Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The_Jester 06-20-07, 12:21 AM	So I'm writing a regional mod and am well into the self-editing and final stages (to my in my Triad's hands in a day or two) and I'm double-checking my math for treasure and experience. Then I notice some oddity in the Writer's Guidelines. In the xp section it advises that 30xp be awarded for each EL so a EL4 encounter nets 120xp. And at the bottom it includes this: Note to authors: the roleplaying award and story awards must be 20% or less of the total award for the adventure and may only be awarded when less than the maximum number of ELs for the APL is used. Seems fair enough: if you use fewer ELs and have a more role-playing intensive module you should be able to bump up the xp with story rewards. But apparently it can ONLY be used in that case. Then I take another peak into the "Writing a Core Adventure" pdf that has the maximum ELs charted out. An APL2 has a max of 12 ELs. But 12 x 30 = 360xp! Well less than the maximum of an APL2 adventure (450xp). I was going to take the 90xp difference and apply liberally between the story and RP rewards but, according the the Writer's Guidelines, I can't as I'm using the maximum number of ELs. I'm assuming something hasn't been updated but I'd really like clarification.
bitznarf 06-20-07, 12:26 AM	There is a LG Writers Yahoo group you might be able to find an answer on if no one here can/does help you in a timely fashion. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/LGWriters/
Britt 06-20-07, 01:25 AM	The Writing Guidelines are out of date by quite a bit. The Core writing document was put together by Creighton last year and this year, so it is more current. He is basically telling you to use 20% RP/Story XP and 80% EL XP, at least when writing a Core. For Regionals, that's up to your Triad, but we are usually more flexible about the RP XP, allowing you to use some of it even if you are at the max # of ELs. No matter what, though, you can't exceed the 20% cap for RP/Story XP.
Lupo 06-20-07, 07:45 AM	So I'm writing a regional mod and am well into the self-editing and final stages (to my in my Triad's hands in a day or two) and I'm double-checking my math for treasure and experience. Then I notice some oddity in the Writer's Guidelines. In the xp section it advises that 30xp be awarded for each EL so a EL4 encounter nets 120xp. And at the bottom it includes this: Seems fair enough: if you use fewer ELs and have a more role-playing intensive module you should be able to bump up the xp with story rewards. But apparently it can ONLY be used in that case. Then I take another peak into the "Writing a Core Adventure" pdf that has the maximum ELs charted out. An APL2 has a max of 12 ELs. But 12 x 30 = 360xp! Well less than the maximum of an APL2 adventure (450xp). I was going to take the 90xp difference and apply liberally between the story and RP rewards but, according the the Writer's Guidelines, I can't as I'm using the maximum number of ELs. I'm assuming something hasn't been updated but I'd really like clarification. the math is quite simple (example for APL 2): 80% of 450XP = 360XP 20% of 450XP = 90XP 360XP + 90XP = 450XP :) and one can't give out more role playing awards than the 20% (one of the reason why some of "role-players" see LG as an international hack'n'slash :D) yea, and join the lg-writers group at yahoo :) ciao martin m.
amnuxoll 06-20-07, 11:10 AM	No matter what, though, you can't exceed the 20% cap for RP/Story XP. Why is this? Enquiring minds want to know. :AMN: (Author of multiple LG scenarios.)
gomeztoo 06-20-07, 11:19 AM	Probaby to prevent scenarios like: - You are in an inn. - You order a beer. - You gain 450 xp. or something similar. Anwyay, the general idea is that you earn xp for 'taking risk', and that there is no fun to gain it if there isn't any. There are exceptions though: interactives can give out xp without need for combat. And ofcourse, 'taking risk' is pretty stretchy.
smerwin29 06-20-07, 12:32 PM	One thing the Circle might want to consider is separating RP XP and Story Award XP. Right now they seem to be lumped together, and it might help writers if there were separated. Shawn
solbergb 06-20-07, 12:45 PM	All two times I wrote something I used all the "RP/Story" xp for "story" awards, as both scenarios had goals which depended on how well you did in the conflicts not just "winning the fight". OTOH, I've not really seen roleplay xp used for much of anything except to punish people who annoyed the GM with their behavior (and that's pretty rare), so I don't really value it much. Maybe it's different in the regions where I have not played.
Britt 06-20-07, 02:45 PM	Why is this? Enquiring minds want to know. Standing rule that's been there since the beginning of the campaign, AFAIK.
The_Jester 06-20-07, 08:49 PM	Just wanted to double-check (triple really). Creighton's guide is great but my main concern came from the format-n-style guide in Word.
The_Jester 06-20-07, 08:50 PM	And what's so great about the writer's yahoo group? Lots of brainstorming or something?
bitznarf 06-20-07, 08:57 PM	No idea, I just know it exists and might have some useful stuff. I've never looked at it myself.
smerwin29 06-21-07, 07:35 AM	And what's so great about the writer's yahoo group? Lots of brainstorming or something? Honestly, I just left that group because it has started turning into a place where a few too many people who like to hear themselves talk and stir up controversy are creating too much noise to too little signal. If you have a high tolerance for such things, you are OK. If not (like me), you are better to just email a few people you trust to help you and share ideas.
gomeztoo 06-21-07, 02:30 PM	I just put it on web only, and occasionally check if there is something interesting. But I do that with almost all my LG groups (40 atm)
amnuxoll 06-22-07, 09:53 AM	Standing rule that's been there since the beginning of the campaign, AFAIK. This rule continues to strike me as being off. In my mind it should be 50% combat and 50% roleplay / story award. I realize that others would like other percentages. This is just me. The point is that, as an author, it chafes sometimes to have to add a random thug attack or trap in order to make a story work when there might be two or three good opportunities for story awards or roleplaying awards. Frustrating. =( I'd encourage you Circle-type-folks to review the basis for the rule and consider relaxing it. Poll your players. Would they like to see more xp granted for non-combat? :AMN:
Simpi 06-22-07, 10:37 AM	This rule continues to strike me as being off. In my mind it should be 50% combat and 50% roleplay / story award. I realize that others would like other percentages. This is just me. The point is that, as an author, it chafes sometimes to have to add a random thug attack or trap in order to make a story work when there might be two or three good opportunities for story awards or roleplaying awards. Frustrating. =( One way of getting past these limitations is to have competing factions in the module who can be lead astray someway* and thus award exp from doing a roleplaying solution to possible encounter. For example, my meta-regional TSS5-04 The Sun & The Nightingale had ways to solve the module without fights and still earn full exp, most gp and appropriate favor with faction you sided with (Merchant named Nurriev, Royal Guild of Merchants of Aerdy or Pomarj slavers) *such as sending said faction after a red herring and then telling local Hextorites that there are some troublemakers there Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Britt 06-22-07, 01:42 PM	Look at Madhouse sometime if you want to see how much you can bend the definition of "challenge". There's also, as mentioned, encounters that could be averted and still count as a "challenge". It all depends on your story, the person reviewing it, and how many other "flexible" mods you have done recently. I think most of us are willing to let some flexibility slide if it fits the story and creates a good adventure, as long as it's not done all the time.
Madfox11 06-27-07, 09:59 AM	This rule continues to strike me as being off. In my mind it should be 50% combat and 50% roleplay / story award. I realize that others would like other percentages. This is just me. The biggest reason their is no big RP reward is that it is impossible to qualify RP. When exactly have you done enough RP to receive the reward? Besides, who are we to say that a lot of RPing is better than the players that have a lot of fun meta-gaming/planning their way through an adventure (assuming all the players have fun)? On the otherhand, it is very easy to note when a group of PCs have overcome a specific challenge, and remember overcoming the challenge does not just have to be through violence*. If you design your encounters correctly, overcoming the challenge will also be the same as reaching the story goals. * Note that role-playing is NOT the same as using the diplomatic route as is somehow suggested by many people in discussions like this. A violent aggresive fighter with an insatiable bloodlust who chooses the violent route is just as much RPing as the pacifist who always tries to talk his way out of things.
copper_wyrmling 06-27-07, 11:30 AM	* Note that role-playing is NOT the same as using the diplomatic route as is somehow suggested by many people in discussions like this. A violent aggresive fighter with an insatiable bloodlust who chooses the violent route is just as much RPing as the pacifist who always tries to talk his way out of things. Quoted for truth. Roleplaying is something entirely different from investigation or diplomacy: being able to get 60 on your diplomacy roll doesn't have any more to do with roleplaying than being able to reliably hit AC 50. I also prefer a more objective measure of success than how much the party roleplayed - I tend to feel that fun roleplaying is its own reward, and I'd rather not have 50% of the rewards for the mod be based on a purely subjective GM judgement (from the perspective of someone who GMs quite frequently, and often in situations where I don't know the PCs' background or personalities prior to the game).
clannagh 07-02-07, 01:11 AM	Quoted for truth. Roleplaying is something entirely different from investigation or diplomacy: being able to get 60 on your diplomacy roll doesn't have any more to do with roleplaying than being able to reliably hit AC 50. I also prefer a more objective measure of success than how much the party roleplayed - I tend to feel that fun roleplaying is its own reward, and I'd rather not have 50% of the rewards for the mod be based on a purely subjective GM judgement (from the perspective of someone who GMs quite frequently, and often in situations where I don't know the PCs' background or personalities prior to the game). I tend to agree. Especially when some GM's seem to use roleplay experience as a big stick to wave at players .... "A real druid/paladin/etc would not behave like that I am docking you RP experience." Roleplay for me is not about conforming to a preconceived idea of what a D&D character "should" be. I also do not personally see "roleplay" as predesigning a funky character with a weird voice and some random unusual PrC's for flavor. Creating a PC like that may give you a character that is fun to roleplay with, but just having such a character and "doing the voices" is not roleplay. Roleplay for me is interacting dynamically with the imaged world your character lives in .. and assessing success at that interaction is a very subjective thing.
_metz_ 07-02-07, 02:31 AM	I tend to only dock roleplaying experience from people if they actively don't participate. Examples of this are: not talking, not interacting, reading a comic/magazine during encounters or when talking and so on. I tend to question character motives when I am playing with them, in character (which if they provide a justification is usually fine by me) rather than when DMing them. Having said that, I do occasionally bring up certain questions like: 'Why is the LG cleric of Pelor helping the army of Undead on a whim?' (Seen this) If I feel a player is doing something outlandish, but I don't usually dock their Experience, rather highlight how their acts don't seem to match their own descriptions of what they are. I would like to point out though, that whilst I agree with Clannagh's statement on roleplay NOT being about preconceived notions, I do feel STRONGLY that once said notions of YOUR OWN are supposedly established, playing out of them should either result in a differing explanation, or a change in the character somewhat. (changing alignments used to be one of the ways to do this). Many people often get these mixed up. If you want to make all your actions chaotic and random and occasionally borderline evil, then that is fine, but if you are playing a Paladin, NO amount of 'Roleplay is a preconceived notion and I am doing what I want' can adequately explain that you are effectively NOT roleplaying what you yourself made your character out to be. What I say is: Be consistent, and Don't use class abilities to exploit things. (Again I knew of a Paladin who did quasi - evil stuff all the time, the player only played it cos he felt Paladins were more optimal for mounted combat.) I see that as an exploit.
Madfox11 07-02-07, 03:53 AM	I tend to only dock roleplaying experience from people if they actively don't participate. Examples of this are: not talking, not interacting, reading a comic/magazine during encounters or when talking and so on. There is a large group of gamers who play this game to enjoy the company of friends and who derive their fun from watching the game. I always find a bit hard to penalize somebody because he enjoys a different aspect of the game as I do. Others might be too shy and inexperienced or are overwhelmed by the dominant players. If you want to penalize these players you better make sure that you as a DM did your utmost best to draw the players into the game or cut the dominant players short or otherwise you can only blame yourself for the lack of attention. Now the comic book reading or sleeping players is a whole other thing, but I doubt you would reach anything by docking them some role-playing xp.
_metz_ 07-02-07, 10:13 AM	There is a large group of gamers who play this game to enjoy the company of friends and who derive their fun from watching the game. I always find a bit hard to penalize somebody because he enjoys a different aspect of the game as I do. Others might be too shy and inexperienced or are overwhelmed by the dominant players. If you want to penalize these players you better make sure that you as a DM did your utmost best to draw the players into the game or cut the dominant players short or otherwise you can only blame yourself for the lack of attention. Now the comic book reading or sleeping players is a whole other thing, but I doubt you would reach anything by docking them some role-playing xp. I don't really consider it 'docking' per say. Its just I feel that liek an encounter, if someone doesn't talk the whole game, its difficult to give them that xp. I am not talking about tired players at midnight madness or anything, just players who actually don't really care much for talking or itnereaction. I find it VERY hard to justify giving such xp if you can't give out encounter xp if a player doesn't participate in an encounter. (These are extreme examples btw, where a player LITERALLY doesn't talk all game and has their character half played by a friend cos they are only interested in leveling...) I've only ever docked such xp a couple of times out of a LOT of DMed games. In the module I am currently writing, I plan to use this xp for story based rewards if possible.
thorinXXX 07-03-07, 12:15 PM	Quoted for truth. Roleplaying is something entirely different from investigation or diplomacy: being able to get 60 on your diplomacy roll doesn't have any more to do with roleplaying than being able to reliably hit AC 50. I also prefer a more objective measure of success than how much the party roleplayed - I tend to feel that fun roleplaying is its own reward, and I'd rather not have 50% of the rewards for the mod be based on a purely subjective GM judgement (from the perspective of someone who GMs quite frequently, and often in situations where I don't know the PCs' background or personalities prior to the game). Do you mean XP based more on acomplishing objectives? Something more like if you get the widget you get XXX XP. It does not matter if you took the widget off of the dead body of the villian, picked his pocket, or convinced him it was cursed so that he gave it to you for disposal. Personally, that is the way that I think XP should be awarded.
pedr 07-03-07, 12:22 PM	Do you mean XP based more on acomplishing objectives? Something more like if you get the widget you get XXX XP. It does not matter if you took the widget off of the dead body of the villian, picked his pocket, or convinced him it was cursed so that he gave it to you for disposal. Personally, that is the way that I think XP should be awarded.For what it's worth, I agree. There does appear to be a general predisposition to combat encounters in LG, and it can't be said that this is due to the 'core rules', which clearly allow for the award of 'story XP awards' as well as XP for defeating opponents. This could go hand-in-hand with reducing the extent to which 'Greyhawking' bodies is required: more inaccessible treasure matched by direct financial rewards would reduce the extent to which LG sometimes feels like bands of mercenary-thieves roaming the Flanaess looking for excuses to kill people and take their stuff :D
Madfox11 07-04-07, 03:33 AM	It depends on the adventure, but when the object of an encounter is to find item X or liberate person Y I always advice the triads to grant xp based on reaching the goal and not necessarily killing the opponents. Besides, more often than not, the text states 'defeat' and that does not necessarily mean kill...
clannagh 07-04-07, 03:59 AM	For what it's worth, I agree. There does appear to be a general predisposition to combat encounters in LG, Which leads to a predisposition to combat from the players. I recall a game where it took PC deaths before the party finally all agreed to diplomacise what was clearly a diplomacisable encounter. The logic seemd to be "this is LG and LG authors take all your loot off you if you try and diplomacise so just kill it" .
thorinXXX 07-04-07, 11:39 AM	Which leads to a predisposition to combat from the players. I recall a game where it took PC deaths before the party finally all agreed to diplomacise what was clearly a diplomacisable encounter. The logic seemd to be "this is LG and LG authors take all your loot off you if you try and diplomacise so just kill it" . I recall several more occasions where diplomacy was outright rejected because loot and acess might have been lost. I have also seen people pick fights with allies so that they could get their stuff. Anything that breaks the 'kill 'em all so we can get their stuff' mentality can't be bad. Combat will always make up at least 50% of LG. That does not mean that it should be the only option. Right now peple are legitimately afraid that if they do not kill everything they will miss out on access and gold. That more than anything else drives the kill 'em all attitude. Fortunately we seem to have gotten rid of the idea of playing smart will cost you, and treasure and XP in silly and/or random spots. I remember scenarios where if you followed the bad guy back to his lair you missed the lost in the woods encounter, thus missing loot and access. I also remember treasure would be found in the oddest places, like inside critters or at the bottom of a wine press and if you did not find the treasure (that you were not specificly looking for) you also lost XP.
Puggle Halfwine 07-04-07, 11:43 AM	I recently played an (excellent) core module where almost every fight could be beaten through roleplaying and there was even a favour at the end if you did just that. I would love to see more of this.
boolean 07-05-07, 03:19 AM	I recently played an (excellent) core module where almost every fight could be beaten through roleplaying and there was even a favour at the end if you did just that. One problem with that module. There's pretty much no over-cap gold in the module, so the non-combat solution to one encounter leads to characters getting significantly less than full gold. (Slightly under half the gold for the module is tied up in beating up the opponents and taking their stuff.) Which leads back to the mentality that combat is always the best option, as any other method causes you to lose stuff. (In the module in question, this problem could have been avoided by giving the final encounter more gear, and/or giving a larger financial reward for successful completion of objectives.)