I am sure that this post will have some peoples eyes rolling but please hear me out on this. Let me put on my asbestos jumper and continue here :D
4th edition has made it much easier to scale encounters,encounter levels and skill challenges. By going to APL's (see below) you can still offer the ability for players to choose to play harder levels or at easier levels, and gives 3 ranges at 7 of the 10 levels.
By doing this for all modules it would open up every module written to be played by anyone at any level range. This might make it easier for Quests to have continuity in the regions. This would also open up the Core and especially the Special modules for play by anyone at any level.
Treasure bundles could also be scaled according to APL easily as well.
The most important part of this would be a restriction that you can not play at an APL that is 3 levels above or below your current level.
Then you could break down the APL's and Encounter Levels (EL) as follows:
APL 2 [EL's 2-4]
APL 4 [EL's 4-6]
APL 6 [EL's 6-8]
APL 8 [EL's 8-10]
APL 10 [EL's 10-12]
This would mean characters could play APL's as follows:
1st - APL's 2 & 4
2nd - APL's 2 & 4
3rd - APL's 2, 4 & 6
4th - APL's 2, 4 & 6
5th - APL's 2, 4, 6 & 8
6th - APL's 4, 6, & 8
7th - APL's 4, 6, 8 & 10
8th - APL's 6, 8 & 10
9th - APL's 6, 8 & 10
10th - APL's 8 & 10
Well ok the jumper is on and awaits your responses. I was just thinking of ways to make things more accessible to players at all levels. Instead of having 19 1-1 modules for levels 1-4 and 14 1-2 modules for levels 4-7 we could have had 33 modules for levels 1-10 etc.
So 1-4 (adventure levels 2 and 4) becomes 1-7 (with appropriate tiering restrictions)
4-7 (5 and 7) becomes 2-10
7-10 (8 and 10) becomes 5-13
The low end of that seems a little low... though it would be nice to not have the annoying cliffs where folks can't adventure together - half group is 3rd, half 5th? Or 6th and 8th - even worse since you can't just make a 1st level character to play for a run or two.
Treasure would be the toughest part, probably. Though I'm sorta all for redoing how treasure is handled anyways. People being able to level up faster - meh, not sure that's a big problem. Then again, people dragging down the rest of the group by showing up with a level 2 to play a 4-7 mod is a potential problem.
Speaking as a player and DM of both LG modules and LFR modules, there's no need. The current "tier" system is far better than it was in LG.
Both statements are purely opinion.
Actually, yeah, reading it a little closer - I have to say that I think that having level 1s and level 10s doing pretty much the same thing isn't terribly desirable, and it gets even worse to have the LG style of APL 16s (who are probably the equivalent of 24s in 4e) doing the same quest.
An adventure is and adventure and a story is a story. Does it really matter if you play the Story in say TYMA1-1 as a 1st level character or a 10th? As long as the APL's have been tiered correctly? All the APL level bands would do (with the restrictions mentioned in the 1st part of my post) keep the 10th lvl PC playing with the 1st lvl PC.
Speaking as a module author of both LG modules and LFR modules, I would never want to go back to that model. It's a lot of extra work.
Speaking as a player and DM of both LG modules and LFR modules, there's no need. The current "tier" system is far better than it was in LG.
Both statements are purely opinion.
Nothing wrong with differing opinions but wow the current system is better than the one we had in LG?
And as a writer yes their might be some extra work, not sure about a lot of work to write a module in 5 different level bands. Its rather easy to level monsters in 4e and DC's scale rather easily as well.
But hey I asked for your opinions so wont knock you for them.
An adventure is and adventure and a story is a story. Does it really matter if you play the Story in say TYMA1-1 as a 1st level character or a 10th? As long as the APL's have been tiered correctly? All the APL level bands would do (with the restrictions mentioned in the 1st part of my post) keep the 10th lvl PC playing with the 1st lvl PC.
It does matter... tremendously, in fact.
The higher level a PC attains, the more epic he expects his adventures to be.
No paragon-tier adventurer should be doing standard, run-of-the-mill caravan duty.
No 8th level adventuring party should be raiding a cave full of goblins.
We already have a number of 7-10 LFR adventures that have the PCs doing boring, mundane tasks that would barely be interesting at 1st level. Let's not exacerbate the problem.
Then again, people dragging down the rest of the group by showing up with a level 2 to play a 4-7 mod is a potential problem.
This would be one of the main reasons. And this would also help at conventions as well.
Look at SPEC1-2 which is a 7-10 module. If it was written as a 1-10 then you would have several level bands that people could play it in.
One of my main concerns is that I know people that dislike or simply refuse to replay a module. This can cause a table to not make and when you are trying to bring new people into the game this doesnt help. Like I said in the original post if the 19 1-1 mods and 14 1-2 mods had been written as a 1st thru 10th modules you would have 33 mods and wouldnt have the need to replay as often. As it is now we have 21 slotted 1st thru 4th level modules in the 1st 4 quarters (3 of those are Adaptables and 1 is a Special). Instead we could have had 62 modules playable at any level between 1st thru 10th
No paragon-tier adventurer should be doing standard, run-of-the-mill caravan duty.
Well Paragon doesnt begin until 11th level so that is not a problem. Paragon level adventures would be written in the 11th thru 20th level range
No 8th level adventuring party should be raiding a cave full of goblins.
And there are Goblinoids that can challenge or be leveled to challenge a party of 8th level characters. Are you trying to say a group of heroes is going to walk away from a town in need and say leave it to the newbies to take care of your Goblin threat.
We already have a number of 7-10 LFR adventures that have the PCs doing boring, mundane tasks that would barely be interesting at 1st level. Let's not exacerbate the problem.
That would not be the fault of the module being written in a level range of 1st thru 10th. Thats a problem with the author of the adventure. The adventures story should/can be interesting to any adventurer no matter their level. You write an engrossing enough story it doesnt matter what level the character is experiencing your story.
An adventure is and adventure and a story is a story. Does it really matter if you play the Story in say TYMA1-1 as a 1st level character or a 10th?
Sure it does. Now maybe it's just me, but by the time I've reached 10th level I would hope I would garner a bit more respect in what quests I would be requested for than gathering seashells. I also don't expect the seashells to be guarded by a greater demon. (Why would anyone ever go to the beach?)
Some stories would work well for higher level adventures as well as lower level, but not all. Typical low level fare seems routine if you're higher level, and sometimes ridiculous due to the monster selections for the level you are at.
Nothing wrong with differing opinions but wow the current system is better than the one we had in LG?
Yes. Immensely better. The APL was fine in it's day for LG, but I thought it was sub par even back then. The current system is far superior. That's speaking as an author and a con organizer.
And as a writer yes their might be some extra work, not sure about a lot of work to write a module in 5 different level bands. Its rather easy to level monsters in 4e and DC's scale rather easily as well.
Have you written a module for 5 level bands? (or 5 APLs?) Even in 4e, due the nature of how monsters in 4e work, you couldn't just level the monsters for a 5 APL band. In 3.X you just gave the monsters extra levels too... and had to rewrite a bazillion stat blocks (not fun), but the encounter stayed the same mostly. In 4e you would have to rewrite entire encounters. New monsters, new tactics, different accouterments (traps and other hazards, etc). You would be writing 2 or 3 entirely different sets of encounters for a mod that spanned any appreciable number of APLs.
Take heart though, you're far from the first person who has said they'd liek to see the APL system back (and probably won't be the last). In my opinion, may it rest in peace next to the corpse of the AR.
In my opinion, may it rest in peace next to the corpse of the AR.
I liked ARs... they made things feel official
Oh well.
Speaking as a module author of both LG modules and LFR modules, I would never want to go back to that model. It's a lot of extra work.
Speaking as a player and DM of both LG modules and LFR modules, there's no need. The current "tier" system is far better than it was in LG.
Both statements are purely opinion.
I agree 100% on both opinions.
I too miss the ARs. I'd much rather be on the LG tracking system using signed ARs as a record instead of a flawed online system and a honor based paper system that trumps the online one. Sure, a cheater is going to cheat no matter how you track it, but the ARs just felt more official to me.
I liked ARs... they made things feel official
Oh well.
I'm glad they're gone. I've managed to squeeze all my story awards to be 12 per page and my additional records to be 30 per page.
After 90 mods, I'll have about 12 pages of records instead about 105 for a character...
But yes, I agree completely about having killed off APLs - you wouldn't believe the contortions I was going through for the LG mod I wrote to make it work at APL 10. Fortunately, we decided as a group to kill off APL 10, which made my life much, much easier.
Regarding widening the level band to accomodating people who don't like to replay: there is a cost associated with the choice to not take advantage of the opportunity to replay adventures. That cost is reduced flexibility in what adventures can be played, and when. The responsibility for this lies with the player making that choice, not with the campaign administration.
ARs killed my gaming group playing Living games, so I'm glad to see them gone...
Heck, we're trying to recruit a bit more actively in the 4E world than we did toward the end of 3.x times, and even the adventure logs (with 12 adventures per page) chase away new people, let alone 1-per-page ARs.
Us old hands are used to it, but the very notion of including regular paperwork for a game is abhorent to a significant number of casual gamers who otherwise might be inclined to give organized play a try.
- APLs
- Time Units
These are unnecessary bookkeeping items and I'm very happy to see them gone. Time Units were one of the primary reasons I decided to stay out of Living Greyhawk (with the crazy "real world play areas only" mentality being the other).
The tier system is very easy to work with, and with the DME expectations for raising and lowering levels it's a very simple system for new players/ DMs yet complex enough for those of us that recall teachin THAC0 to newbies waaay back when. ;)
I liked ARs... they made things feel official
Oh well.
Word.
I'm glad they're gone. I've managed to squeeze all my story awards to be 12 per page and my additional records to be 30 per page.
After 90 mods, I'll have about 12 pages of records instead about 105 for a character...
Maybe it is the implementation, or may it's the content, but I've squeezed my story awards down to 0 pages of stuff. They aren't worth keeping track of.
Maybe it is the implementation, or may it's the content, but I've squeezed my story awards down to 0 pages of stuff. They aren't worth keeping track of.
I hear that. I've stopped taking the little pieces of paper entirely. Kind of ironic that I liked ARs but I don't like those pint-sized pieces of paper that have some random info on them.
I've grown accustomed to just writing a note in my tracker stating which story awards I've received and simply telling the DM. Hasn't been a problem yet, though I suppose a real hard-ass DM could make me show him a physical copy in order to continue a quest or something like that, but I doubt it.
Gomez
To go back to an Average Party Level (APL) type system like we used to have in LG?
Then you could break down the APL's and Encounter Levels (EL) as follows:
APL 2 [EL's 2-4]
APL 4 [EL's 4-6]
Well two things here..
What you are really asking about is *NOT* APL but rather having more TIERS of play for a given module and then using APL to determine which tier in which to play.
Now others have commented upon multiple tiers, so I thought I'd comment upon APL itself.
It might be useful to have essentially 4 tiers- one for each level for a smoother challenge curve. Instead of having two sets of stat blocks have just 1 set with marks saying where they get bumped up (i.e. attacks, defenses, hps, damage, skills/init). As it is almost all of the 'high' tiers that I've seen have just been the 'low' tier with monsters getting +X level.
As it currently stands you have players deciding between 'down' and 'up' for all parties within the range. Having something a little more fluid might be worthwhile. You'll notice the extreme difference between a group of all 1st level PCs and one where everyone is 2nd for example.
All that said, I think APL is a horrid way of determining things. Rather I would let the group decide what challenge level that they desire/ feel that they can handle.
As to rewards, I think that they should be individually dependent rather than group dependent. To whit the rewards would be based upon the level of the PC in question rather than the tier of the module played. This removes 'incentive' for choosing a given tier beyond level of difficulty desired. As it is you can 'game' the system a bit as rewards are not as smoothly done as they could otherwise be.
-James
What I'd like to see is a naming convention so that tiers are easier to identify going forward.
Levels 1-4 = Low Heroic
Levels 4-7 = Mid Heroic
Levels 7-10 = High Heroic
Repeat for Paragon and Epic
Shawn
CORE2LP-2 (Low Paragon)
DALE2-4HH (High Heroic)
To me, adventure codes as long and complex as DALE2-4HH and CORE2LP-2 are counterproductive and unnecessary. I don't want to feel like I have to "crack the code" to deduce what kind of adventure it is.
I guess I can't envision a reasonable scenario where you can't easily access the adventure tier info already.
If I am a convention organiser (and I am), then I'm looking at the adventures (or schedule announcement on the rpga site) well in advance of the play date. Not to mention that I would be the one responsible for passing on the tier details to attendees.
If I am running a home game, I tell my friends to bring level-appropriate characters. I sanction a couple of adventures anyway, so that if one is an inappropriate tier, I'm sure the other will be fine.
Just my two cents.
If you're a convention organizer that might be no big deal, but if you're a casual group it's just one more annoyance.
I'm pretty sure if someone did make some naming convention, that people who didn't care could continue to not care, and those who did would get the benefit. I mean, if you already know what all the mods are, remembering what CORE1-16 is vs CORE1-16-PL isn't much harder, whereas for the players and DMs who have trouble keeping track they could at least go 'Oh, I'm not paragon yet, so I won't worry about it for now'
Keith
Basically all the info included in the quarterly updates (here, down the bottom), but on a single page, sorted by region.
You know what would be nice? A single page with every adventure title, blurb, and level range on it.
Basically all the info included in the quarterly updates (here, down the bottom), but on a single page, sorted by region.
This is pretty good:
here
This is pretty good:
here
Sure, but you'd think something like that would be on the official site, wouldn't you?
Most Tier 1 mods could easily have had added the 3 pages needed to make a slightly harder then high version and thus lets level 5s play.
Additionally a mod that is 3-7 would have gone a long way towards smoothing character progression. I can see how spanning 10-11 gap would take extra work but not all that much. It can't be that we are so worried about people overpowering mods (it happens already) or being far weaker then their party members (it already happens) that this needs to prevents us from a couple of mods that do not follow the strict 1-4 4-7 7-10 paradigm.
Monsters scale well within a 2 level range, after that it become clunky. Also, higher/lower level means more powers/possibilitues to take into account. I.e. at level 1-4 you don't have to think about people teleporting out, in level 7-10 you do.
Smaller level bands allow for quicker writing/editing, and better balance.
If you have broader level ands, you will likely be writing separate adventures, which means double work.
We have strict deadlines, and even with a narrow level band we sometimes have to push to make them.
Gomez
i.e. 10-11 mods, 20-21 mods
Not a lot of them, but there are going to be points with some groups where the guy who doesn't always get to show up is trailing the rest of the group by 1-2 levels. At low level, it isn't so critical, but imagine the following group:
Each player has 1 primary character.
They mostly play at home with that group.
One player over the course of playing LFR manages to miss 2 more sessions than anyone else.
Everyone but that one player levels to paragon. They can't play any more 7-10 mods, he can't play 11-14 mods...starting over at 1st level shouldn't be the only good option at that point.
Everyone but that one player levels to paragon. They can't play any more 7-10 mods, he can't play 11-14 mods...starting over at 1st level shouldn't be the only good option at that point.
It's the only legal option. Whether everyone will be consider that the only good option, however, is another issue. I expect the most common option at that point will be to simply ignore the rules.
The easiest way (since it can't be traced back in any way) would be for an illegal table of mixed 10th/11th level PCs to play a L7-10 module, with only the 10th level PC recording its play on his logsheet.
Some groups might just have the 10th level PC play the L11-14 module anyway, but that's riskier, since that can be found in an audit (though it's very unlikely one would ever be done).
From the point of view of fostering a culture of respect for the rules, this isn't a good thing.
No one is going to come over to your house to take away your character if you break the RPGA rules. Given the lack of any real paper trail and the incompetence of the electronic tracking system, it is unlikely anyone would ever know.
The real enforcement mechanism of the RPGA rules is simply social opprobrium. 99.99% of RPGA rules enforcement comes down to "If you know that someone is doing X, would that cause you to be less likely to play/associate with them?"
The more the rules demand behavior that people find unreasonable (a group where one member who has played 27 modules being completely unable to play with the rest of the group because they've played 28 modules, unless everyone rolls up 1st level PCs), the more socially acceptable ignoring the rules will become.
Since the only real enforcement of the rules is that breaking them is socially unacceptable, this is a problem.
For those who tend toward lawful neutral, the idea of "Well, we don't have to follow the bad rules" is troublesome. Without any meaningful enforcement, the only way to avoid that, however, is to not have any bad rules.
Of course, in many areas, you could have the lower tier player fiond another game to play at another site, like a LFGS, to get that last module under his belt, and all goes well...
In my home game, I have a couple of players who play almost all the time with us and do not play elsewhere. In fact, do not have the ability to play elsewhere(they work most nights and weekends)
We play enough that it isn't a problem. But halve our playing time and have the organizer not realize that there's a problem and it would be a big one once the paragon mods come out.