Is there an update to the RPGA General Rules in the works, or will we go into LFR with the old stuff?
The RPGA general rules are pretty flexible. What about LFR do you think needs changed in them?
Other than that I, for one, can't find anything particularly "at fault" in the document itself.
Then again, to play devil's advocate, I can see where someone new to the RPGA would look at the RPGA rules (a reasonable place to start). Therein they'd find listings for the Living City campaign, only to find that it's a dead campaign. Confused, they'd try to contact [email]rpgahq@rpga.com[/email] only to find a dead e-mail address.
Long story short, it could use a quick layer of "polish" primarily for image purposes.
I personally don't think the rules themselves need any work.
Please note - these comments refer to the PDF version of the rules document. The HTML version appears to be a little more up-to-date, though it does still reference d20 Cthulu, Living City, and Living Force, all of which are dead.
The RPGA general rules are pretty flexible. What about LFR do you think needs changed in them?
It isn't so much what LFR changes, as much as the fact that the organization and the practices have changed.
I think the overarching element is to review the document with a perspective that focuses on a playing environment that has shifted to a much greater percentage of smaller venue play rather than convention play, and aligning the rules to what the organization is able to, and willing to enforce. In addition, there have been a number of changes in practice that place the document out of alignment with how things are taking place and accepted.
When rules are stated, but not enforced and/or valued, the result is to discredit them.
Some specifics, but not intended to be comprehensive:
1) The list of campaigns (as referenced elsewhere)
2) The ordering and reporting cycle: the general treatment (what actually happens) of this is that many people play when they want, order when they want, and report when they want. The reason is that they don't value the rule, and it doesn't meet their need.
3) Accomodation of online play/D&D Insider options
4) Reconsider the GM has rec'd the adventure/therefore it is burned, and instead change to GM has read the adventure/therefore it is burned. The current practice is not in alignment with what people are regularly doing.
5) Restatement of policy that players must be knowledgable with their game system in order to accomodate introductory events within the rules.
6) Recognition, instead of condemnation of, the fact that games are sometimes run unprepared. This shouldn't be encouraged, but the fact of the matter is that it happens (even at your events).
7) Alignment of statement about DM qualifications with actual practice.
8) Accomodation of home-play events being run by other than the Senior DM and minor DMs.
David
The RPGA requires a minimum of four (4) players per session and a maximum of six (6).
I had the impression that 3.x was designed for a 4-player party but that it could easily handle a few more without special rules (i.e. gestalt). I've heard that 4e is designed for 5 players and that it is fairly robust for smaller / larger groups. Hopefully the 4e playtesters' experience can guide what change, if any, this RPGA rule receives.
My biggest concern about the RPGA General Rules going into 4e / LFR is in section 5. Participation.
I had the impression that 3.x was designed for a 4-player party but that it could easily handle a few more without special rules (i.e. gestalt). I've heard that 4e is designed for 5 players and that it is fairly robust for smaller / larger groups. Hopefully the 4e playtesters' experience can guide what change, if any, this RPGA rule receives.
I don't expect this to change. The biggest arguments for these numbers have little to do with the robustness of the system, but all with the optimal group size for fun interaction between players and DMs (especially at conventions).
There will be an updated document sometime this summer before the launch of LFR. Right now, there are a few other important updates/projects ahead of it in the queue.
Do today's documents cover this or is there more to come?
A Player's Handbook and the errata for it (located at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates )
Since so far two of my character concepts have been shot down due to errata info not in the PHB, I figure it would be a good idea. Not trying to be a smart A, just figure a new player might get a lil' peeved if they build a character on incorrect information.
It isn't so much what LFR changes, as much as the fact that the organization and the practices have changed.
I think the overarching element is to review the document with a perspective that focuses on a playing environment that has shifted to a much greater percentage of smaller venue play rather than convention play, and aligning the rules to what the organization is able to, and willing to enforce. In addition, there have been a number of changes in practice that place the document out of alignment with how things are taking place and accepted.
When rules are stated, but not enforced and/or valued, the result is to discredit them.
David
As we've now seen, the Character Creation Guide (CCG) has changed a lot, particularly the replay option. I'm updating this list to reflect that. One element that I'm seeing is that there is a change in the RPGA architecture that that has been partially implemented. So, rather than merely update the list, I'm expanding this to the subject of coordinating the body of RPGA rules sources.
In the past, the General Rules covered the conditions of play that applied to all RPGA content, regardless of the rules set. Each campaign then had rules appropriate to the rules system being used and the specific campaign.
The CCG includes content about venue and player eligibility that previously was in the General Rules. Some of this, rather than being in the universal portion of the CCG, is in the campaign specific appendices. For example, the passage on venue (Play how you want to play) on CCG page 8, appears in the LFR appendix. Where is Moathouse playable? Does this devolve to the current General Rules and/or will an update to the General Rules answer that? Or, is the LFR venue rule supposed to apply to either all RPGA or to also apply to Moathouse? These are rhetorical questions; Moathouse may well be an anomoly, but we presume there will be other appendices to come that will need to deal with the same issue of rules architecture.
Some specifics, but not intended to be comprehensive:
1) The list of campaigns (as referenced elsewhere)
If the design is that the CCG appendices cover this, then removal of the campaign list and reference to the appendices covers this.
2) The ordering and reporting cycle: the general treatment (what actually happens) of this is that many people play when they want, order when they want, and report when they want. The reason is that they don't value the rule, and it doesn't meet their need.
In specific, homeplay option needs to capable of being ordered on the day of play, without the five day leadtime. This has been on simmering away on the back burner for some time now. Additionally, permission to play an event prior to the order date, and/or after the order date, as appropriate. This covers both zero rounds and current practice.
Edit: The database conversion has made it possible to order on the date played. Nothing has been announced that this is also acceptable/valid. This may be the intent, or it may just be that the standing policy is not being enforced by the database.
3) Accomodation of online play/D&D Insider options
This is covered in the CCG, but there should be a line of delineation between what the General Rules cover and what the CCG covers. As it stands, some of the material that has traditionally been the perview of the General Rules (where are acceptable venues, what constitutes eligible players) has been moved the the CCG.
4) Reconsider the GM has rec'd the adventure/therefore it is burned, and instead change to GM has read the adventure/therefore it is burned. The current practice is not in alignment with what people are regularly doing.
Ok. This was reconsidered and has been implemented as a vast change in player eligibility.
This has spawned the current condition in which there may be unexpected consequences. The CCG must be taken to supplant the General Rules. As a result, currently it is permissible for a DM to play a PC while DMing a game, or for a player to play multiple PCs in a single session. In the past, this was implicitly excluded as options by the eligibility rules, but has not been explicitly excluded. With the change to the eligibility rules, the implicit exclusion is gone. With no explicit exclusion, cultural expectations flourish.
These are relatively common practices in many non-RPGA games; they have existed in some form in pretty much every D&D campaign I've played in for the past 29 years. But, I think it is currently an unintended consequence in contrast to the clear expression of replay (one time / character and DM can play after DMing). While a player playing multiple PCs results in few objections, a DM playing a DMPC raises the spectre of bias. A DM playing a party member NPC is somewhere in the middle.
Restating as:
4)Revision of statements on player eligibility, including clear rules on the permissibity/restriction of DMPCs and/or multiple PCs per character in whatever document covers for the universal rules for RPGA, or for specific campaigns, as appropriate.
Edit: As reported in http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16542727&postcount=14 , a decision has been made and this and will be included in the next update. DMPCs will not be permitted, nor will the play of multiple characters by a single player.
Continuing:
5) Restatement of policy that players must be knowledgable with their game system in order to accomodate introductory events within the rules.
6) Recognition, instead of condemnation of, the fact that games are sometimes run unprepared. This shouldn't be encouraged, but the fact of the matter is that it happens (even at your events).
7) Alignment of statement about DM qualifications with actual practice.
8) Accomodation of home-play events being run by other than the Senior DM and minor DMs.
Additions:
Whether in the General Rules or in the campaign specific appendices, as appropriate
9) What constitutes the rules sources in the context of a publishing program that consists of both print and electronic media? Books and errata? FAQ? D&D Rules Compilation?
10) A review of independent document scope of the past sytem of rules(General Rules and Campaign Standards such as LGCS) vs the independent document scope of the new system (General Rules or what replaces them, CCG universal section, CCG campaign appendices, LFR boilerplate) to identify delineation of document scope, and to confirm that resulting gaps are acceptable.
Might I suggest for an update on the rules on page 1, under "What You'll Need" that the first entry reads:
A Player's Handbook and the errata for it (located at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates )
Since so far two of my character concepts have been shot down due to errata info not in the PHB, I figure it would be a good idea. Not trying to be a smart A, just figure a new player might get a lil' peeved if they build a character on incorrect information.
Don't reference the PHB directly, just something generic like the relevant rulebook with the latest errata. The majority of RPGA play is D&D, but that doesn't mean all of it is.
There will be an updated document sometime this summer before the launch of LFR. Right now, there are a few other important updates/projects ahead of it in the queue.
Bump. How's this coming?
The existing General Rules are out of alignment with the CCG and the database practice. Please kill off the General Rules or update them to be in line with the CCG and current practice.
Add to previously identified problems:
1) There is no restriction at this time against a DM playing a character at his table.
2) There is no restriction at this time against a player playing two characters at a table.
Both of these have been identified by LFR admins as undesireable, yet nothing was done in CCG1.7 to solve the problem.
David