DM Accidently ran a level 4-7 mod with some character less than 4th level

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
What should the DM do?

I didn't realize the mod was for level 4-7 when I ran it, but the group of six (6) players with three (3) clerics legitimately completed the modules.

It was hard module for them to complete and most fights ended with unconscious (but stable) players, but I didn't fudge anything to allow them to complete it.

I didn't even realize it was higher level until I was looking at the item bundles.

What should I do? Void the game? Report it as normal and pray? Contact WoTC?
Void it if you have not reported it yet.

It would make the characters illegal by the rules and if for some reason they get their stuff looked at at a convention or something they would get reported most likely.

Also as the GM you should read the very first page of the module when you download it. Its not just there to look pretty. It has the adventure blurb and has the level range of the module listed.
Why is this necessarily even an issue?

It's not 3.x with its scaled experience model - so the experience given per creature is not dependant upon the character/parties level.

It's not the same as a 5th level character in a 1-4 module in that the presence of the mis-matched character is not making it more difficult for the party - if anything it is making it more challenging for the party.

So I don't see this as breaking the game in any way and it expands the ability for players to play with one another and thus it seems like something that ought to be allowed rather than forbidden.

Also note: The rules specifically say: "Once you level above the range, that character is no longer eligible to play the lower-level adventures." They do not specifically say "You cannot play in an adventure written for higher level characters."

Carl
What should I do? Void the game? Report it as normal and pray? Contact WoTC?

WOTC doesn't care. The online reporting system is sufficiently screwed up that there will be no ill effects from reporting it.

RPGA rules are largely on an honor basis. If your question is on the practical level as to actual future impacts, the odds are there will be none.

If you're interested, though, in how you can follow the letter of the rules with the least detriment to the players, here are some ideas:

- If there were at least four legal 4th level PCs, you could characterize the other players as NPCs you judge empowered into the module who you allowed to be run by assistants--in that case, let the legal players keep their rewards and tell the under-4th level PCs to remove it from their logsheets.

- If these are players you play with regularly, delay the effects of the module. Essentially, they did not play the module (cancel the event or do not report that table). When the PCs who played the module are all within the right level range, re-order that event, sit down with that group, judge empower the module so that events are presented in a narrative format (i.e., paper-whip the module so that you finish it in five minutes by the group telling the story of what happened when they played it), have them record the rewards on their logsheets and report the table then.

Should the mental acrobatics check DC for the above actions be too high for you, or should you be concerned about straying from the spirit of the rules, voiding the table is always an option. Just tell the players that it wasn't a legal table, they need to remove the rewards from their logsheet and that they're free to play that module again when their PCs are within the right range.
Alternatively, if the DM will be playing with the same group of players again, check how close to 4th those 3rd level characters are. If they are close to 4th level and the group can get together soon, run one of the 1-4 adventures in order to get them to 4th then report the 4-7 adventure as being played at a later date. No harm, no foul.

Otherwise, yeah, the thing will need to be voided. A shame since they completed successfully, especially for the players who were legal, but even if the system accepted the report, it would disqualify the characters for any events, conventions, or watchful DMs that they run across.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
Aside: Has anyone, anywhere, anytime ever had their character records looked at by a DM at a convention (barring having something really unusual or weird that strained believability). I know no DM ever asked to look at any of my characters in any of the Living Games I have even played in the past and I doubt any will start now (again - assuming credible characters).

And 'the system' has no way to detect an anomaly of this nature because the 'online' character tracker wholly messed up and useless for most purposes.

But that gets away from the major question which is: Is this really intended to be illegal, or merely ill-advised? The rules are very clear about not playing characters that are too high, but no specific mention is made of under-leveled characters and I don't see why there need be an RPGA interest in preventing such play.

Carl
Otherwise, yeah, the thing will need to be voided. A shame since they completed successfully, especially for the players who were legal, but even if the system accepted the report, it would disqualify the characters for any events, conventions, or watchful DMs that they run across.

This raises a question. How many DMs would disqualify such a character (played a level 4-7 mod at level 3) from playing at their tables? If someone plays a level 3 character in a level 4-7 mod, I doubt I'd really flinch. If level 1 characters can survive 1-4 high tier, then I see no reason a level 3 can't surive 4-7 low tier.

I'd be more concerned with a level 2 character that played a level 7-10 mod, but I'd realize that if a group wanted to, they could just fill out logsheets and report mod results even if the characters never actually played through a mod.

I think the mod levels should be a recommendation rather than a strict requirement.

In the OP's situation, why void the table for the appropriate level characters due to the DM's mistake? If this is really something that has to be done,i s there a way only to void the results for the characters that were the wrong level?
WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (co-author)
OP: Least headache for everyone (you and your players) is to:

(1) Cancel/void the event you ran.

(2) Ask players to contact you once their characters have reached at least 4th level.

(3) Once all characters are legal, order/report event. Notify all players that this has been done, and have them update their log-sheets.

Everyone still gets credit for playing the mod, and record-keeping will show that it was done at the appropriate level.


<><><><><><><><><><>

As far as the issue of "playing-up" goes, I prefer the restriction, rather than showing up to play at a 7-10 table with someone who wants to replay the adventure with his 2nd level character so he can level-jump faster! (I prefer the rule to be there to be able to say "No, this is for 7-10 level characters only.")

Dan Anderson @EpicUthrac
Total Confusion www.totalcon.com
LFR Calimshan Writing Director
LFR Epic Writing Director

LFR Myth Drannor Writing Director

OP: Least headache for everyone (you and your players) is to:
As far as the issue of "playing-up" goes, I prefer the restriction, rather than showing up to play at a 7-10 table with someone who wants to replay the adventure with his 2nd level character so he can level-jump faster! (I prefer the rule to be there to be able to say "No, this is for 7-10 level characters only.")

Level jumping any faster than having his buddy report a bunch of level 1-4 mods for his friends that they never actually played?

Level restrictions are already becoming a headache for convention organizers as far as I can tell. Can you image three years from now when you will have characters of all different levels wanting to get into a con slot?

Do you only cater to the highest level players, leaving casual (like my wife you plays half as much as I do) or new players (who are at every con I've ever been to) out, or do you offer a bit of everything knowing that players may only get to play a character in a few slots rather than the whole convention? How many slots can you offer for each tier if you try to support all 9 tiers?
WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (co-author)
As far as the issue of "playing-up" goes, I prefer the restriction, rather than showing up to play at a 7-10 table with someone who wants to replay the adventure with his 2nd level character so he can level-jump faster!

Its probably far more likely that the level 2 character gets dead. His defenses will be low, his HP will be low, and AOE's are much bigger and better. Also, unless the party is stacked with leaders, healing abilities don't go very far when your surge value is half of everyone elses.

As a DM, I'd be relatively cool with it, but at the same time if we run into smart enemies, that PC looks like a "minion" to the dragon and thus probably is taken out first, in my the same way that PC's take out minions first without much effort.
Also note: The rules specifically say: "Once you level above the range, that character is no longer eligible to play the lower-level adventures." They do not specifically say "You cannot play in an adventure written for higher level characters."

Incorrect. Page 7 of the CCG: "Each adventure has a level range. In order to participate in an adventure, your character has to be in the level range listed for the adventure."

To answer your question of why it's an issue, this is why. The rules say so. People can argue over whether it's a good or bad thing until they're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is the rules prohibit it.

Level restrictions are already becoming a headache for convention organizers as far as I can tell. Can you image three years from now when you will have characters of all different levels wanting to get into a con slot?

As a former con organizer, I would haveloved to have had the LFR model of level bands when I was doing it. I got sick of the constant APL 2-14 mods where you had 3 people for APL 14, 7 for APL 8 and 3 for APL 2. This way, if people show up for the game, you know they will all be able to muster together.

Do you only cater to the highest level players, leaving casual (like my wife you plays half as much as I do) or new players (who are at every con I've ever been to) out, or do you offer a bit of everything knowing that players may only get to play a character in a few slots rather than the whole convention? How many slots can you offer for each tier if you try to support all 9 tiers?

With the death of LG I figured we'd see the death of the regional convention. This will most likely hasten it, but it will not be the main cause (the lack of regional restriction is). How many slots you can offer is dependent upon how big the con is. Smaller ones, or cons that only devote a little bit of space and time for RPGA games, will have a harder time or may come up with some novel system of dealing with it.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Level jumping any faster than having his buddy report a bunch of level 1-4 mods for his friends that they never actually played?

Clearly cheating in this case. Apples and oranges. If playing-up was legal, then that would be a legal way to level-jump.

Level restrictions are already becoming a headache for convention organizers as far as I can tell. Can you image three years from now when you will have characters of all different levels wanting to get into a con slot?

Do you only cater to the highest level players, leaving casual (like my wife you plays half as much as I do) or new players (who are at every con I've ever been to) out, or do you offer a bit of everything knowing that players may only get to play a character in a few slots rather than the whole convention? How many slots can you offer for each tier if you try to support all 9 tiers?

I expect that the release of mods will "slow down" at higher-tiers. When there are only 2 adventures released for the 14-17 slot, you'll have players who will fill lower tables with secondary, tertiary, etc. characters.

So yes, I expect conventions will "cater" to the highest level players by offering a new/special adventure in order to attract those players. I also expect that there will still be piles of slots available to the new/casual players as well.

Ultimately, I believe this is what the "replay" rules are setting-up for future play - - the idea that a player might only get to play their A-character in a few slots rather than a whole convention.

Dan Anderson @EpicUthrac
Total Confusion www.totalcon.com
LFR Calimshan Writing Director
LFR Epic Writing Director

LFR Myth Drannor Writing Director

What should the DM do?

I didn't realize the mod was for level 4-7 when I ran it, but the group of six (6) players with three (3) clerics legitimately completed the modules.

It was hard module for them to complete and most fights ended with unconscious (but stable) players, but I didn't fudge anything to allow them to complete it.

I didn't even realize it was higher level until I was looking at the item bundles.

What should I do? Void the game? Report it as normal and pray? Contact WoTC?

Honest mistakes happen. The level ranges for adventures, of course, are not just "guidelines" and cannot be worked around using any sort of DM Empowerment. In the case of an honest mistake like this, here is the best course of action. The PCs (all of them) cannot use the rewards of the adventure until all of the PCs that participated are 4th level. Once that happens, the results can be reported and the PCs can accept the rewards of the adventure (xp, gp, bundles, story awards).

Obviously, if the mistake was done on purpose, it would invalidate the game.

Thanks,

Shawn
LFR Global Admin
I think the mod levels should be a recommendation rather than a strict requirement.

You're free to try to convince campaign staff that this should not be a strict rule, but the guidelines are pretty clear that it is right now.

Whether or not we think the rule has any purpose is irrelevant, but if you want one, here's a possibility: it's a minimal restraint on judge empowerment.

A DM is free to modify a module to make it as easy or difficult as they believe it needs to be for everyone to have fun. If a DM believes that maximizing fun means that a group always beats the module and gets full rewards, regardless of the capabilities of the PCs, they're free to do so.

Without strict level bands, a DM would be free to sit a table of new 1st level characters down at (when they get around to releasing them) a level 27-30 module and cakewalk the PCs through. A PC could then legally take (though not use) a 30th level item and sell it for 625,000 gp. (Depending on how much xp the DM decided they earned, they could still be 1st level or be jumped up to 16th level at the end of the module, as well.)

Level bands put an upper limit on how much imbalance can be caused by permissive DMs--even if a group cakewalks high tier when they should be playing low tier, they're still going to be roughly around where the rules assume they should be, gold and equipment-wise.

The New RPGA paradigm is that what others do at their tables doesn't affect you, even when they come to sit down at yours. The only way that can be even slightly true is to try to put some sort of limits on judges allowing a PC to play up and gain more than they should for their level.

In the OP's situation, why void the table for the appropriate level characters due to the DM's mistake?

It is the player's responsibility to ensure that the character they are playing for the module is a legal LFR PC that is eligible to play the module, even if the DM doesn't happen to ask. The DM wasn't the only one to screw up here.

Though, as I mentioned, there are options to keep to the letter of the law without completely nullifying the session.
Aside: Has anyone, anywhere, anytime ever had their character records looked at by a DM at a convention (barring having something really unusual or weird that strained believability). I know no DM ever asked to look at any of my characters in any of the Living Games I have even played in the past and I doubt any will start now (again - assuming credible characters).

I haven't had mine looked at, but I have audited one specific player every time he comes to one of our local conventions. We suspected him of cheating at his first appearance and contacted his LG triad. They begged us to audit him every time he comes to town because they repeatedly heard about this guy cheating. The audit was... disturbing. MASSIVE cheating. "Ooops, I don't know how I made that 10,000gp error!" And "Trust me, I have those items - but I was told that I can throw out all previous ARs during a rebuild." Ummm... yeah.

We allowed him to play any LEGAL character as verified by onsite audit. His main PC didn't pass the bar (or anyone's bar...).

So short answer, yes it can happen.
People get audited all the time. However, an LG seems to be much easier to audit than LFR due to the ARs. In LFR, you would basically just be looking at someones character record sheet.
Honest mistakes happen. The level ranges for adventures, of course, are not just "guidelines" and cannot be worked around using any sort of DM Empowerment. In the case of an honest mistake like this, here is the best course of action. The PCs (all of them) cannot use the rewards of the adventure until all of the PCs that participated are 4th level. Once that happens, the results can be reported and the PCs can accept the rewards of the adventure (xp, gp, bundles, story awards).

Obviously, if the mistake was done on purpose, it would invalidate the game.

Thanks,

Shawn
LFR Global Admin

While acknowledging that this is the strict reading of the current rule, I still would like to ask why there is a pressing need for the rules to prohibit playing above your level?

It seems as if changing the rules to allow playing an adventure that is higher level than appropriate does not give the character any real advantage and altering the rules in this way would allow greater options for players.

For example, as I recall a recent poster to the forums complained that there would be few or no low level adventures at D&D Experience and thus that they would be unable to play and attend.

Is this really the goal of the restriction? To restrict when and how the players can play? Is this goal desirable?

Consider: Playing a 4-7 adventure 'down' versus playing a 1-4 adventure 'up' gives the player, what, 80 more experience points? Oh, and the chance of finding an item they won't be able to use until they are the appropriate level anyway (which merely duplicates what happens if they choose to conserve their slots till higher level). And for this they are risking a significantly higher chance of death.

I believe the rule should be changed to make playing the higher level an option, although perhaps with a disclaimer that gives the DM the option of over ruling this if the player is not a contributing member of the group (or at least sharing in the risk. i.e. to deal with players who blatantly avoid all risk by hiding down the corridor, etc.).

The only change I can really see as possibly being necessary would be a small adjustment to the gold awarded. And I'm not even sure that is necessary (I'm not sure what the exact gold/XP ratio is but it didn't seem that far off to me).

Heck - if you are really worried about awarding excessive benefits, limit the character to the standard awards for playing the lower tier 'up'. Deny the character that extra 80 XP and 50 gp. But don't deny them the opportunity to play the game with their friends or play the game at the convention.

Carl
Originally Posted by Syrsuro
Aside: Has anyone, anywhere, anytime ever had their character records looked at by a DM at a convention (barring having something really unusual or weird that strained believability). I know no DM ever asked to look at any of my characters in any of the Living Games I have even played in the past and I doubt any will start now (again - assuming credible characters).

I haven't had mine looked at, but I have audited one specific player every time he comes to one of our local conventions. We suspected him of cheating at his first appearance and contacted his LG triad. They begged us to audit him every time he comes to town because they repeatedly heard about this guy cheating. The audit was... disturbing. MASSIVE cheating. "Ooops, I don't know how I made that 10,000gp error!" And "Trust me, I have those items - but I was told that I can throw out all previous ARs during a rebuild." Ummm... yeah.

We allowed him to play any LEGAL character as verified by onsite audit. His main PC didn't pass the bar (or anyone's bar...).

So short answer, yes it can happen.

Note: That is not an example of what I asked. Obviously this player's character was not credible and thus it was not a random or routine audit, but was rather an audit triggered by obvious discrepancies in the character.


My point is that if a character is plausible, i.e. does not have items, abilities, money, etc. that is out of the ordinary for the campaign, then it is rare to unheard of for that character to be audited. And I'm not sure there is any reason for a character who falls within the curve to be audited. I'm not sure why I, or any other DM, should really care whether the character is 'legal' as long as the character is appropriate.

The goal is to have fun now, in this adventure - and how much difference does it make what that character did yesterday or last year? Does whether or not that character is 'legal' affect anyone's fun at the table here and now? Does the fact that Joe Fighter's character actually played his way up to 3rd level while Bob Rogue's character was actually created that morning matter? Or is what matters whether the characters have gear and equipment appropriate for the campaign so that they are playing on a level field and neither dominates the game to the detriment of the others? Do the rules make the game more fun, more balanced, more anything? What do they bring to the game?

But that is a question for another day and time.

Here, the question is why a specific RPGA Rule is the way it is, not whether we need those rules in the first place.




Note: I concede that in the specific example above, the rules provided a convenient means to do that which needed to be done: To invalidate a character that should not have been allowed. And arbitrary rules provide one means to make such a judgement call. However they are not the only means and the reason why the character was inappropriate was not, really, that it was illegal - it was that it had items and gold that were inappropriate for the campaign. The character's illegality was merely the means used to accomplish the end of invalidating the character.

Carl
Aside: Has anyone, anywhere, anytime ever had their character records looked at by a DM at a convention (barring having something really unusual or weird that strained believability). I know no DM ever asked to look at any of my characters in any of the Living Games I have even played in the past and I doubt any will start now (again - assuming credible characters).

Well I audited pretty much everyone with an animated shield. Some might consider that straining believability, some might not.

There is also auditing wondering where someone got something (to be frank, because some DMs may want that item for their own characters).

The bulk of audits are a PC's MIL and related to crafting. I have seen quite a few audits for powerful items or generally restricted feats.

I myself have been audited with fairly unassuming characters. I found it a pleasant experience that usually involved gaining a few extra hit points and +1 to a save.

So auditing of perfectly normal not super powered characters happens, but the bulk of it appears to be with crafter PC types.

I think the problem with using out of range characters (a level 3 on a level 4-7 module) could come from "power leveling" and say bringing 1st level characters along for the ride in 4-7 modules. In particular to get access to better items. I am sure there is some internet word for that, but I don't know it myself.
I think the problem with using out of range characters (a level 3 on a level 4-7 module) could come from "power leveling" and say bringing 1st level characters along for the ride in 4-7 modules. In particular to get access to better items. I am sure there is some internet word for that, but I don't know it myself.

I'm sure this is the concern.

But my point is: This doesn't work.

At least it doesn't work without the DMs complicity.

Rather, this concern is a remnant of 3.x (and earlier edition) thinking and does not appear to apply to 4E.

If the character is genuinely taking part in the adventure, they will only survive if they are playing at most one level range above their level.

And because the 4E experience curve is flatter, the benefit for players attempting to power level in this way is just not there. Sure, if you compare playing low 1-4 to low 4-7 they are getting 240 more XP. But since playing at high 1-4 is legal, the valid comparison is between high 1-4 and low 4-7. And in that case, they are, as I recall, only getting an extra 80 XP.

And if they choose items that are too high for their level, they will still not be able to use those items.

And there is no difference between choosing high level items at low level and not being able to use those items until you are higher level and leaving your found item slots open at low level and choosing higher level items after you level up - something which has already been clarified as perfectly legal.

Again - unless the DM is complicit and lets the low-level character get the experience without sharing in the risk/adventure - there is no real benefit to doing this (and there is substantial risk). And if the DM is complicit there are easier ways to cheat than playing in a high level adventure.

And, imho, the real issue isn't player-DM collusion, it is the character who happens to be too low level for the planned adventure and wants to take his chances anyway.

As I see it, this excludes a number of legitimate play opportunities in the hopes of preventing an unlikely and inefficient form of 'cheating'. The loss to the hobby/community (players miss a few sessions and can no longer play with their friends who have leveled out of range; players cannot find games appropriate for their level at conventions) is far more significant than the supposed gain (preventing 'cheating' by playing adventures that are too high level for them rather than simply spending five minutes copying their buddies adventure log).

Note: This was legal under LG. The experience and treasure had to be adjusted. But it was legal.

Carl
I think the problem with using out of range characters (a level 3 on a level 4-7 module) could come from "power leveling" and say bringing 1st level characters along for the ride in 4-7 modules. In particular to get access to better items. I am sure there is some internet word for that, but I don't know it myself.

The word you are trying to remember is called twinking, where you have a more experienced character, with the money and gear available at that higher level, outfit a lower level character with gear and money that he shouldn't have access to.

"Okay, Jonny, here's 5,000 GP; and a bag of holding, a ruby scabbard, an exodus kinfe, a +2 bloodclaw mordenkrad, a +2 Warsheath layered plate armor, etc." Would be even worse without the level +4 limit, even though much of this stuff wouldn't be appropriate for a 1st level characteranyhow.

As mentioned, without the banding limitation, you could, possibly, play a first level character in a top tier epic adventure, getting insane rewards, especially if the DM Empowerment rule allowed the DM tro make it possible for the first level to do more than watch from the next region over. XP rewards at the level would be a heck of a lot more than the amount needed to go up a level, and the gold alone would be a hefty lump, not counting any gotten from selling a found m,agic item of that level.

I have to admit that, in LG, we have played a higher APL mode with a couple of new PCs tagging along. Or, played a diverse group at one level, but given one of the PCs an AR setup as though he had played the adeventure at a lower level that didn't have the 50% penalty for playing up more than 2 levels.

Carl,

I have to admit that you are very good at beating a dead horse, either through aggressive obstinacy or just inability to understand, but it is really wearing.

Take it as given: At most large scale LFR events, you will find that the majority of events scheduled will cater to the majority of players expected to attend. You will find a few events open or setup for the rest of the players, but the major target of any convention, for some reason, is the majority of their attendees. Ain't that an amazing concept?

However, as with any large convention, they will almost certainly have a lot of folks wandering around at loose ends, so it will almost certainly be possible to get together level-approriate pick-up games for the minority players. Many of the more dedicated LFR players will probably have multiple PCs, so some will be lower level, and they might appreciate being able to playa module that they either missed before, or want to play with a different PC.
As I see it, this excludes a number of legitimate play opportunities in the hopes of preventing an unlikely and inefficient form of 'cheating'. The loss to the hobby/community (players miss a few sessions and can no longer play with their friends who have leveled out of range; players cannot find games appropriate for their level at conventions) is far more significant than the supposed gain (preventing 'cheating' by playing adventures that are too high level for them rather than simply spending five minutes copying their buddies adventure log).

Note: This was legal under LG. The experience and treasure had to be adjusted. But it was legal.
Carl

Well, you make some good points Syrsuro. I don't really know what the effects will be, but your basically arguing for more play opportunities.

Its true the level band was potentially much wider in LG than it is LFR. Its not a problem now because everyone is between levels 1-7; however, its not a far stretch of the imagination that it could develop into a problem in making legal tables for LFR in the future.
As mentioned, without the banding limitation, you could, possibly, play a first level character in a top tier epic adventure, getting insane rewards, especially if the DM Empowerment rule allowed the DM tro make it possible for the first level to do more than watch from the next region over. XP rewards at the level would be a heck of a lot more than the amount needed to go up a level, and the gold alone would be a hefty lump, not counting any gotten from selling a found m,agic item of that level.

Indeed. So there is arguably a reason for limitations on the process. But demonstrating that playing a first level character in an epic tier adventure leads to a problem in no way demonstrates that there is a problem playing a 3rd level character in a 4th-7th tier adventure.

I have to admit that you are very good at beating a dead horse, either through aggressive obstinacy or just inability to understand, but it is really wearing.

I can understand that you find it wearing. But that opinion of me or my methods does not address the initial question or the validity of the argument. In either case, my point isn't really directed at you, but at those who have the capability to consider such arguments and make the necessary modification to the RPGA CCG. Although I welcome counterarguments to my point, afaik it is not you who need be convinced.

Take it as given: At most large scale LFR events, you will find that the majority of events scheduled will cater to the majority of players expected to attend. You will find a few events open or setup for the rest of the players, but the major target of any convention, for some reason, is the majority of their attendees. Ain't that an amazing concept?

However, as with any large convention, they will almost certainly have a lot of folks wandering around at loose ends, so it will almost certainly be possible to get together level-approriate pick-up games for the minority players. Many of the more dedicated LFR players will probably have multiple PCs, so some will be lower level, and they might appreciate being able to playa module that they either missed before, or want to play with a different PC.

Except this is already demonstrably false. D&D Experience will be running all or nearly all tier 4-7 adventures or higher adventures (or at least they were the last I had heard, unless they changed their scheduled adventures). Which means that players who do not yet have characters of that level will not be able to play in the majority of events (bad in itself since conventions are one of the best ways to draw players into the RPGA and placing a barrier of this nature between the players and the RPGA is not a good idea).

Or is D&D Experience not a 'large scale LFR event'?

And counting on pickup games is not a valid argument since I can guarantee you that I and many other people are not going to plunk down money to register for a convention, pay for a hotel room, etc. on the off chance that they can find a pick-up game for their character. They'll go to their FLGS and play (most likely the exact same adventure) and save a couple hundred dollars instead.

To quote Keith Hoffman:
If you are fairly new and have only low level LFR PCs, then you need to read carefully to find adventures offered, or play in open game slots where any LFR adventure will be offered, to make sure your PC is of the level of the adventure offered. It would be a bummer if you showed up, and your PC was not high enough level. So check this out carefully.

Or another poster later in the same thread: " Note that the majority of the slots for DDXP are for 4th-7th or 7th-10th level characters."

Carl
Carl,

1) I do believe that the various LFR admin types have told you no, and more than once. What part of no do you have trouble understanding? I find it wearing that you have been told no by those authorities, yet continue to beat a dead horse. In multiple threads. In the exact same terms. Derogatorily, to boot.

2) DDXP is not a convention targeted, this year, at new LFR players. It is targeted at the experienced players with higher level PCs that they expect to be the majority of the con-goers. What part of majority do you have trouble understanding?

3) On the subject of the OP, I believe that his question has been answered by an LFR admin with a suggestion that is both reasonable and quite generous for how to handle the situation.
Except this is already demonstrably false. D&D Experience will be running all or nearly all tier 4-7 adventures or higher adventures (or at least they were the last I had heard, unless they changed their scheduled adventures). Which means that players who do not yet have characters of that level will not be able to play in the majority of events (bad in itself since conventions are one of the best ways to draw players into the RPGA and placing a barrier of this nature between the players and the RPGA is not a good idea).

Carl,

Take a closer look at the DDXP schedule:

3 out of 10 slots are ticketed for LFR open play - which is for 1-4 level characters. You can buy tickets for these events, and a judge will be provided.

LFR isn't the only thing available at DDXP. There's Inn-Fighting and 3-Dragon-Ante as well. And, if you really only want to play D&D, the Delve and the Special "Beyond the Door" offer pre-generated characters for your enjoyment.

So, let's take the player that want to go to DDXP and ONLY play LFR games. This type of player is likely not trying out LFR for the first time, and either already has a character at level 4+ or can get one to that level in easy time for the convention.

The target LFR player for DDXP generally falls into that category. There will be many events to occupy and entertain the new LFR players, but the majority of attendees interested in LFR will be bringing characters levels 4-8.

Overall, I think the DDXP schedule offers a great balance and schedule of gaming activities for the new/casual LFR player (who's unlikely to want to play every slot anyway) and the hard-core-LFR-every-slot gamer, who will be attracted to a convention where the new 7-10 mods will premiere.

Good gaming!

Dan Anderson @EpicUthrac
Total Confusion www.totalcon.com
LFR Calimshan Writing Director
LFR Epic Writing Director

LFR Myth Drannor Writing Director

Carl,

1) I do believe that the various LFR admin types have told you no, and more than once. What part of no do you have trouble understanding? I find it wearing that you have been told no by those authorities, yet continue to beat a dead horse. In multiple threads. In the exact same terms. Derogatorily, to boot.

You are mischaracterizing both what I am saying and what they have said.

They have stated what the rule is and I have agreed that that is what the rule is. This is beyond question. Please accept that I do not question what the rule states on this issue.

I am rather questioning whether that rule is appropriate and furthermore suggesting that it should be reconsidered. They have not addressed that issue.

Perhaps you believe that the rules are the rules and that rules are meant to be followed blindly, but I do not. I believe that rules are only of value if they serve a desirable purpose. If a rule does not serve a useful purpose, or worse, is to the detriment of the game or organization it is not only appropriate, it is mandatory, that that rule be questioned, respectfully and in an appropriate forum. I believe that as members of a role playing gamer's association we have that right (although perhaps not as clearly as might have been the case back in the day when we were also dues-paying members). I believe I have done so. If I have truely been derogatory to anyone, please point me to the relevant post and I will apologize to whomever was the target of my comments. Such certainly was not my intent, although the meticulous, even pendantic, stye of my posts may occasionally be interpreted as such. If you thought I was being derogatory towards you, my apologies for whatever comment I made which you took as such. (And I'm sure your characterization of my 'aggressive obstinacy' or my 'inability to understand', or of my posts as 'wearing' or 'beating a dead horse' were likewise not intended to be in any way derogatory).

2) DDXP is not a convention targeted, this year, at new LFR players. It is targeted at the experienced players with higher level PCs that they expect to be the majority of the con-goers. What part of majority do you have trouble understanding?

OK, I'll concede this point. Partially. By intentionally targetting the convention at those who have higher level characters (from their website: "This show is aimmed [sic] at the range of characters from 4th to 10th level") they have filtered the community and discouraged those who do not have characters of that level from attending. Thus they have created a situation where the majority of those expected to attend that specific convention will have higher level characters. And they are certainly within their rights to target their convention at whomever they wish.

But this does not mean that these 'experienced players with higher level PCs 'are necessarily the majority of con-goers. For example, as a (very long-time) member of the RPGA, I often attend cons (not as many per year as I did in the '80s/early '90s unfortunately), but until the past year (when two of my players decided to become Heralds and start DMing) I never played LG or LFR outside of conventions (although I occasionally DMed it). We played our own campaigns. Thus (excepting those campaigns with level kicks) my characters were always 1st level at conventions (and I sometimes had to play at a much higher APL and sometimes I died because of that). So to assume somehow only those with higher level characters bother to attempt conventions is at best oversimplistic.

Regardless, my question again is: Is this a good idea for the hobby or the organization? Is intentionally making those with lower level characters feel as if their presence at a major RPGA convention is unwelcome a good idea? Or should we instead be looking for ways to bring in more people - to expand the hobby rather than to shrink our audience?

But D&D Experience is a side issue and thus tangential to the rule question.

Again, if a rule change of this nature (allowing, at the DM's option, those who lack a lower-level character to take their chances and play a higher level adventure fairly) expands those options - is this not an idea at least worthy of consideration?



3) On the subject of the OP, I believe that his question has been answered by an LFR admin with a suggestion that is both reasonable and quite generous for how to handle the situation.

Again, this is not under debate.

The question is whether the rule itself is perhaps deserving of reconsideration.


Carl
The question is whether the rule itself is perhaps deserving of reconsideration.

Carl,

As you point out, the rule itself is certainly deserving of discussion.

It sounds to me that you would like the rule changed to promote more play availability to more players. A laudable goal!

Here is my personal opinion - in the interest of discussion - as to why I like the rule as-written, and why I believe it should not be changed.


As a player, I have a "power-level" expectation of the other characters at the table. I prefer to know that when I sign up to a 4-7 mod that I will be playing with other players using a character at the same power level as my own. Under the "okay-to-play-up-rule," there would be a chance that my 7th level character could end up playing an adventure with five 2nd-3rd level characters - a number of people signed up to play-up. This would not be fun for me, as my character will either die for adventuring with such underpowered characters, or the DM will modify the adventure for the majority, making the adventure not challenging for me.

When discussing modifying a rule that will affect the entire campaign world, you must consider all of the possible ramifications. The one you have identified - allowing a 3rd level character to play with his friends - is a great benefit for changing the rule. However, I think you're opening a Pandora's Box when considering this rule-change system-wide.


Good Gaming!

Dan Anderson @EpicUthrac
Total Confusion www.totalcon.com
LFR Calimshan Writing Director
LFR Epic Writing Director

LFR Myth Drannor Writing Director

I cannot think of an LFR-specific rule that we have not discussed since the initial discussions of the form and function of the campaign. Everything that is said is taking into consideration. However, some decisions are made at WotC and are not in the hands of the admins. We do not have the time to debate every point of every issue.

Thanks,

Shawn
LFR Global Admin
Carl,

As you point out, the rule itself is certainly deserving of discussion.

It sounds to me that you would like the rule changed to promote more play availability to more players. A laudable goal!

Here is my personal opinion - in the interest of discussion - as to why I like the rule as-written, and why I believe it should not be changed.


As a player, I have a "power-level" expectation of the other characters at the table. I prefer to know that when I sign up to a 4-7 mod that I will be playing with other players using a character at the same power level as my own. Under the "okay-to-play-up-rule," there would be a chance that my 7th level character could end up playing an adventure with five 2nd-3rd level characters - a number of people signed up to play-up. This would not be fun for me, as my character will either die for adventuring with such underpowered characters, or the DM will modify the adventure for the majority, making the adventure not challenging for me.

When discussing modifying a rule that will affect the entire campaign world, you must consider all of the possible ramifications. The one you have identified - allowing a 3rd level character to play with his friends - is a great benefit for changing the rule. However, I think you're opening a Pandora's Box when considering this rule-change system-wide.


Good Gaming!

I recognize that this is a valid concern, especially when one is talking about convention games - having one's character die (or even just fail to complete the adventure) because another member of the party wasn't high enough level to carry their weight is certainly unpleasant. But then again, so is having your character die because you didn't have that extra character at any level. Or having your character die because the another players was useless at any level. So that may ultimately be a wash - but it is definately a valid point for consideration.

I guess that because I tend to play and DM mostly as part of an ongoing group, rather than as part of pickup groups, that does color my perspective. Because we all know each other, if it came down to "Joe can't play because he doesn't have a high enough level character" versus "We have to be careful because our leader isn't as high level as the rest of us" it's clear which approach I would prefer. I'd take my chances so that Joe could play. (At present we have two players with characters on hiatus while they wait for the rest of the us to catch up. The irony, of course, is that their characters are ahead of the rest of ours because they happened to really like those characters and thus, while the rest of us tried a variety of different races and classes, they stuck to what they really wanted to play. So apparently, the reward for creating a character you really like to play is that you can't play it for awhile.

Not to mention my own particular perspective on the hobby (it's only a game and as long as fun is had by all, it doesn't matter what happens - even if what happens is death) which would make me, personally, 100% accepting of moderately lower-level characters in my groups, and unconcerned with some arbitrary measure of party strength. Not to mention the fact that, to some degree, I find the prospect of going in knowing we are underpowered, and thus facing a much greater challenge than we would otherwise, potentially even more fun than facing the often unchallenging challenge of an appropriately balanced encounter.

But your perspective is certainly valid, and quite possibly more common than my own.

I guess that, if it were possible, my proposed rule change would have to have a strong DM-option included so as to make it viable for home play, and to restrict how many characters of too-low level were allowed to play in a convention game.

Carl
Perhaps you believe that the rules are the rules and that rules are meant to be followed blindly, but I do not. I believe that rules are only of value if they serve a desirable purpose. If a rule does not serve a useful purpose, or worse, is to the detriment of the game or organization it is not only appropriate, it is mandatory, that that rule be questioned, respectfully and in an appropriate forum.

Questioning a rule is a separate issue from following the rule. Whether or not you agree with the rule or think it serves any desirable purpose, you are required to follow the rule.

Indeed, bad rules should be enforced more strictly than good rules--it's the only way that those making the rules will ever feel any pressure to change them. In the same way that, if the answer to bad modules is "Well, just judge empower everything away", any pressure to write good modules disappears, if the answer to bad rules is "Well, we'll just ignore them", then any pressure to write good rules disappears, because you never see any negative impact from them.

You can follow a rule while still questioning its validity.

Do strict level bands have problems? Yes. The narrow level bands, combined with the blink-and-you-miss-it advancement pace, means that it's very easy for one player to fall behind. Missing a single gameday could leave you with a high 3rd level PC and the rest of your group with low 5th level PCs, entirely unable to play together; missing a convention that the rest of the group goes to is almost certainly going to cause you to be left behind.

This is only going to get worse as the level limit of the campaign increases. Right now, you always have the option of rolling up new 1st level PCs to play with your left-behind friend. Once he hits level 5, however, that's all over.

I'm particularly curious to see what the range of the low-paragon modules will be: if they keep to the same pattern, and have a band of 11-14, that will lead to obvious problems where having played a single module more or less than your friends means you can't play with them.

Whether intentional or not, LFR's rules best suit a group of friends running modules exclusively amongst themselves in lock-step, and suit poorly a campaign played at conventions with changing groups, often with differing levels of involvement.

Personally, I expect that the combination of strict level bands and judge empowerment will eventually lead to paper-whipping becoming commonplace.

With no limitations on DM empowerment, a DM is free to emphasize roleplaying and de-emphasize combat. At the extreme end, it would not be illegal (albeit frowned upon) for a DM to do an entire module in diceless narrative form if both he and the players think that would be more fun; while there are guidelines, there are no requirements on how long a module must take.

Under the current rules, I am not sure that a DM who orders the appropriate modules, sits down with players with four new 1st level PCs and has them take five minutes to interactively tell the story of how they all went through twelve modules together and are now 5th level, has done anything in violation of the rules.

The answer to "This is nothing new. People used to cheat all the time in other campaigns" is that, when behavior like this is clearly against the rules as written, few people engage in it and do so only furtively. The primary enforcer of RPGA rules isn't the RPGA, it's social norms and the risk of opprobrium.

My scenario, however, is clearly against the spirit of the rules, but arguably within the letter. Most people will follow the spirit of the rules so long as they believe the spirit of the rules supports the spirit of the campaign they signed up for. At the point that they feel that the spirit of the rules has failed them, however, following the letter of the rules alone becomes more socially acceptable.

-- Brian Gibbons.
I cannot think of an LFR-specific rule that we have not discussed since the initial discussions of the form and function of the campaign. Everything that is said is taking into consideration. However, some decisions are made at WotC and are not in the hands of the admins. We do not have the time to debate every point of every issue.

Thanks,

Shawn
LFR Global Admin

Point acknowledged and understood.

If this is actually due to a WoTC mandate there isn't much that can be done (although that does not mean that they might not also revisit their decisions if the point were made appropriately by the RPGA admins). But it's not my place to tell you guys how to pick your battles. Of course, your answer didn't say that this issue was a WoTC call, only that some issues are WoTC calls.

Regardless, my own perspective, based upon too much time spent on internet forums over the years (including several years moderating the BioWare NWN forums) is simple: I try to make the merits of my point heard by those capable of making decisions, and once my views have been acknowleged my work is done.

Thank you.

Carl
Questioning a rule is a separate issue from following the rule. Whether or not you agree with the rule or think it serves any desirable purpose, you are required to follow the rule.

Indeed, bad rules should be enforced more strictly than good rules--it's the only way that those making the rules will ever feel any pressure to change them. In the same way that, if the answer to bad modules is "Well, just judge empower everything away", any pressure to write good modules disappears, if the answer to bad rules is "Well, we'll just ignore them", then any pressure to write good rules disappears, because you never see any negative impact from them.

You can follow a rule while still questioning its validity.

I agree. If I was not concerned with following the rules, I would just go and do what I wanted to do and not bother with making my point heard.

My point is that I see this as an issue that will end up working, perhaps subtly, to the detriment of the current incarnation of the RPGA* and thus I think it is a rule that is worthy of being changed.

However, as I stated in my last post, my point has been heard (whether it has been understood cannot be judged from the formulaic response, of course, so I can only hope for the best) and there is nothing more to be said at this time.

However I will end this with one final note: I predict that this issue will be back to bite us all next Gen Con. Although I am done with this subject for now, I reserve the option to revisit this issue following GenCon Indy 2009.

Carl

*Even if only because bad rules are frequently ignored and once DMs/Players start ignoring bad rules the barrier drops to start ignoring the good rules. Think of it as a gateway infraction.
Seems like this thread has wandered away from the original poster's issue, but let me offer a few comments.

To the best of my knowledge, the designation of the strict, narrow (4 level) level ranges was set by WotC R&D. Certainly none of the LFR campaign staff had input, although much discussion did occur.

When I first was told of that rule, I quickly recognized potential headaches which it would give event organizers (aka Senior GMs). I still have some concern, but this is a cost/benefit type of rule, and they feel the benefit of the sweet spot play experience outweighs their view of the downside.

Initially, before I understood 4E as well as I do now, I advocated STRONGLY that we expand the level ranges. That was not accepted, and now that I have written adventures, seen the play, etc. and deal with scaling adventures, scaling the adventure does have limits. So I am no longer pushing for the wide level ranges as I originally did.

Please do not assume my words have fully captured the WotC decision making on this rule (or other such rules). I am sure my understanding is limited.

So now I am focused on constructive ideas on how to plan and run a con featuring LFR to meet the gamers desires (or at least most of them).

If DDXP and later other cons, such as Origins, Gencon, and Dragoncon demonstrate there is a major problem due to the strict, narrow level ranges of adventures, then I think that is likely motive for WotC to reconsider their course of action. Gnashing of teeth before then is not real likely, IMHO, to change anything.

Keith
Keith Hoffman LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
OK, I'll concede this point. Partially. By intentionally targetting the convention at those who have higher level characters (from their website: "This show is aimmed [sic] at the range of characters from 4th to 10th level") they have filtered the community and discouraged those who do not have characters of that level from attending. Thus they have created a situation where the majority of those expected to attend that specific convention will have higher level characters. And they are certainly within their rights to target their convention at whomever they wish.

But this does not mean that these 'experienced players with higher level PCs 'are necessarily the majority of con-goers. For example, as a (very long-time) member of the RPGA, I often attend cons (not as many per year as I did in the '80s/early '90s unfortunately), but until the past year (when two of my players decided to become Heralds and start DMing) I never played LG or LFR outside of conventions (although I occasionally DMed it). We played our own campaigns. Thus (excepting those campaigns with level kicks) my characters were always 1st level at conventions (and I sometimes had to play at a much higher APL and sometimes I died because of that). So to assume somehow only those with higher level characters bother to attempt conventions is at best oversimplistic.

Regardless, my question again is: Is this a good idea for the hobby or the organization? Is intentionally making those with lower level characters feel as if their presence at a major RPGA convention is unwelcome a good idea? Or should we instead be looking for ways to bring in more people - to expand the hobby rather than to shrink our audience?

But D&D Experience is a side issue and thus tangential to the rule question.

Again, if a rule change of this nature (allowing, at the DM's option, those who lack a lower-level character to take their chances and play a higher level adventure fairly) expands those options - is this not an idea at least worthy of consideration?

Ummm. I think there is a major (and basic) mis-communication here.

Your posts are apparently based on the assumption that ALL future conventions are going to automatically target the higher level bands of PCs. My response is based on DDXP being a single point on a line, with experience playing at a recent large local convention that both had scheduled mods in plenty for both level bands 1-4 & 4-7; and was able to work with groups deciding what module they wanted to play "on the fly" as it were.

2 slots on Thursday, 3 each on Friday and Saturday, and 2 more slots on Sunday, not counting Midnight Madness on three nights; and, for the most part, there were games available in most, if not all, slots for LFR PCs in either level band, high level adventures permitting.

I know that, when an LG slot failed on me, I was able to join in to a low-level adventure with my 1st level fighter without a problem. The con had plenty of attendees, lots of games, and still managed to run modules for at least 3 different Organized Play campaigns, LG, LFR & PSS.

IMO, really, the place where the strictness of the level bands will most come into play is at Game Days, which, for me at least, are my only source for LFR games other than conventions at this time. And my interest at the last convention was in LG rather than LFR, since it was probably my last chance to play my LG archer PC. Our November Game Day doesn't even have an LG mod scheduled now, much less the chance of finding a group of LG players with characters around the same level interested and able (no replay rule, after all) to play in the same module...

My current LFR "stable", after all consists of 3 played PCs, in a total of 6 mods, and a bunch of unplayed PCs, with only one of my PCs higher than 1st level...
Seems like this thread has wandered away from the original poster's issue, but let me offer a few comments.

To the best of my knowledge, the designation of the strict, narrow (4 level) level ranges was set by WotC R&D. Certainly none of the LFR campaign staff had input, although much discussion did occur.

When I first was told of that rule, I quickly recognized potential headaches which it would give event organizers (aka Senior GMs). I still have some concern, but this is a cost/benefit type of rule, and they feel the benefit of the sweet spot play experience outweighs their view of the downside.

Initially, before I understood 4E as well as I do now, I advocated STRONGLY that we expand the level ranges. That was not accepted, and now that I have written adventures, seen the play, etc. and deal with scaling adventures, scaling the adventure does have limits. So I am no longer pushing for the wide level ranges as I originally did.

Please do not assume my words have fully captured the WotC decision making on this rule (or other such rules). I am sure my understanding is limited.

So now I am focused on constructive ideas on how to plan and run a con featuring LFR to meet the gamers desires (or at least most of them).

If DDXP and later other cons, such as Origins, Gencon, and Dragoncon demonstrate there is a major problem due to the strict, narrow level ranges of adventures, then I think that is likely motive for WotC to reconsider their course of action. Gnashing of teeth before then is not real likely, IMHO, to change anything.

Keith

Thank you for this additional insight into the situation.

As noted, I am content that the point has been given consideration by the RPGA at least and will reserve comment until after GenCon 2009. At that time, we will see how things work out.

One related concern is that I would not be surprised to see a significant number of players sign up for, and pay for, events despite lacking a character of the appropriate level. While one might expect players to read the event descriptions and be appropriately prepared, based on prior experience I have no such expectation. So a mechanism to handle such players will have to be developed over the next few conventions (and such a mechanism may well be a half-dozen standby judges ready to DM band 1-4 adventures prepared just for that purpose).

But of course DMs are always in short supply so that approach is problematic in itself.

Another option would be to allow a 'fast-play character', but to mark such a character on the DM record sheet in such a way that the character does not actually receive experience. In other words, you can either play the adventure as a living character or as a fast-play character - but not both.

But I'll leave such exercises for the adminstrators....

Carl
Not to mention my own particular perspective on the hobby (it's only a game and as long as fun is had by all, it doesn't matter what happens - even if what happens is death)...

This is the best advice available on these boards right now...and I think 99% of all concerns can be addressed by this statement.

The concept of cheating in what is supposed to be a cooperative game experience is difficult to fathom for me...but then again perhaps bragging rights are more important to others than they are to me.
Thanks to everyone for the advise.

In the end, I canceled the event in the system and I will re-order the event when everyone is 4th or higher so they get credit for it, but only after everyone is already 4th.
This is a particularly interesting topic for me as a GM with a diverse gaming group that is invested in the LFR setting.

My problem is related to this, but is not at the extremes discussed by the more vocal fringe participants (i.e., twinking up, or other types of active cheating). My problem is that the characters played by the various people in my gaming group do not rise at the same levels. . . two of the players are regulars, and always attend. They are already at level 3 while the other characters from other players with reduced attendance are early level 2 (folks with more demanding jobs and family obligations).

Extrapolating the rates of attendance through the next six low-level modules, I expect I will have a set of two L5 characters, three L4 characters, and three less-commonly appearing L3 characters between the eight members of my group. I generally have five people show up each week, so if I can field a team that meets the requirements of four minimum legal level characters, I would like to play the higher level module, and have whichever L3 guy also attend.

Note that these players are all very experienced gamers, tacticians, and role-players, and we have had zero deaths to date despite playing the high-level version of all modules since the first two. This is a relevant note because I do not believe the L3 will be under particular stress to survive, and will still be able to participate in a meaningful way (i.e., not cowering under the cleric's tunic the whole adventure).

Based on the discussion here, it seems that this would be "fine" so long as the L3 guy didn't pick up any high level loot, and so long as the other module rewards were not used. Playing a low level (1-4) module would be out of the question (we will have two L5s), so the high level (4-7) is simply going to have to be the proper solution in order to keep challenging the core members of the group.

All in all, this makes sense to me as a "fun and challenging" path forward to address a likely problem in the near future. Thank you all for assembling a spirited discussion on the many issues surrounding this topic.

RTM
RTM,

Unfortunately, that solution is not LFR legal.

The "correct" solution would be for the two most dedicated players to build and play a second character.

Given how much they play, it seems likely that the secondaries would be running up to 4th level fairly quick, as well.

Downside: They are unable to keep playing the same character (for maximum XP soakage) all the time.
Upside: They can play with a totally different character, both race and class, including options that have come out since they started their original characters.

Remember that the replay rule would allow the frequent gamers to play in the same module again with the folks that weren't there the first time with their alts. It allows a lot more flexibility.
Agreed, I"m coming to terms with realizing that there simply will not be enough modules for dedicated players to play the same character all the time. The level 5 and 3 problem will likely rear its ugly head in a month or so for my playgroup as well. At some point, they will have to roll up a secondary character anyway, so its better to convince them now when it benefits the group than to do it later when they are level 7/8 (or 10/11) and the don't have a choice.
Based on the discussion here, it seems that this would be "fine" so long as the L3 guy didn't pick up any high level loot, and so long as the other module rewards were not used.

RTM,

The discussion here is how to fix an honest mistake.

As noted above, your solution is not legal.

Best solution is to have your more-regular players start a new 1st level character to play with the level 3's. Once the 3's level up, they can all play the 4-7's.

Good Gaming!

Dan Anderson @EpicUthrac
Total Confusion www.totalcon.com
LFR Calimshan Writing Director
LFR Epic Writing Director

LFR Myth Drannor Writing Director