Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Puggle Halfwine 04-02-07, 07:18 PM	*dons minesweeper armour* A'right, this is something I've been thinking about for a long time. We've legalized PCs able to do lethal damage to PCs- the campaign didn't implode in a massive orgy of backstabbing goryness. So, why don't we take things one step further and fix something that's always irked me? In the "Items Sold" and "Items Bought" box it should be legal to transfer money between PCs who you have played that module with (so it should be impossible to directly transfer money to your own PCs). The giver write something like, "Gave Elly 500gp rpga #555-555-555" in the Items Bought box and Elly writes "Received 500gp from Puggle Halfwine rpga #444-444-444" in the Items Sold box. Now, it would have to be clarified that the intent of these rules is so PCs cannot "pimp" their own or other player's characters- it is solely for the consentual transfer of wealth between PCs. It could be treated like evil acts; if the triad believes you are doing this, your character is immediately retired and you may be reported as cheating under RPGA guidelines. And guys, bottom line; if players wanted to cheat, there are FAR more effective ways to do it than this.
clannagh 04-02-07, 07:25 PM	It could be treated like evil acts; if the triad believes you are doing this, your character is immediately retired and you may be reported as cheating under RPGA guidelines. Immediately retired is not a big concern if what you are trying to do is offload your level 15's wealth to your mates lower levels just before retirement.
cycloptic_squirrel 04-02-07, 07:39 PM	Immediately retired is not a big concern if what you are trying to do is offload your level 15's wealth to your mates lower levels just before retirement. It might be for your mates, though. I'm assuming the risk would go both ways. That said, something feels off about this. Then again, something feels off every time I witness a table killing one guy's happy stick, then having no legitimate way of repaying him, even though the players want to. But beyond consumable reimbursement, what other scenarios would there be for legitimate wealth transfer?
Britt 04-02-07, 08:13 PM	It's not going to happen, period. There are far too many issues involved in this. You have problems with twinking low level characters and totally screwing up the GP:XP curve, tracking and confirming data between ARs since you could very easily end up with one person with an AR saying they got gold from someone that isn't at your event, money laundering systems to hide even worse forms of cheating, and myriad other problems that we probably wouldn't be able to foresee.
Puggle Halfwine 04-02-07, 08:16 PM	In character wealth transactions? For instance, one particularly mercenary character might feel the need to repay another for a particularly heroic act (putting herself at significant risk to save another, etc). I can definitely see at least one of my characters being into this. Several of the long-running players have traded money between characters and at least one other "Living" style campaign I play allows it. It's less of a "why" and more of a "why not?". Like I said, there are thousands of easier ways to cheat than this (which should be verifiable on the other PCs paperwork).
Puggle Halfwine 04-02-07, 08:20 PM	It's not going to happen, period. BRITT HAS SPOKEN! <3
Britt 04-02-07, 08:35 PM	Several of the long-running players have traded money between characters and at least one other "Living" style campaign I play allows it. It's less of a "why" and more of a "why not?". Like I said, there are thousands of easier ways to cheat than this (which should be verifiable on the other PCs paperwork). One problem with the argument that it's easier to cheat in other ways is something I've noticed a lot lately: some players will not blatantly cheat, but will use any argument that ispossibly legal by some odd interpretation to give themselves benefits that they know are not intended by the rules. I've seen people do this even when they don't really care about the benefit, just to try to get away with something and claim it's legal. The druid rebuild is a good example, as it was pretty darn obvious that you were supposed to remain a druid, but the wording left a loophole that people tried to exploit, even though they knew they were going against the spirit of the rules. If you go with anything other than a blanket 'no', there will be people trying to abuse the rules. For something like this, it just isn't worth the trouble and abuse. Sure, there are some minor benefits that would be reaped by this, but I guarantee you the problems it creates would be far worse. Honestly, I really don't know why people do that. I mean, are they trying to destroy the game system? They apparently enjoy the campaign system, or they wouldn't be playing it. But by trying to bend the rules of that system just to the edge of breaking, they are harming that very same campaign system and risking its survival. It just doesn't compute to me. On the argument about verification, that was addressed in my first email. It's easy when you have both players there, assuming they both have all the ARs for the characters in question (I used to leave some characters at home sometimes); it is pretty much impossible if they are not both there or they don't have their ARs.
copper_wyrmling 04-02-07, 08:36 PM	EDIT: Hehehe... okay, this post was completely obsolete by the time it was posted. In character wealth transactions? For instance, one particularly mercenary character might feel the need to repay another for a particularly heroic act (putting herself at significant risk to save another, etc). I can definitely see at least one of my characters being into this. Several of the long-running players have traded money between characters and at least one other "Living" style campaign I play allows it. It's less of a "why" and more of a "why not?". Like I said, there are thousands of easier ways to cheat than this (which should be verifiable on the other PCs paperwork). Say that Azrien, who after upgrading her cloak will have nothing much she wants to buy (due to very bad luck with access), decides to give all her spare cash to her "sister" Nesalia (who adopted her unwanted baby). Or say instead that she plays with Puggle at an interactive, and knowing that he was recently bereaved, has been looking for a new place to live, and remembering that he rescued her friends' children from a massacre, she gives him 10000gp or so to help him get started in his new life. (At APL 14, that's less than two modules worth of gold.) Both of those are very much in-character for my Chaotic Good Wild Mage who has no really nice access beyond the Open list (the one notable exception being the rod of wonder she found recently). There's plenty of stuff she WANTS, she just can't seem to find it - and if all her money doesn't help her find the items she'd like, somebody else might as well use it. Both scenarios would severely skew the wealth curves for other PCs (especially if she decided to give a reward for rescuing the kobold children to one of the even-lower-level PCs involved, rather than Puggle). I can imagine other players on the tables of the PCs in question feeling rather cheated if another PC of the same level had gotten roughly 10x their wealth purely through having a high-level friend. Also, I'm not Triad, but I suspect that they have enough work already, and would rather not be given the additional responsibility of identifying and punishing people who exploit this system. It seems like introducing the cap on XP-consuming spells and modifying the multiclass penalty rules were attempts to make delayed retirement less easy and less attractive, without requiring Triad members to check on all the high-level PCs to see if they were burning XP at an excessive rate - and a gold-transfer system would involve a lot more PCs and would have much greater potential to skew gold/level ratios than people attempting to delay retirement of their L15 characters.
Redfist 04-02-07, 08:44 PM	(removed)
cycloptic_squirrel 04-02-07, 10:40 PM	Even though it's more or less academic at this point... About the only reason I could justify balance-wise any wealth transfer is a reimbursement for consumables used during the adventure. "Gee, Bob, I'm sure glad you had that scroll of restoration. As it was my hide that was saved, at least let me pay you the cost of the scroll." Even a system as this, I could see being vulnerable to certain abuses: people who want to ditch large amounts of unused consumables at more than half price, people who need to quickly raise some cash before they lose access, or even crafters turning a profit. I think it could work with a carefully planned ruleset, but even then it would result in too many gray areas. I may not think the line is drawn in the perfect location; but it's not too bad. As it stands, the consumables should even out over time if everyone shares. (Ya bunch of moochers! :P ) In character wealth transactions? For instance, one particularly mercenary character might feel the need to repay another for a particularly heroic act (putting herself at significant risk to save another, etc). I can definitely see at least one of my characters being into this. OK, so from this point it seems more like a roleplay thing. Which is great! At least from a roleplaying standpoint. Balance-wise, it creates problems. But if you have a character that shows gratitude monetarily, you could always 'give' the reward to the other character and work out what that character does with it all; so long as he doesn't have it anymore, kinda like overcap. The receiver could donate it to a church, sent it home to family, pledged it to the war effort, heck, he could've spent it on magic beans. End result, game balance has been preserved, your character has shown their gratitude, and hopefully you have a pretty good story for it. It might not be the most gratifying way to go about it, but you should have experience, given the antics we must go through every time we try to explain why even though we hit the jackpot, we walk to the next adventure with a small fraction of the riches. I remember once a module told us that there was literally more treasure than we could carry away We weighed ourselves down and stuffed every pocket like we had no idea it'd all go away at the end. I think I almost cried when I ran some quick numbers and realized that just the wealth loaded on the paladin's mount was more than we would likely possess at character retirement, even combined! I have an idea of what happened, and I think it was followed by my character spending a week in a bar, trying to forget it all. :(
cheeky_ktty 04-02-07, 10:51 PM	If the major problem is how much a character can give to another why not make a rule that a character can't give anymore than the max gold for the apl that the game is ran at. And keep all transactions in game, like Puggle mentioned.
The_Jester 04-02-07, 11:15 PM	About the only reason I could justify balance-wise any wealth transfer is a reimbursement for consumables used during the adventure. "Gee, Bob, I'm sure glad you had that scroll of restoration. As it was my hide that was saved, at least let me pay you the cost of the scroll." Of course, with a liberal DM this can be handled in-mod with the purchase and transfer of a scroll so, technically, Bob would have his scroll and the person whose butt was saved foots the bill. As long as said consumable was spent and tracked on a sheet it doesn't really matter who takes the hit... Transferring gold though is just a bad idea. A higher level character could easily drop 2000gp to a low level. It means nothing to him but doubles the power of the L2character. It's not an easy sacrifice for a L6 but doesn't cripple them. And it might be reciprocated from a higher level. Plus money chains. Person X has a Lvl 2 and a Lvl 13. He plays an APL10 gives friend Y 10,000 as a 'gift' to Y's Lvl 7. Y then plays an APL4 with X's Lvl 2 and passes along the 10,000 or any other large sum. X now has a 2nd level character with a +1 weapon, amour, shield and a stat-boosting item.
MatteBlack 04-03-07, 09:16 AM	I have a character who would very much like to repay some other players for expenses they incurred in an adventure (I posted about it) and I am not even for this idea. There are just too many ways to abuse it. In many ways, LG can play like an MMO and wealth transfer is something that is heavily restricted or else it is regularly exploited. The only way I could possibly see it working is if they added wealth caps for each level. Then you could transfer up to that point. I still think there would be problems. If you owe regular party members, supplying them with consumables does seem to work well enough.
MatteBlack 04-03-07, 09:29 AM	I've seen people do this even when they don't really care about the benefit, just to try to get away with something and claim it's legal. There is a solid percentage of gamers for whom this is the core of their gaming. Bending the rules is more their challenge than the adventures themself. Arguably, I used to be one. It fulfills their need to feel smarter than others and devising the loopholes doesn't even require other players. Maybe I got bored with the arguments over minutia, interrupting the flow of gameplay or reallized that you can be pretty much just as effective staying within the rules and playing smart (not tricky). I see the practice as bad for gaming but, there really are alot of folks out there who enjoy it. Mostly, I just feel bad for those who have to walk the rules lawyer minefield and answer those type of questions.
trollbill 04-03-07, 09:32 AM	Then again, something feels off every time I witness a table killing one guy's happy stick, then having no legitimate way of repaying him, even though the players want to. That's why almost everyone in my area buys their own happy sticks even if they can't use them. Of course, we still get arguments: Player 1: Let me cure you with my happy stick. Player 2: No, use mine. I'm the one your curing. Player 3: No, use mine. It has a lot more charges left on it.
MatteBlack 04-03-07, 09:36 AM	If the major problem is how much a character can give to another why not make a rule that a character can't give anymore than the max gold for the apl that the game is ran at. And keep all transactions in game, like Puggle mentioned. While I have suggested this myself, the problem with the cap is then a player could keep supplying a lower level character with consumables and the replenishing his items up to the cap.
Timlagor 04-03-07, 12:07 PM	I've seen people do this even when they don't really care about the benefit, just to try to get away with something and claim it's legal. The druid rebuild is a good example, as it was pretty darn obvious that you were supposed to remain a druid, but the wording left a loophole that people tried to exploit, Did someone actually try to do this or just spot the loophole and ask about it? I certainly saw it mentioned on here but I got the impression they were more interested in pointing out the loophole than exploiting it.
Timlagor 04-03-07, 12:12 PM	LGCS p5: "Surviving loaned items and anything purchased with borrowed GP reverts back to your PC at the end of the game." This could be changed to allowing the "replacement of loaned items" as well (and possibly "reimbursement for consumed items"). I don't think that could be abused.
berpo 04-03-07, 12:31 PM	For the use of a scroll, the solution is quite easy, use the scroll (restoration for exemple), at the end of the mod, just buy one and put in your MIL. Just use it right now so you will have used your scroll instead of the scroll of your friend. That way he "keeps" his scroll or you "rebuy" him a scroll if you prefer.
Britt 04-03-07, 12:39 PM	Did someone actually try to do this or just spot the loophole and ask about it? I certainly saw it mentioned on here but I got the impression they were more interested in pointing out the loophole than exploiting it. Yes.
Timlagor 04-03-07, 03:32 PM	For the use of a scroll, the solution is quite easy, use the scroll (restoration for exemple), at the end of the mod, just buy one and put in your MIL. Just use it right now so you will have used your scroll instead of the scroll of your friend. That way he "keeps" his scroll or you "rebuy" him a scroll if you prefer. If you use his scroll at a time when you can't readily buy one yourself then you cannot buy another at the end of the module and substitute it. if you don't need the scroll until the end of the module then there isn't a problem (assuming you have access which is another question with Scrolls of Restoration)
Puggle Halfwine 04-03-07, 07:08 PM	Hmm. Well everyone has made some convincing points. Perhaps with a group as large as Living Greyhawks, the chance that someone will blatantly cheat (giving a 2nd level character 20,000 gold pieces, for instance) and ruin it for everyone is just too great. Aww well. That's disappointing. Still, at the very least, I think PCs should be able to reimburse other PCs for costs incurred in game (such as consumables).
gomeztoo 04-04-07, 03:35 AM	Still, at the very least, I think PCs should be able to reimburse other PCs for costs incurred in game (such as consumables). In general, that should be easy to solve as along as you adventure with that same PC in other scenarios. There is always opportunity for re-imbursement. Support each other in the next scenario. Watch my back, I'll watch yours, and who cares about who has the most gold then?
Mystical_Tutor 04-04-07, 07:53 PM	Britt, Your ethics question has echoed down through the ages of gaming. Whether gambling for ‘real’ money or just a friendly game of Magic:the Gathering—some people inherently enjoy the thrill of cheating. There have been some interesting Behavioral Science studies done on it and there are probably a handful of PhD thesis out there exploring it. It is truly lamentable that we must design our game systems to thwart the efforts of such just because they only get their jollies at the expense of the honest player. We will always have them with us though and because of that your answer is the only practical one available. Practical, I say, because no matter how small the hole is that the camel sticks his nose in under the tent to begin with the result will be the same. “Oh Ya, Man, while I was at GenCon this dude from the other side of the world gave me all this gold and stuff, said I was a really great player and he wanted to reward me…….” Now we have the GM passing the info on to the Triad to the Circle to the RPGA data base to find out—yes that player was at GenCon and did play the module (how far would we need to carry this, how much time should be devoted to it, would it really be worth it?). As much as I emotionally support Puggle’s proposal and dearly wish there was a way to accomplish it, those that seek to cheat would use it against the game, and the honest player. Honestly, I really don't know why people do that. I mean, are they trying to destroy the game system? The short answer to your muse is: That personality type is basically selfish. Which results in a life style of short term gratification. They get their ego boost, no matter the cost, as long and as large as possible. When one persute loses its challenge or they get caught, move on, a different game a different group of people, it doesn’t matter the world is only a playground for fulfilling their selfish needs. It is often a self-curing sickness but only after it has hurt others. I pity them for there are few that detect the cancer in time to remove it before it becomes terminal.
Toadius_Maximus_I 04-22-07, 09:53 AM	:embarrass This is in no way directed at anyone here or their opinions, just the tendenct of middle to late Gen x'ers and much of Gen Y. I find it sad that a party can't transfer money or property in the right spirit simply because too many people would abuse it, making it something that's not worth the complications. ---Toadius Maximus I
Howie23 04-22-07, 10:15 AM	Did someone actually try to do this or just spot the loophole and ask about it? I certainly saw it mentioned on here but I got the impression they were more interested in pointing out the loophole than exploiting it. For the record (mine if no one else's): I pointed out the loophole in the druid rebuild for PCs who hadn't leveled yet. I didn't use it. David
Reznor00 04-22-07, 12:37 PM	Transferring gold between PCs would unbalance the game way too much. Any level 15 character that has a ton or extra cash would give it to a low level PC and he would have way more stuff than he's suppose to and suddenly the low level AP challenge modules, aren't to challenging anymore. Look what transferring gold does in MMORPGs, your high level character gives your low level alternate character a bunch of gold so at low level he's massively twinked out. This would be a bad thing for the RPGA to allow and would ruin the game, and I hope and don't think the Circle would ever allow it to happen. Now the thought of transferring access stuff doesn't really hurt things too much in my opinion. Since you can only play a module 1 time ever if you for example unlock access to something that is beneficial for arcane casters and you played your fighter for that module but you have another alternate character that's a wizard who is to say you can't 'tell your buddy about this benefit' and pass it on to him to gain the access. You still should only be able to get that benefit for one character ever and it would have to be recorded and tracked somehow with some documentation. I don't however see these really unbalancing things much. Since the RPGA modules aren't a linked single storyline arc and it's a world with a ton of adventurers it doesn't really mess with the continuity to much. Just a thought, ~MB
Timlagor 04-22-07, 07:25 PM	LGCS p5: "Surviving loaned items and anything purchased with borrowed GP reverts back to your PC at the end of the game." This could be changed to allowing the "replacement of loaned items" as well (and possibly "reimbursement for consumed items"). I don't think that could be abused. No one responded to this suggestion. Was this because no one can find a flaw or just because you didn't think it worthy of notice? Can anyone see a way to exploit such a change?
Jay_Ibero_911 04-22-07, 07:46 PM	No one responded to this suggestion. Was this because no one can find a flaw or just because you didn't think it worthy of notice? Can anyone see a way to exploit such a change? If nothing else, it would require a minor clarification explicitly stating that the borrower can only re-imburse the lender for the exact ammount the lender spent on the used item, to preven crafters from turning a profit by lending out crafted items, and then be re-imbursed the market value rather than the ammount the crafter spent. And if possible the lender must immediately use the re-imbursed funds to re-purchase the expended item, so they aren't effectively selling an item back for full value. Alternately, just make it so a borrower can only re-imburse the lender for half the market value of the expended item.
Mystical_Tutor 04-22-07, 10:37 PM	...it would require a minor clarification explicitly stating that the borrower can only re-imburse the lender for the exact ammount the lender spent on the used item, to preven crafters from turning a profit by lending out crafted items,.. And if possible the lender must ... Your suggestions, IMO are quite practical as far as the fareness of the game are concerned but I still have 2 problems with the whole idea. 1) Increased paperwork. There is already more than the average GM (or group) wants to take the time to review before starting a mod (isn't it a requirement that all crafting be reviewed before the mod as well as that the GM is to be informed of every non-core item and spell being used as well as being provided the documentation for such?). There is bearly time to scribble out AR's at a convention when the mod runs over and that is also your lunch hour. 2) Just because I can't see a way to exploit it means nothing. Those skilled in exploitation will see the holes AND NOT TELL US ABOUT THEM. Don't forget! I'm all for the idea and wish it could be implemented but I see no safe, realistic way for it to be done.
Jay_Ibero_911 04-22-07, 11:04 PM	Your suggestions, IMO are quite practical as far as the fareness of the game are concerned but I still have 2 problems with the whole idea. 1) Increased paperwork. There is already more than the average GM (or group) wants to take the time to review before starting a mod (isn't it a requirement that all crafting be reviewed before the mod as well as that the GM is to be informed of every non-core item and spell being used as well as being provided the documentation for such?). There is bearly time to scribble out AR's at a convention when the mod runs over and that is also your lunch hour. 2) Just because I can't see a way to exploit it means nothing. Those skilled in exploitation will see the holes AND NOT TELL US ABOUT THEM. Don't forget! I'm all for the idea and wish it could be implemented but I see no safe, realistic way for it to be done. Well, my second suggestion would be amazingly simple to implement, practical, and fair, at least IMO. Just allow half re-imbursement for items used by other characters. The borrower would note Xgp spent on re-imbursement for item Y in the items bought section of the AR, and the lender would note Xgp gained for lending of item Y in the items sold section of the AR. It would be effectively like selling the consumable item, except to another character. And this would only be an option, not a requirement. I'm sure there would still be ways to exploit it, but with the consumable item still lost, and the original owner only getting half GP re-imbursed, I don't think it would cause an problems, no more than having other players help pay to raise a dead character.
cheeky_ktty 04-23-07, 02:40 AM	Everyone keeps mentioning the problems with-say a lvl 14 character off loading all their unwanted gold and consumables onto a lower lvl character, so why not have a PC lvl cap for trades? Like a PC cannot trade consumables or gold with a character either two levels higher or lower than their own.
MatteBlack 04-23-07, 09:53 AM	I'd really like for trades and I.O.U.s to be possible but, as this thread goes longer and longer, I think back to my online gaming experiences and am really beginning to feel like it's not worth the exploiting and twinking that would be likely to occur. I haven't heard an answer that promoted appropriate trades more than inapproriate trades without needing a fair amount extra paperwork to function properly.
Timlagor 04-23-07, 11:08 AM	I do agree that allowing transfer of gp in anything more than the most limitted fashion is impractical -the effort needed to monitor and police it simply isn't worth it. However I do think my idea does have merit (not that I'll lose any sleep if it isn't adopted). 1) Increased paperwork. There is already more than the average GM (or group) wants to take the time to review before starting a mod (isn't it a requirement that all crafting be reviewed before the mod as well as that the GM is to be informed of every non-core item and spell being used as well as being provided the documentation for such?). There is bar[e]ly time to scribble out AR's at a convention when the mod runs over and that is also your lunch hour. People rarely check much if anything (beyond the current and last AR) already (and round here checking seems much more likely to resutl in a Character gaining gp&xp than losing it). There is usually a certain amount of 'getting settled' time at the beginning of a slot that the well-organised GM can usufully use to look over the documentation of at least one PC. There is a paper trail that can be followed later if you are suspicious so it isn't necessary for everything to be checked every time ...and mostly we prefer to just trust people. In this case there is no extra paperwork. You just add it to the 'items bought' and 'items sold' sections: in fact the guy doing the lending may not need to put anything extra on the AR at all. It is one extra thing to put in that box but then the guy who's item it was would probably be buying another anyway. I'd even say this change was small enough that it could appear in a DC rather than waiting for the next LGCS. 2) Just because I can't see a way to exploit it means nothing. Those skilled in exploitation will see the holes AND NOT TELL US ABOUT THEM. My experience is that if you ask in a forum such as this before implementing a change then people will point out any exploits for you with a very high reliability. Being honest and wanting the campaign to stay healthy does not preclude being good at identifying potential exploitation.
jhorred 04-24-07, 07:19 PM	For the record (mine if no one else's): I pointed out the loophole in the druid rebuild for PCs who hadn't leveled yet. I didn't use it. David Out of curiosity, what is the loophole? I don't have a Druid but I'm curious to see what people would try. If you don't want to publicize it can you PM it to me?
mlund 04-24-07, 07:43 PM	The only thing I'd actively endorse in all of this would be the ability to replace consumable goods at the end of modules by both buying (not crafting) the consumable in question and marking it off of one's Master Item Log Sheet as well. - Marty Lund
Vamroc 04-25-07, 12:34 PM	NO NO NO because if you play with the same group over and over one PC has all the gold. He then becomes the crafter of the group wrackin up 2000 - 5000 gp a mod. When he reaches eighth or ninth level he'll have close to 1,000,000, gp and handing out the DMG like it's a TGIF menu. This is both unfair to the DM and those who write mods.
Redfist 04-25-07, 12:49 PM	Personally - I'm not in favor of any of it period. There are too many clever people who would find clever loopholes and just annoy the snot out of their fellow players and judges. I think the current system works well enough and avoids corruption. Unfortunately, avoiding corruption in a global campaign is a top teir priority. I'm not saying people from "other countries" are cheaters - far from it. I'm merely stating that with a large campaign where you have an amount of anonymity (travelling out-of-region, etc.), you will inevitably run into abhorent behaviors. It's just like "the internet". People treat each other like crap on newgroups, etc. because there is no real consequence. No-one is going to punch you in the face. No-one is going to shun you socially in any substantive way, etc. I think the mechanics of the campaign are working well. Rather that trying to change the mechanics constantly, I wish people would allow "the powers that be" to work on CONTENT instead. Content should be the focus imho. Not "can we cast evil spells?" Not "can we give $$ to other PCs?" Not "can we change the APL rules?" Not "can we nerf crafters even more?" Not "can we just have access to everything?" Not "can we have the default for new books be OPEN?" Not "can we have every mod have 15 pages dedicated to avoiding jail time?" etc.. My preference would be to simply allow "the powers that be" (circle, triad, authors, etc) to work on compelling story lines and one-off adventures and stop flooding them what stuff like this. --Gordon
MatteBlack 04-25-07, 01:38 PM	NO NO NO because if you play with the same group over and over one PC has all the gold. He then becomes the crafter of the group wrackin up 2000 - 5000 gp a mod. When he reaches eighth or ninth level he'll have close to 1,000,000, gp and handing out the DMG like it's a TGIF menu. This is both unfair to the DM and those who write mods. I think I agree with you but, that last line makes we scratch my head. Unless, they drive themselves on PC blood, I don't see how this would be unfair to the DMs and writers. It's unfair to any player pushed to the sidelines when they play with characters from this hypothetical group with overscaled items. It's not Writers/DMs against players. At least, it shouldn't be.
Timlagor 04-25-07, 02:37 PM	Personally - I'm not in favor of any of it period. There are too many clever people who would find clever loopholes and just annoy the snot out of their fellow players and judges. So what you're saying is that you can't see a way to exploit my (very limitted) suggestion and no one else has produced one but you're going to arbitrarily assume that there is one anyway? If there's a loophole, point it out! I'm really quite certain that there is no way it could be abused.
Howie23 04-25-07, 02:43 PM	Out of curiosity, what is the loophole? I don't have a Druid but I'm curious to see what people would try. If you don't want to publicize it can you PM it to me? The loophole that I pointed out re: the druid rebuild was that there were a number of people who had PCs who had played a mod that levelled them prior to the cut off date, and had not yet chosen the level. I was one of them. Violating the spirit of the rebuild, I could have leveled in druid, and then done a full rebuild of the character. I didn't do this, and for the most part was pointing out the loophole and being smug with myself for having found it. David
MatteBlack 04-25-07, 03:05 PM	LGCS p5: "Surviving loaned items and anything purchased with borrowed GP reverts back to your PC at the end of the game." This could be changed to allowing the "replacement of loaned items" as well (and possibly "reimbursement for consumed items"). I don't think that could be abused. I think you would need to define it so that "replacement of loaned items" could not be interpreted in a way that allowed one player to loan an item to another and then take repayment in lew of the item which would basically allow sales between characters.
MatteBlack 04-25-07, 03:12 PM	So what you're saying is that you can't see a way to exploit my (very limitted) suggestion and no one else has produced one but you're going to arbitrarily assume that there is one anyway? If there's a loophole, point it out! I'm really quite certain that there is no way it could be abused. I am sort of new to LG but, I think your idea and discussion of it could benefit from you expanding on it a bit more.
Redfist 04-25-07, 03:19 PM	So what you're saying is that you can't see a way to exploit my (very limitted) suggestion and no one else has produced one but you're going to arbitrarily assume that there is one anyway? If there's a loophole, point it out! I'm really quite certain that there is no way it could be abused. No - that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying rather than having people spend cycles trying to come up with something bullet proof and possibly be proven wrong, I'd rather they spend time working on STORY. Volunteer orgs = limited resources. I wouldn't personally condone wasting those resources on this issue.
Puggle Halfwine 04-26-07, 07:20 PM	The loophole that I pointed out re: the druid rebuild was that there were a number of people who had PCs who had played a mod that levelled them prior to the cut off date, and had not yet chosen the level. I was one of them. I also was one of these and it was with a character whom: a) I was planning to take a level of Druid anyway. b) Druid would make a lot of sense for (increasingly so at the time). c) Needed a rebuild anyway. I didn't do it because it was too cheesy for me. Not everyone who has the chance to abuse something does it, far from it...
Mithreinmaethor 04-27-07, 03:56 AM	Didnt Britt post an answer to the question about the Druid retrain loophole ? I think he said you had to have played the module that gained you the level after the 1st version of the LGCS 597 was released.
AOSOL 04-27-07, 10:28 AM	I don't know if you ever played Living City, but those sort of things always happened. I remember people making characters on what others could part with. I personally gave away a +3 rapier, +4 shadow, silent studded leather and a ring of protection +4 to a 3rd level ranger so I could insure my friend would make it through the second game. If it legalized people will once again set up trading sites with their characters to barter off goodies. The whole idea of player to player bartering can ruin a campaign and I like Greyhawk, so my vote it NAY!:noway: