Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jagggar 06-08-06, 04:14 PM	This poll is not a vote. This poll is a survey. Just because an answer gets a lot of votes does not mean that it will dictate a course of action.
thasis 06-08-06, 04:49 PM	What about an option of running ECL15 at the original guild threads and the ELC7 on the new threads?
turalisj 06-08-06, 05:12 PM	Wow. Looks like an even split. Next poll: Which dragon would you rather hang out with: Turalisj, Sssargoth, or Tenzhi? :D
Kobold_Ur_Priest 06-08-06, 06:44 PM	Make the ECL 7 the default, move the ECL 15
Wilds 06-08-06, 06:52 PM	If the ECL 15 is run again. Will we be able to use new characters?
Kobold_Ur_Priest 06-08-06, 06:53 PM	I hope so, i have a nice little idea for one
jagggar 06-08-06, 07:24 PM	If the ECL 15 is run again. Will we be able to use new characters? Let me put it this way: Was there previously anything preventing you from using new characters?
thasis 06-08-06, 07:28 PM	It's basically exactly the same as the old IFWG except run along side the new one... I dunno about moving though, in concept it was good. I was all gung-ho for it, but now... looking at the difficulty of the situation, makes things... more difficult then worth it I guess.
jagggar 06-08-06, 07:32 PM	It's basically exactly the same as the old IFWG except run along side the new one... I dunno about moving though, in concept it was good. I was all gung-ho for it, but now... looking at the difficulty of the situation, makes things... more difficult then worth it I guess. Could you expand on what you mean? Cause I kinda don't understand it. edit: specifically, which what is difficult.
thasis 06-08-06, 07:41 PM	Well moving it would entail: a.) Loosing availability of new members. It's basically our own private message boards that we'll only get people willing to join through invite, and even then... small boards like that rarely have good active members. b.) Anybody wanting to play in the new game enviroment would simply have to create a new account on the new message boards, get approved by a GM, and work in the smaller enviroment opposed to this enviroment. It will discourage far to many people. Those are just the two main reasons that come to my head at this momment. I'm leaving to get food, so realy, any questions about the difficultness will be answered later...
Kobold_Ur_Priest 06-08-06, 07:55 PM	Then how, in as civilized a manner as possible, are we going to combine the FoD/ECL 15 & ECL 7? :confused: :confused: :confused:
jagggar 06-08-06, 07:57 PM	Mmm. Food good. I wish I had food. Traffic would also depend on where it was moved. A tiny homemaed board probably wouldn't get much traffic, but if it was hosted on a larger site such as RPOL I'd be tempted to say there's no chance of getting less traffic than we're already getting here. Thanks, that did clear up what you meant.
Kobold_Ur_Priest 06-08-06, 08:00 PM	lets see what happens, but in all honesty, i want to use my ECL 7 rather than my ECL 15
jagggar 06-08-06, 08:11 PM	Well, the original plan was to eliminate the ECL 15 so that the threads we have currently would be freeform/Freedom of Destiny. The ECL 7 would be run in seperate threads created by the GMs. If we could get the support and WizO permission we were going to move the ECL 7 into a subforum. I'm not going to make any predictions if things change. Okay, just one. The ECL 15 and ECL 7 are going to be kept seperate since that would just be a slaughter fest.
Dyne 06-08-06, 10:19 PM	Next poll: Which dragon would you rather hang out with: Turalisj, Sssargoth, or Tenzhi? :D Tenzhi. Just to see if he would try to eat me.
Dyne 06-08-06, 10:24 PM	a.) Loosing availability of new members. It's basically our own private message boards that we'll only get people willing to join through invite, and even then... small boards like that rarely have good active members. Actually, no. The "new message board" is RPoL.com, which already has its own community and player base. In fact, there are far more people on RPoL than at the Guild House, and so it would be a lot easier to attract new people (possibly attracting new people to the Guild House as well). In fact, I've already got a person that's been waiting for months for the game to start up. He jumped right in immediately after creating the forum for the game. I've used RPoL before, and I seriously doubt that would be any problem in getting new players (in fact, I've more often had trouble with having too many players). Really, though, I plan on running the 15th-level game over there regardless of this decision. The real decision is if you guys want to combine the ECL 15 IFWG with my 15th-level game, or if you'd rather try cramming it into the Guild House.
Zombomaniac 06-08-06, 10:27 PM	I mostly just want all three seperate and ECL 7 to be the main in this forum. And I think Dyne has a good plan there. And I'll be honest. If someone kills my PC I will likely whine a little, but unless they get rude or did it in a cheating fasion I wont truely care and will quickly get over it. Likely complement them to if they did a real good job of killing me.
Kobold_Ur_Priest 06-08-06, 10:57 PM	I mostly just want all three seperate and ECL 7 to be the main in this forum. And I think Dyne has a good plan there. And I'll be honest. If someone kills my PC I will likely whine a little, but unless they get rude or did it in a cheating fasion I wont truely care and will quickly get over it. Likely complement them to if they did a real good job of killing me. same here i think im going to go check out RPOL
thasis 06-08-06, 11:59 PM	Well if people are willing to actualy head over to RPOL then it's all good, combine away. But if we can't attract anybody from here (the original IFWG people) then it's not realy combining the games as much as taking one or two people from the IFWG and having them join a completly new game.
jagggar 06-09-06, 10:58 AM	Hmmm. . . Guilds and Kingdoms? Just a guess since it's ECL 15 and mentions Stormhand. Anyway, At the moment I think I did make it a tad bit short, or at least phrased one wrong. Better than "would you be okay with moving it" should have been "If we moved it, would you follow."
thasis 06-09-06, 04:32 PM	Mmm... so who here is actualy willing to go to a new message boards to engage in the ECL15?
Dyne 06-09-06, 05:23 PM	Hmmm. . . Guilds and Kingdoms? Just a guess since it's ECL 15 and mentions Stormhand. Yup, that's the one. It's still under construction, but it's "almost" finished. Have to post up some of the rules, figure out what guilds are gonna be there, that kind of thing.
jagggar 06-09-06, 05:43 PM	Well, I'll be where-ever at least long enough to finish up this bounty business Darby's got on her. After that, it will depend a little more on how much energy I have left after doing what needs to be done for the ECL 7.
turalisj 06-09-06, 09:43 PM	Yup, that's the one. It's still under construction, but it's "almost" finished. Have to post up some of the rules, figure out what guilds are gonna be there, that kind of thing. Is there a link to it? I might join in.... Perhaps with my new monk/rogue (ascetic rogue)
Zombomaniac 06-09-06, 09:55 PM	Why not? :) If you provide a link I'll join. Though if I fade away to focus on the ECL 7 don't be surprised.
Frostbite_Ravenheart 06-09-06, 10:22 PM	Well, the original plan was to eliminate the ECL 15 so that the threads we have currently would be freeform/Freedom of Destiny. The ECL 7 would be run in seperate threads created by the GMs. If we could get the support and WizO permission we were going to move the ECL 7 into a subforum. [Edit:] I'm re-reading this thread over and I'm not so sure this post makes as much sense now. Not to be a pessimist or anything but...do you actually believe we can get the WizO's to give us a sub-forum? I mean, were lucky enough as it is to have a guildhouse concidering how it only applies to a very small minority at the wizards board. Not that it matters but if I could rewrite the boards anyway I'd want...I'd have one place for just foundations and just conversation relating to the topic of the foundation and another place for an ECL 15 game involving every participating foundation. The only reason I would personally want an ECL 7 game is beacuse it would probably involve a lot less working relating to armies and districts of the foundations but at the same time what we could do with the concept of foundations would be a lot less varied with only 7th level leaders. -Frosty
jagggar 06-09-06, 10:45 PM	Nah, it's not like any of it makes sense in the first place. Anyway, I asked Shadow and she said, It's actually pretty high on the likely scale so long as the opinons are there to support it. I could always rig up a poll and everyone can anonymously ask Of course, there are two issues I see before we get to that point. We have to make sure that the sort of thing we want (I don't want 20 people saying afterwards that they thought the subforum was going to be for this or that). And, as usual, we need to wait for the board reset. Which is kinda funny, cause we're doing all this talking that is going to be lost anyway. The reason ECL 7 is going to be entirely seperate from the rest of the topics (even without a subforum) is so that we don't have to force the foundations to be confined to the limts of ECL 7. Well, that's one of them. The Guilds in ECL 7 are going to be a little more towards the adventuring group side of things, but some of the hush-hush rules will make it a bit of strategy as well. One of the main differences between ECL 7 and the way the IFWG has been run before is that it's going to be just a little different from D&D where as the previous IFWGs were Player vs Player (in all too real a way) using d20 rules.
Astron the Wizard 06-10-06, 03:06 PM	I have a question. Wah the heck is ECL 7 and ECL 15???? Doesn't ECL stand for Effective Character Level? :P
Zombomaniac 06-10-06, 03:36 PM	I have a question. Wah the heck is ECL 7 and ECL 15???? Doesn't ECL stand for Effective Character Level? :P Yes it does. We are talking about the three different ideas for the IFWG. Right now Thasis, Dyne, and a few more are wanting to start their own ECL 15 IFWG and here at the Guild House Forums we are going to have a ECL 7 IFWG. So yes that is what ECL (Effective Character Level) means, but to make things simpler we are calling the ECL 7 IFWG and ECL 15 IFWG just ECL 7/15 every so often. :)
thasis 06-10-06, 04:30 PM	This thread here is the discussion thread over the end result of what is going to happen to the ECL7, ECL15, and Freeform games.
Dyne 06-10-06, 05:25 PM	There's nothing to see here. :shifty:
jagggar 06-10-06, 06:05 PM	And IFWG means Inter-Foundation War Games. Basicly, it was originally created so people in different guilds would interact. It then turned into a Player vs Player romp and we're now reworkign the rules so it works much more like normal D&D.
redhase 06-10-06, 09:00 PM	so if palyers wish to make it a player vrs player then they can fight it out on the arena thread, if the guilds wish to fight then the arena should have places for them to fight guild vrs guild. this was talked about before also and the arena should have guild warfare there so if don't have alot of talk back and forth and the gm's can then control the guild warfare better.
thasis 06-10-06, 09:50 PM	The IFWG 15 could be fixed easily, but instead people want to start from new because they think it would be easier, when realy it could be rather simple to fix the IFWG 15 because realy... there was mistakes, but I'm pretty sure the magority of us are willing to fix what has to be done to get the game back on the road.
jagggar 06-10-06, 10:29 PM	The simplicity of 'fixing' the IFWG depends on what you think was broken. Again, one of those big mistakes (IMO): Effectively dumping the role of DM. How many people are willing to dump their characters and their characters' plots entirely so that they can properly DM? Please, everyone, feel free to share what you thought went wrong and how we might 'fix' the problem(s).
redhase 06-10-06, 10:57 PM	jagggar The simplicity of 'fixing' the IFWG depends on what you think was broken. Again, one of those big mistakes (IMO): Effectively dumping the role of DM. How many people are willing to dump their characters and their characters' plots entirely so that they can properly DM? This depends on if new rules are written so that a gm or any player made a dm will do the following. this rule: That an player who is a dm or gm, will have to have another dm or Gm be incharge of the action (what ever is going on.) Or this rule. That no gm or dm in the IFWG can not have a charcter in the game. the only character they can have is a character that represents them and they have semi god powers. othe rrules to consider are these: the arena was talked about to have the guild fights in. this action would have made the hef (site of the last friction area) would have been played out at the arena thread, and this action would have saved alot of proublems. This is how: the hef in the arena would have had gm and dm controll at all times. The players would have had a gm or dm to keep control and be able to keep the time line strait (whitch did not happen), the gm or dm would have been able to tell players that the action they just posted is not allowed because they are not paying attention to the time line of events. A dm or gm needs to keep and post a time line of actions so every player knows what round is being played. and on the same thread box who's turn it is to attack or roll their save or other action. this was not done, and was done very badly, the gm's should have keep tract of the time line, witch they allowed to keep going and it caused alot of confusion. the game should have been stop and the gm or dm should have told witch player turn it was to do their action. then the next player, and so on. alot more could have been done and the time line issue was a big factor the wizo stoped the game, amouing others (the gm's could not control the players from saying: I doing this, when other parts of the time line was still being played out, exsample I bring in all these creatures from under the hef floor and that could not happen till the time line other issues were dealt with.). the gm's let the time line go haywire, and they did not let the dm help out either.
redhase 06-10-06, 11:38 PM	some other things that went wrong was that the game was a mixture of all worlds and it was out of balance in some ways. if a game has different worlds combined into one world then the bacis D&D rules still aplie and what areas they don't cover needs to be written down so ever player can know their limtations in that area. thsi was a kind of by word of mouth, untill the game was stopped and then an attempt was made to try and fix the rules. The rules they came up with can work but they need to be twiked so to reflect a mixed world rule system again. mixed worlds can work, the rules have to reflect this in the way they are written. and the gm's and dm's (yes that was a mistake taking them away), need to be aware of what is going on. something like this: a player wishes to make a character for the SBB guild< the player wishes to use the spying rules. The gm's and dm's should all know witch player is in undercover, so any dm or gm can roll play actions or an action (if the player needs to roll play something). the gm's and dm's need to stay in contact with each other and know what is going on at all times. this seemed to be a big proublem last time, I remember the gm's saying I have to take to so and so frist. If the gm's had keeped in contact they would not of had to contact them when the player neede someting done. the player could have rolled played the action, and the other gm or dm would have already know the whys, wherefores, and other information. no need to contact the others in charge if they all ready have the knowledge, if they don't then tell them and then make sure you get back to the p;ayer so the action can be rolled played out in a proper time frame. not days latter or a week latter. all gm's and dm's need to be keeped infromed at all times of what is going on by other dm's and gm's. so not to cause confusion.
Tenzhi 06-11-06, 12:51 AM	Please, everyone, feel free to share what you thought went wrong and how we might 'fix' the problem(s). What went wrong: 1. Being PvP-centric. The game is simply not designed for it and it further encourages inter-player conflict. 2. Lack of driving plots to give the game direction. 3. Allowing too many things from too many different sources. In my own games I do the same thing. And it can work on such a small scale (even on that scale it doesn't always work, however, as anyone who has witnessed a catastrophic RIFTs game should know). But the more players you have and the farther spread out they are and the less DM direction they are given the less viable it becomes. In any case, only allow things that you've reviewed rather than wholesale allowing, say, all first-party published books. And if something turns out to be abusable don't be afraid to usher it out of the game amidst protest. 3a. Rulesets that depend on sweeping changes and/or additions to the intrinsic ideas of the core rules are largely a bad idea to allow. For instance, allowing certain books that depend on sweeping changes/additions in regards to alignment. Or a ruleset that depended on adding a Comeliness score. 4. Timid DMs. And I mean no offense. But the DMs have to be able to confidently put their collective feet down when necessary even if it makes some players mad. You can't please all of the people all of the time. If it turns out that their custom made Special Elvish Spellcaster PrC really is overpowered, God it out of the game until it's fixed even if they're in the middle of something. If someone isn't rolling - roll for them rather than debating it for two weeks, or just say they automatically fail. And don't make a habit of backing down. Players are ravening beasts - give them a chain and they'll take a furlong. 5. Leadership is a bad feat. And that's why it's optional. Option it out.
Lady Rolindin 06-11-06, 11:08 AM	Tenzhi 4. Timid DMs. And I mean no offense. But the DMs have to be able to confidently put their collective feet down when necessary even if it makes some players mad. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Let me strating this up right now Tenzhi, I was a dm in the game and it was not me who was timid. the gm's did not wanted to define our jobs ansd sat your in charge of this area. But they never did give out areas, and they never did let us handle any thing if we tryed we were told to let them handle it. It was not us being timid, it was the gm's telling us to let them handle everthing. Why do you thin most of the dm's when the time came around for the wizo to make the new dm's I did not want to try again. part of the reson was that they would not define our areas and they wanted to control everthing and not share information. I was told when I was made a dm that i was to be told everthing about every guild and what was going on in the guilds (magic items and everthing else about ever guild). This did not happen, even if I asked for information it was not given half the time, so I had no ideal what was going on. It was the gm's who did this, and they let the dm out of the information loop, we they told us we were to be keeped in the loop. what needs to be done as pointed out is all dm's and gm's need to stay informed about everthing going on. and the gm's need to keep the dm's in the power loop and not keep them out, this happened to all dm's. the gm's wanted to control everthing and not let the dm's do their job. this was a proublem that most of you don't know about, so now you do. If the new dm's in the 15 level game or 7th level game are not keeped infromed and not given power to any thing then why have the job. The dm's are there to help the game and gm's when the game needs help in soem way. The dm's need to be keeped informed about all guilds and everthing they make or have, or what they are doing. yes I have some complaints about being a dm, espaclay when we were keeped out of the power loop and keeped in the dark about what was going on in the guilds and with the guilds.
Frostbite_Ravenheart 06-11-06, 11:10 AM	What went wrong: 1. Being PvP-centric. The game is simply not designed for it and it further encourages inter-player conflict. 2. Lack of driving plots to give the game direction. I agree with everything you just said but the game needs at least a little PvP. I mean I think it would be just a little too hard on the GMs if they had the extra-task of providing an enemy for everyone. I think that PvP should be downsized but I don't know if it should disappear altogether. Worst come to worst I would suggest that during the start of the game PvP should be banned and then slowly worked into the game as it progresses. -Frosty
jagggar 06-11-06, 02:17 PM	1. Being PvP-centric. The game is simply not designed for it and it further encourages inter-player conflict. 2. Lack of driving plots to give the game direction. Having actual NPCs should help solve the first one and hopefully the second one. 3. Allowing too many things from too many different sources. In my own games I do the same thing. And it can work on such a small scale (even on that scale it doesn't always work, however, as anyone who has witnessed a catastrophic RIFTs game should know). But the more players you have and the farther spread out they are and the less DM direction they are given the less viable it becomes. In any case, only allow things that you've reviewed rather than wholesale allowing, say, all first-party published books. And if something turns out to be abusable don't be afraid to usher it out of the game amidst protest. 3a. Rulesets that depend on sweeping changes and/or additions to the intrinsic ideas of the core rules are largely a bad idea to allow. For instance, allowing certain books that depend on sweeping changes/additions in regards to alignment. Or a ruleset that depended on adding a Comeliness score.Yay Comeliness! :P 4. Timid DMs. And I mean no offense. But the DMs have to be able to confidently put their collective feet down when necessary even if it makes some players mad. You can't please all of the people all of the time. If it turns out that their custom made Special Elvish Spellcaster PrC really is overpowered, God it out of the game until it's fixed even if they're in the middle of something. If someone isn't rolling - roll for them rather than debating it for two weeks, or just say they automatically fail. And don't make a habit of backing down. Players are ravening beasts - give them a chain and they'll take a furlong. This is a serious problem we have. Is anyone able to give lessons in butt-stick insertion or know someone who can give those lessons? One problem here is that we have a set of fairly amature DMs as GMs. Had we all the wisdom of Tenzhi, we wouldn't be GMs right now. ;) Compliments feel good (and even though it's not really a compliment, the "grow a spine comments" feel good as well, at least sometimes, for me). So when you're getting a ton of players whining about this rule or that, it don't feel good and the bending starts and the bending can be worse than the breaking because it's broke before you realize it (the way you can slowly heat up a pot of water to boiling and the frog won't jump out). 5. Leadership is a bad feat. And that's why it's optional. Option it out. Now this is one of those big things, especially in the past games. I've considered saying let's just get rid of Leadership and force people to be part of a guild to get followers as a group. But is that a bad idea as well because it's based on Leadership? I think I see a new GM conference on Leadership forming. . .
thasis 06-11-06, 04:18 PM	You could appoint a sub-GM who is dedicated to dealing with everything Leadership based. Or atleast somebody in charge of Leadership. And probally a thread where you post your forces for approval of the GM's to make sure they aren't overpowered and what-not. And you should also prove that you have the capabilities to run a whole force. If you obviously aren't an experianced enough player to run as a leader you shouldn't have the feat. I think the Leadership feat should be allowed in the game, but at a later time, once the game starts up, is running, and people have a grasp at what's going on. Now to respond to everything else: This depends on if new rules are written so that a gm or any player made a dm will do the following. this rule: That an player who is a dm or gm, will have to have another dm or Gm be incharge of the action (what ever is going on.) Ok, I agree, if I interpeted this correctly. Things should go through multiple GM approval, and GM's should work together. The magority of the GM's should agree on something, not just one GM saying "ok". Or this rule. That no gm or dm in the IFWG can not have a charcter in the game. the only character they can have is a character that represents them and they have semi god powers. NO! Gm's should be able to have characters as well, if they think they can handle it. And no god-GM characters... unless it's an NPC maybe, but even then, they shouldn't dealing with players unless they have a very good reason, and these god-GM characters should more likely send minions if a player pisses them off, just like a real D&D campaign would probally go. Godly-GM characters lead to nothing but trouble and GM's feeling powerful, and not necessarily maliciously, abusing there powers to there own benifits (or there freinds benifits). Power corrupts, everyone knows it. GM's have powers, but if you give them to much sometimes it becomes to much for them to handle (and I'm talking about anyone who takes on the approach of GM). othe rrules to consider are these: the arena was talked about to have the guild fights in. this action would have made the hef (site of the last friction area) would have been played out at the arena thread, and this action would have saved alot of proublems. This is how: the hef in the arena would have had gm and dm controll at all times. The players would have had a gm or dm to keep control and be able to keep the time line strait (whitch did not happen), the gm or dm would have been able to tell players that the action they just posted is not allowed because they are not paying attention to the time line of events. Well the main problem with the HEF fight was that Sil was a GM who was absusing his powers, and Droga was provoking Sil. It was a combo problem mainly is my opinion on that. I personally believe Guild Fights should either be on the actual Guild Thread or a special Guild Fight thread. The problem with a Guild Fight thread is what if multiple guilds are fighting. Ex. Guild A is fighting Guild Z. The fight is going well. Now Guild X decides to get involved in the fight and joins Guild A. So far it seems ok. But what happens when Guild C and J start to fight. They're not on the same location as Guild A, Z, X fight? The unrelated posts would conflict wth eachother. The same problem would come up on the Arena Thread. A dm or gm needs to keep and post a time line of actions so every player knows what round is being played. and on the same thread box who's turn it is to attack or roll their save or other action. Mmm... the problem with this is GM's can't bo on the net 24/7, so if we have to wait for the GM's to announce the next round every time things might slow down drastically. alot more could have been done and the time line issue was a big factor the wizo stoped the game, amouing others (the gm's could not control the players from saying: I doing this, when other parts of the time line was still being played out, exsample I bring in all these creatures from under the hef floor and that could not happen till the time line other issues were dealt with.). the gm's let the time line go haywire, and they did not let the dm help out either. This is more of a player problem. Players should not be posting in-game actions if it's not there turn. It's as simple as that. Hell you cannot even retreat from the battle untill it's your turn. When you come to a play-by-post game you have to realize that your going to be waiting a bit. It's not chat. Wait untill you turn, post out-of-character, or with another character, on another thread if you realy need to post somewhere. There's no stopping you there. But if you have a character in-combat, and it's not your turn, no in-game posting for him. If you don't have time to post every day for the duration of the combat don't get involved in the combat. We can't simply wait around for a week for you to take your action. I say GM's should warn players if they're doing things out of turn, and if they persist to attempt to do so they should be expelled from the combat and either have there characters killed, imprisoned, or some form of thing that punishes there character (or the poster). some other things that went wrong was that the game was a mixture of all worlds and it was out of balance in some ways. if a game has different worlds combined into one world then the bacis D&D rules still aplie and what areas they don't cover needs to be written down so ever player can know their limtations in that area. thsi was a kind of by word of mouth, untill the game was stopped and then an attempt was made to try and fix the rules. The rules they came up with can work but they need to be twiked so to reflect a mixed world rule system again. mixed worlds can work, the rules have to reflect this in the way they are written I have to agree. Mixed worlds don't work if things are not well defined. GM's need to make a post that details everything that needs to be known about the game, and before playing the game players should read this. the gm's and dm's need to stay in contact with each other and know what is going on at all times. this seemed to be a big proublem last time, I remember the gm's saying I have to take to so and so frist. If the gm's had keeped in contact they would not of had to contact them when the player neede someting done. the player could have rolled played the action, and the other gm or dm would have already know the whys, wherefores, and other information. no need to contact the others in charge if they all ready have the knowledge, if they don't then tell them and then make sure you get back to the p;ayer so the action can be rolled played out in a proper time frame. not days latter or a week latter. all gm's and dm's need to be keeped infromed at all times of what is going on by other dm's and gm's. so not to cause confusion. I have to agree also. If GM's can't stay in contact, in control of the game, and up-to-date on the activities of the threads, then they shouldn't be DMing. DMing is a large responsibility, and when you signed up you knew what was comming to you. You had the choice to DM, and if you can't keep up then back down and give the oppurtunity to someone who can DM. Right now, I have quite a bit faith in the GM's. My only problem is the lack of activity of most of the GM's. There is little to no activity from Necrodude or Ssargoth. Maybe this is because they are waiting for the IFWG to start, but if they plan to keep this much activity once things start then they shouldn't be DMing. But I'm not attacking the GM's mentioned, as I believe that they are simply waiting for things to start up. So don't take what I said as an attack. 1. Being PvP-centric. The game is simply not designed for it and it further encourages inter-player conflict. I completly disagree. I think PvP should be a heavy part of the game if the players wish to compete for land and power. That's what a "Guild Wars" is about. Establishing your guild and competing for power with other guilds. My belief is that the problem was with the lack of organization of PvP. PvP should be incorporated, but like leadership, it should be incorporated slowly, untill the players and GMs have a full grasp of the game and things are running smoothly. 2. Lack of driving plots to give the game direction. I agree 100%. There was no plot except PvP combat. Now I like my PvP, but realy the game becomes a simple MMORGP without plots. If I wanted a PvP only game I'd play Guild Wars or WoW. 3. Allowing too many things from too many different sources. In my own games I do the same thing. And it can work on such a small scale (even on that scale it doesn't always work, however, as anyone who has witnessed a catastrophic RIFTs game should know). But the more players you have and the farther spread out they are and the less DM direction they are given the less viable it becomes. In any case, only allow things that you've reviewed rather than wholesale allowing, say, all first-party published books. And if something turns out to be abusable don't be afraid to usher it out of the game amidst protest. I don't think the problem was the to-many sources as to-many not-well-thought-out sources. Start off Core Only (PHB, DMG, MM, and XPH [as Psionics are officialy core now]) and then as players send things to the approval thread (with why they think it should be approved) then things should be approved. Things shouldn't be hastily approved. I think we need an Approval GM on there own realy, because it's such a big task. 3a. Rulesets that depend on sweeping changes and/or additions to the intrinsic ideas of the core rules are largely a bad idea to allow. For instance, allowing certain books that depend on sweeping changes/additions in regards to alignment. Or a ruleset that depended on adding a Comeliness score. I agree on this but also I don't. I agree in the sense that they shouldn't simply be approved. What we need in the sense of sweeping changes is a board discussion. Make a thread for the specific rules-change and have a large discussion between GMs and Players. Discuss if players feel comfortable in incorporating that with the characters and if GMs feel it's balanced. Just my thought on that matter. 4. Timid DMs. And I mean no offense. But the DMs have to be able to confidently put their collective feet down when necessary even if it makes some players mad. You can't please all of the people all of the time. If it turns out that their custom made Special Elvish Spellcaster PrC really is overpowered, God it out of the game until it's fixed even if they're in the middle of something. If someone isn't rolling - roll for them rather than debating it for two weeks, or just say they automatically fail. And don't make a habit of backing down. Players are ravening beasts - give them a chain and they'll take a furlong. I agree soooooo much. GM's are wayyyyyy to timid. Get a backbone, and learn how to say no. Now that might go directly against some of my arguments, but atleast it shows backbone and that your in control. If you show weakness players will attempt to use that against you. 5. Leadership is a bad feat. And that's why it's optional. Option it out. I already covered my thoughts on leadership. I hope people take my thoughts seriously (not nessarily agree, but atleast read what I have to say) as that took me some time to write.
Tenzhi 06-12-06, 10:25 AM	Let me strating this up right now Tenzhi, I was a dm in the game and it was not me who was timid. I was speaking of the three who were in charge (jagggar, necrodude, and that other guy (Sss... Sss? Bad memory, failed me again)). If there was a sub-stratus of people below those three that were supposed to be doing something, they flew completely under my radar for whatever reasons. I completly disagree. I think PvP should be a heavy part of the game if the players wish to compete for land and power. Whether you think it should be or not, the system itself isn't designed to sustain it. And trying to rewrite it so that it does is a fool's errand as shown by past efforts. And encouraging it by making it in any way rewarding has problems beyond merely breaking the system.
jagggar 06-12-06, 10:53 AM	We probably need some clean up to PvP definitions. PvP centric, to my understanding, is the way we had it, where the only way you could get something done was by killing another Player Character. If we went the complete opposite direction, PvP would be completely out and there wouldn't be a chance of friendly fire when shooting into melee. Everyone would have magical little shields protecting them. Now, the direction we plan to go is to have many NPCs to interact with and actual places to explore (hence the reason you're not starting out with territory). If you want PvP, you'll either have to Track down the character you want to fight or challenge them at the Arena. (Heck, you might have to track them down just to challenge them at the arena.) But then you won't get any XP for killing them. You could gain some for plot reasons, but not for killing. Edit: I guess that would be an indirect PvP. . . With direct PvP if you seek it out. To define it in a videogame, rather than a fighting game, it would be sort of a collecting game. Maybe you're going after gems or coins or rings or even the most kills. Occasionally, when the other player gets in the way you beat him (or her) up for a little bit, then get back to your collecting.
thasis 06-12-06, 06:18 PM	No offense, but I think that's foolish. No Exp for killing players? That's breaking the key rule of D&D, you gain EXP for killing things... :weep:
jagggar 06-12-06, 06:29 PM	I'll have to find whereever my DMG went {Oh, there it is under the pizza!} but I don't recall reading that at all. If you get XP for killing things, then why do you get XP for a disarmed trap? (Kill the trap? Okay, fine: ) A merely survived trap? You don't get XP for killing things. You get XP for overcoming challenges. (And roleplaying.) Edit: Further, if we awarded XP for killing characters, just how much should we reward? ECL? That measures something entirely different than CR. CR? Well, how do we decide how much that extra wealth from being a PC is worth? D&D isn't designed to support PvP. We'll allow it, but we aren't going to encourage it the way it was encouraged previously.
thasis 06-12-06, 08:05 PM	I say give the person EXP based on what the ECL of the player is. That's how I've always done it in my homerun campaigns (as do I believe other people who run PvP in there games do it).
Tenzhi 06-14-06, 01:08 AM	No offense, but I think that's foolish. No Exp for killing players? That's breaking the key rule of D&D, you gain EXP for killing things... :weep: It's better than the alternative. The alternative leads to the typical idiocy of PvP that has associated terms like "griefing" and "ganking." It leads to exploitive behaviour like creating an alternate account that you can turn into a sacraficial lamb of loot and XP for your main account.
thasis 06-14-06, 01:39 AM	I think PvP should be rewarded... but if your caught doing idiocy... then it should be punished. It reduces the desire to do something stupid if you know there's consequences.
Tenzhi 06-14-06, 01:55 AM	I think PvP should be rewarded... but if your caught doing idiocy... then it should be punished. It reduces the desire to do something stupid if you know there's consequences. In this case, by the time they're caught (if they're caught), the damage will have been done. Characters will have died and things will have progressed in a certain way. As for consequences - people will still try to get away with it regardless of consequences as long as there are rewards to be had.
thasis 06-14-06, 02:00 AM	Make the penalties drastically higher then the benifits.
jagggar 06-14-06, 02:07 AM	"Kill another PC (anothers or your own) and get full XP." "Kill another PC and you must give up one of your own PCs" "Kill two PCs and you're out of the game." :P Those are pretty high penalties, aren't they?
Tenzhi 06-14-06, 02:08 AM	Make the penalties drastically higher then the benifits. It's hard to overshadow the immediate benefits of gaining as much wealth as a character your level in one battle with potential penalties "if you get caught." It is only with the lack of rewards that potential penalties are particularly off-putting.
thasis 06-14-06, 11:36 PM	Realy denying us the freedom of PvP when deemed acceptable and appropiate for the situation, and having no reward what-so-ever is unrealistic. What happens to all of there gold, items, etc when they die. Does it simply disapear? Unless there's a very logical in-game reason it just doesn't work. And a lack of experiance...??? Your still preforming strenious skillful activities that would give you "Exp" for accomplishing, as the tasks required to kill another player are high and risky. So realy guys, it makes no sense rulewise.
Dyne 06-15-06, 12:46 AM	It makes perfect sense. They don't want to encourage PC's to kill each other, so they will not reward them to do so. If they had to, the GM's could just explain it as they take the equipment of the dead person, then drain the XP from the victor. They could say that it is punishment for killing another being of manifest destiny.
thasis 06-15-06, 12:49 AM	...wow... let's just go and make all the players immortal then...
Tenzhi 06-15-06, 04:31 AM	Realy denying us the freedom of PvP when deemed acceptable and appropiate for the situation, and having no reward what-so-ever is unrealistic. What happens to all of there gold, items, etc when they die. Does it simply disapear? Unless there's a very logical in-game reason it just doesn't work. And a lack of experiance...??? Your still preforming strenious skillful activities that would give you "Exp" for accomplishing, as the tasks required to kill another player are high and risky. So realy guys, it makes no sense rulewise. Hit points, Experience, Levels, Spell Memorization, Draconic Flight, Giants, Magic... There are any number of things in D&D that defy logical explanation. All you are really saying is that you want to be able to kill other characters with much reward and no penalty. Even if there was a "logical" reason given as to why you could not, you probably wouldn't like it. But going by the rules, wealth-by-level is a key factor in overall balance. So, rulewise it actually makes no sense for you to get and keep all of said loot. But it's not really the rules that you are interested in, is it?
jagggar 06-15-06, 10:13 AM	Let's see. . . The Mists of Tyrannor reclaim the body and the equipment is claimed by the Lords of Tyrannor because they get to keep anything that passed through customs. Like many a government, they (we?) are lazy, so rather than attempt to decide which originally came through customs and what was earned while in the country, we just take everything. The reward for killing another PC is the elmination of an obstacal, a rival. The reward isn't the XP and treasure they have. The reward is preventing them from taking your future rewards. Some DMs hand out absolutely no XP for killing things. They'll just hand it out based on how well they think everyone's done or based on roleplay or depending on how well the goals of the mission were completed. Doing that for the whole game ain't going to work, too easy to call out favoritism. But as we're not attempting to encourage PK behavior, we can get really, really stingy on the reward. Oddly enough, this is the analogy my head comes up with: Now some movies have sex in them. Ones that are just sex with no plot are porn. We don't want porn. That would lots of PKing with no plot. Other movies, the ones you see in normal theaters, just have a little bit of sex and it (supposidly) drives the plot forwards. That is how we want our PKing, just every now-and-then and when it happens, it's not to make big bucks, but it's to drive the plot forwards. If you're worried about how your character will earn experience: This isn't going to be like the last two rounds where the only NPCs weren't NPCs but they were DMPCs that the DM might flip out when someone attempted to kill them. There are going to be plenty of true NPCs. Slaughter, befriend, whatever. They'll be the ones earning you most of your XP.
thasis 06-15-06, 01:34 PM	...I see where your comming from, and yes, I think PKing should be limited, but I don't think no reward should come from it. Like let's say there's a Guild War. You win the Guild War and get no exp, loot, etc? That's just... stupid...
Tenzhi 06-16-06, 12:49 AM	Perhaps a Prestige reward earned for your own Guild based on the current Prestige Level of the guild the person you killed belonged to (as well as their own XP Level). As the Guilds already fall outside standard D&D rules, creating a new system around them is less bothersome. And this would make the PK aspect more tied to Guilds than personal gain.
Lady Rolindin 06-19-06, 07:18 AM	...I see where your comming from, and yes, I think PKing should be limited, but I don't think no reward should come from it. Like let's say there's a Guild War. You win the Guild War and get no exp, loot, etc? That's just... stupid... I always though and was taught that when you win even a battle, say your a company commander (your character) that you and all the npc's along with the winning army got some experance points and all the items they could carry of with them. depending on your characters beliefs, some would just bury them with their possions, while other s would take a few things. gatting experance points is a nessary part of the guild, or war experance. The leaders recieve some too, for their leadership and abilities to command. as for a guild leader they should gain experance points, for they are they masters controlling things. And sould be rewarded as to what they did, for the different aspect of operations. I give experance points to country, armys and guilds, (there the same as a organazation) and the leader should get something for being an organizer. This will depend on you the gm's to decide, since you will know what the guild leader has planned and carried out (using other characters and npc's to do the work) while they are the brains behind the whole plan and sould be rewarded as such. Just my view on the subject.
Tigernach 07-14-06, 10:49 PM	I left, long ago, but remember the very first HEF. Stav and I are friends. Tenzhi may remember me, during the Joylynn, and Daniel The Halfling days - I'm one of the original HEF members. I haven't posted for a long time. I remember that stav built PrC power and stuff like the Throne Wards ('god-ding' tools - he said they were for regulating players - for 'god-ding' out trouble in the PC base). It was about being a GM with a backbone - to keep ravening players in check. Trouble is, strong leadership attracts rivals, and at the other end, weak leadership can't focus direction. Everything was fine before we got an antagonised player challenging his authority, which split the group. The problem is that GMs can't block players, here, where a player decides to not buy in when she or he feels wronged. In a closed campaign, it's easy to fix the problem - you either start a new campaign, or you work out your differences.
Tenzhi 07-15-06, 04:31 AM	I left, long ago, but remember the very first HEF. Stav and I are friends. Tenzhi may remember me, during the Joylynn, and Daniel The Halfling days - I'm one of the original HEF members. I haven't posted for a long time. I remember that stav built PrC power and stuff like the Throne Wards ('god-ding' tools - he said they were for regulating players - for 'god-ding' out trouble in the PC base). It was about being a GM with a backbone - to keep ravening players in check. Trouble is, strong leadership attracts rivals, and at the other end, weak leadership can't focus direction. Me remembering things is something that's always in doubt. But I think I vaguely recall a Daniel the Halfling. Strong leadership can cause problems. But a strong leader can work past those problems. Such a leader should be able to communicate things and relate to his "followers" with ease. The ability to relate to the masses and be reasonable where it counts is why many of the WizOs maintain a largely (never entirely but that's just people) friendly following despite occasionally having to exercise heavy-handed power. Everything was fine before we got an antagonised player challenging his authority, which split the group. The blame for that lies not entirely on the antagonizing player, nor does it lie entirely with the aforementioned ex-furless-leader (though there is blame to be had for both sides of that equation). A large part of the problem could be said to lie in the authority itself, which was perhaps ill-defined in the first place. In a closed campaign, it's easy to fix the problem - you either start a new campaign, or you work out your differences. Indeed. Understanding the differences in the dynamics of your tabletop game as compared to the broad online game is key to successfully running the latter. Trying to get some people to understand that certain approaches to the former sort of game don't work very well in the latter is something I tried to do but had little success in. And here we are today. I sense a disturbance in the Force, as if I'm being yelled at over a great distance...
Tenzhi 07-15-06, 04:46 AM	::dusts self off:: Man, the past here lingers in the air and settles on a person like so much soot. What we need is some sort of purifier. Something to clean the past out of the air so that we don't regularly choke on it whenever we try to discuss the state of things.
Dark Elven Shadow Master 07-15-06, 07:32 AM	::dusts self off:: Man, the past here lingers in the air and settles on a person like so much soot. What we need is some sort of purifier. Something to clean the past out of the air so that we don't regularly choke on it whenever we try to discuss the state of things. Yes, it's a bit like that - Hello Tenzhi, As always, a lot of thoughtful comments. And leadership discussions are complex. Sometimes, a strong leader sacrifices relationships, in the short term, because there is need. Those relationships can be mended, and a strong leader also knows when the time to mend them comes. A strong leader knows when he has erred, which part he has not erred on, and knows also when to forgive. Also, when heavy-handed action is used, you'd also better be darned clear that your heavy handed action was fair. There are many many tests of that. And many formal and informal ways to apply the tests. The wheel goes full circle, in all things. But, you're right about one thing, in particular. An ill defined role (in the way the role is codified on paper) lends itself to problems, like you say. Hello Tigernach!