone got to play every mod anywhere and yet LC conventions still existed. What was the draw? I'm not an old LC hand myself, but I can think of a few things: 1) Extra goodies for those at a mod's premiere. Maybe you get a different AR. Maybe only those tables at the premiere will get to influence the plot line. 2) Interactives. These are the main draws for local people to attend local cons. It might not be enough to draw out of towners, but who knows. If someone felt involved enough in a region or plotline, they might make the effort to travel just to play in one. 3) Ease of play. Scheduling 9+ slots of gaming is a real hassle. Being able to play a bunch of mods over the course of a single weekend might be enough incentive for people to travel. 4) Seeing old friends. Some people use conventions as an excuse to visit friends from far away.
Eric Anondson 08-24-07, 05:43 PM	Well, back in LC, everyone got to play every mod anywhere and yet LC conventions still existed.Were there the same number of conventions then as are now? I see many LG cons disappearing, which will reduce play opportunities. One of the things about regional play in LG is that it restricted players to play a particular region. Players had to make characters to play in that region. This restriction, unfortunate is it may be by forcing folks to play in a region they may dislike, functioned to ensure there would be enough PCs in a geography to fill tables. Conventions focused on this kind of regional play helped to enhance the development of the regions. Eliminating this artificial fence, I foresee, will lead to reduced opportunity to help direct regional outcomes. Everyone will choose their favorite FR region, and there is little chance it will be the same as anyone else's, and they will wait until adventures are out for their chosen FR region. Why bother to show up to a convention if it doesn't offer play opportunity for your chosen FR region? Conventions can only offer so many slots of adventures, and having every FR region's adventures available to choose from will mean that some FR regions will be ignored by conventions if only because getting judges for every region's available adventure cannot be done. It means that organizers will have to ignore certain regions. Which means that functionally, truly global play of LFR won't be truly global play except at the largest of large conventions. The regional play of LG was an artificial limitation, but in a way it reinforced a sense of shared community that will only be reduced by getting rid of the limitation.
Mithreinmaethor 08-24-07, 07:10 PM	Were there the same number of conventions then as are now? I see many LG cons disappearing, which will reduce play opportunities. One of the things about regional play in LG is that it restricted players to play a particular region. Players had to make characters to play in that region. This restriction, unfortunate is it may be by forcing folks to play in a region they may dislike, functioned to ensure there would be enough PCs in a geography to fill tables. Conventions focused on this kind of regional play helped to enhance the development of the regions. Eliminating this artificial fence, I foresee, will lead to reduced opportunity to help direct regional outcomes. Everyone will choose their favorite FR region, and there is little chance it will be the same as anyone else's, and they will wait until adventures are out for their chosen FR region. Why bother to show up to a convention if it doesn't offer play opportunity for your chosen FR region? Conventions can only offer so many slots of adventures, and having every FR region's adventures available to choose from will mean that some FR regions will be ignored by conventions if only because getting judges for every region's available adventure cannot be done. It means that organizers will have to ignore certain regions. Which means that functionally, truly global play of LFR won't be truly global play except at the largest of large conventions. The regional play of LG was an artificial limitation, but in a way it reinforced a sense of shared community that will only be reduced by getting rid of the limitation. Depending upon where Kansas lands in the new region split, and Oklahoma for that matter, I know our group will hold a summer con and an end of year con as usual. If we end up in with OK in the same region we would probably only hold the end of year con.
solbergb 08-24-07, 07:32 PM	4) Improved Toughness is your definition of an uber feat? I know a ton of fighter types that don't care about it, since there are so many better feats. Likewise for casters. I've never seen anybody take this feat, aside from NPC's (undead like it...) Your level in hitpoints, as noted in his other quite valid discussion bullets, is irrelevant compared to the incoming damage. If -10 is no longer a good buffer at level 10, then why would 10 more hitpoints on top help all that much. Also any feat that can be duplicated with a bigger constitution item is going to have limited popularity.
solbergb 08-24-07, 07:42 PM	3) Ease of play. Scheduling 9+ slots of gaming is a real hassle. Being able to play a bunch of mods over the course of a single weekend might be enough incentive for people to travel. . If there are actually more mods than any local set of conventions can realistically host, then the incentive to travel is there...but only if everyone doesn't pick the same mods to host. The real limit on modules able to be played is access prepared GMs and to a lesser extent forming a table. Given an online pool of players, the bottleneck is likely the GMs. I've got some experience with this, I have been pretty successful at playing nearly every core module online and going to conventions for the regionals/metaregionals. The thing is, right now you can get on an airplane and at the destination there will guaranteed be 8-12 slots of modules you have never played before. You can do this darn near any time in the year, although your location may make this pretty expensive, or relatively cheap. Will there really be enough modules out there for that? Maybe, but it seems like some kind of regional organizations of authors, playtesters and initial GM's is required just to seed enough good content. If all we get is the equivalent of what locals can do now (20 core mods, 10-15 regionals and metaregionals, and some interactives, up to 5ish...call it 40 total) then it is pretty unlikely tha anyone will travel much. You can play it all locally....you may want to visit St Louis, but they're playing all the same stuff you already played. It's why many of us don't travel to the "big 3' conventions (big 2 now?) One "interactive" (core special) is not enough to justify the trip when waiting a month or two lets us play the same content far cheaper in cash and energy. I do know that the local conventions, good as they are, are made much richer by the visitors. I hope that we still keep having them, and that I keep having excuses to travel elsewhere and meet new fun people. The travel barrier is pretty high though. A real draw has to be there. Disclaimer - our region has about 3 "big gaming cons" where RPGA is the minority presence, and about 2-3 "regional conventions" where it is all RPGA. In those we've drawn huge numbers during the expanded premiere program, in one case in direct competition with one of the "big gaming cons" (same weekend). We've got an unusually active convention organizer base and a deep judge pool, plus authors whose work we're proud to present to others. That's a fairly skewed experience. I've visited places with similar dynamics, others where the RPGA presence is 1-2 judges and 1-2 tables for the whole convention and others where the convention is medium-sized, is one of maybe 2 that the area will see the whole year and the demand tends to somewhat outstrip their ability to provide prepared judges. So it could be my concerns about the new regional structure are an artifact of my own situation. We've got a good thing here, and although it really is a plane flight to other regions I'm at a point in my life where I can afford that. Whether what is best for me is best for everyone is unclear. But geez....right now the RPGA is generating literally hundreds of modules a year, and if you've got the time and money, they're all available somewhere to play in a convention setting where a stranger can visit and participate. I can't see how that would happen without the regional system. Maybe I'll be proved wrong. In this I have not seen a global campaign attempt to function without a regional system. We've got Living City and Living Greyhawk as examples. Hopefully the people planning Living Realms do the analysis right and preserve sufficient incentives to travel that their new approach will keep the conventions thriving.
ragecage79 08-24-07, 09:44 PM	*portions of quote edited for brevity's sake If there are actually more mods than any local set of conventions can realistically host, then the incentive to travel is there...but only if everyone doesn't pick the same mods to host. Will there really be enough modules out there for that? Maybe, but it seems like some kind of regional organizations of authors, playtesters and initial GM's is required just to seed enough good content. If all we get is the equivalent of what locals can do now (20 core mods, 10-15 regionals and metaregionals, and some interactives, up to 5ish...call it 40 total) then it is pretty unlikely tha anyone will travel much. You can play it all locally....you may want to visit St Louis, but they're playing all the same stuff you already played. I do know that the local conventions, good as they are, are made much richer by the visitors. I hope that we still keep having them, and that I keep having excuses to travel elsewhere and meet new fun people. The travel barrier is pretty high though. A real draw has to be there. That's a fairly skewed experience. I've visited places with similar dynamics, others where the RPGA presence is 1-2 judges and 1-2 tables for the whole convention and others where the convention is medium-sized, is one of maybe 2 that the area will see the whole year and the demand tends to somewhat outstrip their ability to provide prepared judges. But geez....right now the RPGA is generating literally hundreds of modules a year, and if you've got the time and money, they're all available somewhere to play in a convention setting where a stranger can visit and participate. I can't see how that would happen without the regional system. Maybe I'll be proved wrong. In this I have not seen a global campaign attempt to function without a regional system. We've got Living City and Living Greyhawk as examples. Hopefully the people planning Living Realms do the analysis right and preserve sufficient incentives to travel that their new approach will keep the conventions thriving. You've hit on the main concern that I have with the global campaign attempt. We can see in other threads made before the "region-less announcement" that some regions in the Realms are far more interesting to play in and write for by the fact that people are calling "dibs" for their preferred region. You can see this a little with the Xendrik faction system, too. Some regions are going to see a lot of convention play at nearly every convention because popular scenarios bring more players, and having more players brings the ability and resources to continue to run those conventions. The breakdown in that is that it will be less appealing to run scenarios from more milquetoast regions because the draw will not be as high, leading to repetitiveness in what the conventions offer. For example, if Thay is the "cool" region, every convention would want to offer Thay scenarios because it would draw more players and judges. If every convention is running the new Thay modules, that makes traveling for a convention less appealing due to diminished play opportunities. That could mean less players and judges from out of town and perhaps cause regional rifts in the gaming community as opposed to bringing it all together. Perhaps every region will be equally as cool and fun or it will work out that different places have different preferences, but if I know how most gamers think, there will be a few "cool" regions that everyone will want to play. I mean we are talking about the setting that Drizzt comes from, right?
The_Jester 08-26-07, 01:25 PM	With Star Wars Saga being a prequel to some of what we will see for 4e here is how the HPs are handled in it. Noble, Scoundrel > 18 + Constitution Modifier Scout > 24 + Constitution Modifier Jedi, Soldier > 30 + Constitution Modifier Per level benefits Noble, Scoundrel > 1d6 + Constitution Modifier Scout > 1d8 + Constitution Modifier Jedi, Soldier > 1d10 + Constitution Modifier That could be bad. It's like fighter/rogues in 3E where if you didn't take rogue first level you lost a huge wad of skill points whereas if you took fighter you got 4 extra hp. This reverses it so the hp are much higher but if you multiclass into a skill-heavy class you gain no extra skills. Really pushes people away from multiclassing. I like the idea of more hp at the start but that's huge. A still, random numbers of hps were a bad idea in 2E. It should be changed to a set number like in LG. * * * Back on topic, the map really, really does need to be redrawn. Especially for massive regions (like Zief that dominates western Canada). They could easily split that into 3 or 4 attacking narrow (but long) bands to the States below. Likewise the US regions should be shaken-up so it doesn't feel just like LG with different names. I'd like to see some other fixes. APLs could be adjusted and re-banded. Going with odd numbers instead of even would be a great idea. APLs 1,3,5,7,9,11,13, etc. APL1 makes it easier to start off, acting both as regional intros and regular Core intros. And it makes it easier to start characters off, a necessity with everyone about to be lvl1 again making it harder to pull a lvl2 or lvl3 in to help round the table up to an average party level 2. There should be some serious guidelines in favours and how they're priced out. They really vary wildly and there's some ones that look interesting on paper but work out poor and many items in them are wildly overpriced.
Genghis Cohen 08-26-07, 01:31 PM	Likewise the US regions should be shaken-up so it doesn't feel just like LG with different names.Its already been announced that there will be noticeably fewer regions in LFR than what we have in LG, although I don't recall a specific number being announced. Don't be surprised if there are less than a dozen regions worldwide.
mowaca 08-26-07, 02:01 PM	I want to see a fix to the XP & Gold curves in the next Living Campaign. LG is really stingy on both, and it doesn't match what is expected in other adventures published by WotC. For example, I noticed in a recent adaptable that the experience granted for a final boss level encounter was 1/6 the amount suggested by the DMG, based on the current LG formula of EL * 30. Also, the total GP reward was cut in half - 100% overcap gold. XP-wise, what I'd like to see is a faster trip to 'max level', closely matching the amount of time as the story arcs. This way your character who plays all its TUs each year levels out with the story, probably in about 18 - 24 months of real time. On the GP front, LG seems to force people to decide on buying consumables, or decent equipment. One suggestion might be to grant gold and consumables to each player as treasure.
The_Jester 08-26-07, 03:08 PM	I'm holding off calling for a change in the stinginess until we get a better look at 4E. There is all that talk that it reduces the need for magic items to just tools (and hopefully makes magic rarer and more exciting and less ho-hum and expected/mandatory). I always disliked that magic was *needed* and assumed to be present in the balancing of monsters and challenges and that a DM had to give out so much treasure for the proper equipment value. But some reduction of the stinginess and addition of wiggle-room would be nice. LG works nicely as long as you always get full xp, never die, never sell pricey equipment, and all your money goes to equipment and not to replacing stuff from slaver, resurrection, housing, etc. The obvious rebuttal is that favours balance this out but my main is well under where she should be for her level (having helped raise a friend, buying a house, sold equipment, and failed to get full gold repeatedly) and she has only one or two truly interesting favours. And most are single-use. But we'll see how 4E handles goods.
Eric Anondson 08-26-07, 05:13 PM	I want to see a fix to the XP & Gold curves in the next Living Campaign. LG is really stingy on both, and it doesn't match what is expected in other adventures published by WotC. That was intentional and by design. You can hardly have a "Living" campaign if everyone gets to 20th level in a six months of the campaign . . . which was the design goal of 3e/3.5 D&D. If you slow down the xp awards you must likewise slowdown the gp awards. I hope Living FR retains the "Living" paradigm of not forcing PCs to 20th level in 6 months of gaming. Keep it slow so characters stay around longer.On the GP front, LG seems to force people to decide on buying consumables, or decent equipment.No one twisted my arm in order to buy consumables. Although buying decent equipment? Well, that's 3e/3.5 D&D forcing that. The CR ratings of powerful monsters assume the PCs have decent equipment.
Beowulfe 08-26-07, 06:02 PM	One of the biggest problems I would like fixed is the sell treasure for half but you hafta buy it back at full. If you were able to buy it at half, essentially you are not selling it but keeping it, then the stingyness of gp is not as big an issue. I would like to see that +1 sword offered but only one person at the table gets it. But whoever wants to keep it, hasta pay the value which is half price. That payment is then split amongst the rest of the party.
dawg13 08-26-07, 07:31 PM	That could be bad. It's like fighter/rogues in 3E where if you didn't take rogue first level you lost a huge wad of skill points whereas if you took fighter you got 4 extra hp. This reverses it so the hp are much higher but if you multiclass into a skill-heavy class you gain no extra skills. Really pushes people away from multiclassing. I like the idea of more hp at the start but that's huge. A still, random numbers of hps were a bad idea in 2E. It should be changed to a set number like in LG. In Star Wars you the skills work quite differently from D&D3.5. You do not gain skill points as you do in D&D and your first class determines which skills are class skills, classes added later are irrelevant for skills. multiclassing is not a quick fix for skills or a short cut to high saves any more, the main reason to mulitclass in Star Wars is for access to talents from other classes or for role playing flavor ( oh the horror!! ).
The_Jester 08-27-07, 09:27 AM	In Star Wars you the skills work quite differently from D&D3.5. You do not gain skill points as you do in D&D and your first class determines which skills are class skills, classes added later are irrelevant for skills. multiclassing is not a quick fix for skills or a short cut to high saves any more, the main reason to mulitclass in Star Wars is for access to talents from other classes or for role playing flavor ( oh the horror!! ). Yeah but it hurts the "role-player" who multiclasses into scoundrel and can't do anything scoundrely with his skills. At all. Especially if he was originally a soldier and all he can do is jump and climb. I don't like the idea that multiclassing and which order you take classes makes such a difference.
ankhwearer 08-27-07, 03:54 PM	I hope Living FR retains the "Living" paradigm of not forcing PCs to 20th level in 6 months of gaming. Of course, you really meant 30th level. 4e has thirty levels of character advancement. As for the gp/xp curve. Reading today's design notes and playtest previews, it seems like gold and random treasure are part of our history, not our future. Really, it this game was to model heroic fantasy in movies and books, the money all happens behind the scenes anyway. When in any of 12 books do you ever hear how much coin is in the pockets of a Forgotten Realms book? And in LG, gp and xp are issues on a nearly one-to-one scale. Was this a prediction of the future?
Eric Anondson 08-27-07, 06:03 PM	Of course, you really meant 30th level. 4e has thirty levels of character advancement.No, I meant 20th level in 6 months because I was talking about 3e. I don't know how fast 4e will force characters to level, and neither do you, because they haven't told us how fast it will go. Odds are WotC won't ditch the paradigm of getting characters to the highest level possible by the end of the average campaign lifetime (which WotC research revealed to be 6 months long). I have a hunch WotC won't accelerate leveling to 30 levels in 6 months though.
solbergb 08-27-07, 06:48 PM	I like the idea of more hp at the start but that's huge. A still, random numbers of hps were a bad idea in 2E. It should be changed to a set number like in LG. . Most versions of D&D have had at least an optional rule where you start with max hitpoints. Hackmaster in addition added some buffer hitpoints, I forget what you call it. Frankly, L1 characters are too fragile to be protagonists. They're ok for mooks, but the 3.x difference between L1 and L2 in durability is huge. As long as whatever they have for CR's reflect the big hitpoint boost you get at L1 for being a "PC class" character vs a "NPC class firstie" should be all right. The only time a 4-6 hitpoint spread matters a lot is when it is a significant % of your total hitpoints. The difference between a wizard and a barbarian is 8 points in 3.5. Thats 3x the hitpoints....what you showed me from Star Wars is a bit more appealing...might still be 8 hitpoints, but it's maybe a 25% difference.
ankhwearer 08-28-07, 01:07 PM	No, I meant 20th level in 6 months because I was talking about 3e. I don't know how fast 4e will force characters to level, and neither do you, because they haven't told us how fast it will go. Odds are WotC won't ditch the paradigm of getting characters to the highest level possible by the end of the average campaign lifetime (which WotC research revealed to be 6 months long). I have a hunch WotC won't accelerate leveling to 30 levels in 6 months though. Thanks for the clarification. When you started your sentence talking about Living Realms, and then referenced a 20 level limit for development in the same sentence, I assumed you were still talking about LR. In fact, your sentence had jumped from LR to LG to Core rules design schema in just 20 words, I now see.
MeepoTheMighty 08-28-07, 02:40 PM	I like the idea of more hp at the start but that's huge. A still, random numbers of hps were a bad idea in 2E. It should be changed to a set number like in LG. You may start with a lot of hp in Star Wars, but you need them. Considering that a shot from a blaster deals 3d8 damage, a nat 20 is an auto-crit, and there's no -10 hp buffer, you need all the help you can get.
MeepoTheMighty 08-28-07, 02:42 PM	No, I meant 20th level in 6 months because I was talking about 3e. I don't know how fast 4e will force characters to level, and neither do you, because they haven't told us how fast it will go. Odds are WotC won't ditch the paradigm of getting characters to the highest level possible by the end of the average campaign lifetime (which WotC research revealed to be 6 months long). I have a hunch WotC won't accelerate leveling to 30 levels in 6 months though. I thought the assumpton was 20 levels in 2 years, not 6 months. 6 months seems awful short, unless you're playing huge marathon sessions or something.
Eric Anondson 08-28-07, 04:31 PM	6 months seems awful short, unless you're playing huge marathon sessions or something.6 months does seems short to many. It did to me when I heard it. But WotC research found that the average "life expectancy" of D&D campaigns was 6 months before the players decide to move on to something else. I sat in on the 3e introduction seminars back in 2000 and I distinctly remember Monte Cook saying that WotC R&D decided they wanted to get PCs to the cool stuff (high levels) before the campaign ended because of fatigue. And yes, it also assumes some pretty regular (once per week) gaming, rather than a casual once/month, or less, rate.
mowaca 08-28-07, 07:23 PM	I thought the assumpton was 20 levels in 2 years, not 6 months. 6 months seems awful short, unless you're playing huge marathon sessions or something. Personally, I'd take 6 months over the current situation, but I agree its probably too quick. With some luck and by always playing up, my 11th level PC will just barely reach level 15 by the end of next year. So after 3 years of using every TU I can't reach max level. That's my perspective. I hope they do away with the TU limit so I can make it to 16th level. Another pet peeve of mine is some authors or triads think the current situation is too generous. I know two LG adventures (one core, one regional) written this year where the party makes all the 'right' choices to gain full XP and ends up with 0 (yes, zero!) gold. You get a favor instead which doesn't really make up for zero gold, and isn't scaled by APL. Anyways, just my opinion for the 'things to fix'; hopefully better rewards and faster advancement are in the mix for 4e & LFR.
Britt 08-28-07, 07:33 PM	Living campaigns have much different optimum advancement rates than a standard home campaign. In a home campaign, you probably want the characters to end up at maximum level, kings of the world, known by all, and able to face ANY challenge, and all that within six months. In a Living campaign, you want the campaign to last multiple years, you can't have everyone at maximum level, not everyone can be kings of the world, and if tens of thousands of PCs could face ANY challenge, there wouldn't be much left in the world for new PCs to face. In a Living campaign, you need to slow advancement to a pace where someone could play the same PC regularly for 2 to 3 years, as a rough guess, and end at something other than maximum level. You effectively need to give 1/4 or less of the experience of a home game, assuming players play the same amount, if you want them to be something other than max level after 2 or more years. You need level caps (either virtual or explicit) to keep from screwing up the campaign world. You could do it like MMOs or older versions of D&D, where you get a smaller % of the needed xp to level as you advance in levels, or you could just say that everyone retires at 16th level, or something like that.
The_Jester 08-28-07, 09:12 PM	Most versions of D&D have had at least an optional rule where you start with max hitpoints. Hackmaster in addition added some buffer hitpoints, I forget what you call it. Frankly, L1 characters are too fragile to be protagonists. They're ok for mooks, but the 3.x difference between L1 and L2 in durability is huge. As long as whatever they have for CR's reflect the big hitpoint boost you get at L1 for being a "PC class" character vs a "NPC class firstie" should be all right. The only time a 4-6 hitpoint spread matters a lot is when it is a significant % of your total hitpoints. The difference between a wizard and a barbarian is 8 points in 3.5. Thats 3x the hitpoints....what you showed me from Star Wars is a bit more appealing...might still be 8 hitpoints, but it's maybe a 25% difference. Yeah, L1 characters need more hp but the difference between classes in SWS is staggering. A better rule might be all classes start out with 10hp+1dx or a set number. Enough to survive a couple hits even at first level yet not so much it makes choice of class not a factor.