Community

 
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 3 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View LFR campaign standards/ access
5 years ago  ::  Mar 17, 2008 - 10:29AM #21
kenobi65
  • Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined: May 6, 2001
Posts: 1,919

The_Jester wrote:

Access though... I'd like a more realistic method where you had to divide-up treasure opposed to the method of "everyone sells everything and then you buy it back at regular market price".


Well, that was the "cert" system that Living City and other campaigns used, and that LG used at first. The problem with it is that it leads to (a) squabbling between players, (b) uneven wealth distribution between PCs, and (c) higher-level PCs that can "trick out" the new PC of one of their friends by giving that new PC a bunch of certs that they don't need anymore.

Maybe there's a way to do it that doesn't lead to those problems. I'm just not aware of it.

"Of course [Richard] has a knife.  He always has a knife.  We all have knives.  It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 17, 2008 - 11:43AM #22
iskurthi
Date Joined: Aug 20, 2007
Posts: 16

The_Jester wrote:

The best way would be ARs that are printed and handed-out post-game but also virtual ARs on the website. When the event is reported the DM checks off what favours you have.
If you lose your ARs you can print them.
If you're traveling you can just take print-out copies or go online.
They might even have a "resize" option so you can only include text that applies to you (favours you have, item access you got) and print the sheet out half-size on a 8.5x11 sheet allowing you to have 2 ARs per page. 4 if you double-side.

You can imagine the benefits of quartering your stack of ARs.


I have a hard time getting people to reliably report the games I play in now when it's comparatively simple to do. Even a slight complexity bump seems to pose most people an impossible roadblock - I think about half the Xen'drik tables I've played in have had reporting problems.

If it weren't for the fact that it won't work, your idea is great.

It will admittedly quarter your stack of ARs, since you'll be missing so many of them.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 17, 2008 - 11:58AM #23
rschaefer_1
Date Joined: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 26

iskurthi wrote:

I have a hard time getting people to reliably report the games I play in now when it's comparatively simple to do. Even a slight complexity bump seems to pose most people an impossible roadblock - I think about half the Xen'drik tables I've played in have had reporting problems.

If it weren't for the fact that it won't work, your idea is great.

It will admittedly quarter your stack of ARs, since you'll be missing so many of them.


I'm sorry you have problems with the reporting. I'm not sure why that would be. The online part is so simple. I do it as soon as the game ends. It takes about 5 minutes tops. My problem is sorting out all the adventure journals. No one has them done right or on time when they show up. Then there is my recording on them. That is where the pain is on my game. Of course we are playing at my house. I'm sure if I was at a store playing the reporting would take longer due to me not sitting there with the computer on while running.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 17, 2008 - 11:58AM #24
Dempster
Date Joined: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 43

TWG_Prometheus wrote:

In the end, I think that some sort of Closed list is almost inevitable. Restrictions against rules items that don't belong in the Realms or against evil-aligned material is something I'm assuming at the moment.


Well, we wouldn't want to stop players from playing evil characters or silly dragonborn that just suddenly appear out of no where in the realms. Thats what 4th edition is all about. Tiefilings, dragonborn, evil paladins and demon worshiping warlocks.-jk....I hope

I am hoping that a clear "no evil" policy will still be around. I have run enough games to know that all evil friendly campaigns self destruct. With alignment gone it will be a more complicated policy to enforce. They will have to make a laundry list of what exactly is evil and what isn't.

Hopefully access can be dealt with in a simple way. Really no matter what you have access to you can't become too broken because there are only so many body slots and each character only has a set amount of money. I am more worried about the rules being simple so new players don't get scared away than I am about "game balance".

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 18, 2008 - 7:41AM #25
The_Jester
  • Stampeding Hybrid
Date Joined: Nov 1, 2003
Posts: 3,509

kenobi65 wrote:

Well, that was the "cert" system that Living City and other campaigns used, and that LG used at first. The problem with it is that it leads to (a) squabbling between players, (b) uneven wealth distribution between PCs, and (c) higher-level PCs that can "trick out" the new PC of one of their friends by giving that new PC a bunch of certs that they don't need anymore.

Maybe there's a way to do it that doesn't lead to those problems. I'm just not aware of it.


Yeah, that's why I said "like" in italics.
It might work if certs were non-transferable. And if there were always 6 items per table and everyone got one.
But not every mod would have certs and not every table would work with people getting certs. But this might be offset by gold. Take the cert and get a discounted item or ignore and get more gold.

But probably wouldn't work in practice.

iskurthi wrote:

I have a hard time getting people to reliably report the games I play in now when it's comparatively simple to do. Even a slight complexity bump seems to pose most people an impossible roadblock - I think about half the Xen'drik tables I've played in have had reporting problems.

If it weren't for the fact that it won't work, your idea is great.

It will admittedly quarter your stack of ARs, since you'll be missing so many of them.


Yeah that is a problem, but mostly with local DMs. Just need to encourage people to report and remind them of the Reward points and such.
But with a hard copy after the game it removes this problem, the online would be a back-up.

And the system could be easy (it'd have to be simple and graphics lite for WotC to do it). Just a series of check boxes. This favour, check. Not this favour, blank. Mods could come with a record sheet at the back for DMs to record who got what.

Nice and simple. If you can order a pizza online you can report a mod.

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

Spoiler: Show

My Webcomic



Updated Tuesday and Thursday


Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).

You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 18, 2008 - 8:42AM #26
iskurthi
Date Joined: Aug 20, 2007
Posts: 16

The_Jester wrote:

Yeah, that's why I said "like" in italics.
It might work if certs were non-transferable. And if there were always 6 items per table and everyone got one.
But not every mod would have certs and not every table would work with people getting certs. But this might be offset by gold. Take the cert and get a discounted item or ignore and get more gold.

But probably wouldn't work in practice.


If everyone gets one - why have certs at all (as seperate from the AR).

The_Jester wrote:

Yeah that is a problem, but mostly with local DMs. Just need to encourage people to report and remind them of the Reward points and such.
But with a hard copy after the game it removes this problem, the online would be a back-up.

And the system could be easy (it'd have to be simple and graphics lite for WotC to do it). Just a series of check boxes. This favour, check. Not this favour, blank. Mods could come with a record sheet at the back for DMs to record who got what.

Nice and simple. If you can order a pizza online you can report a mod.


I don't know if you've ever reported a Xen'drik Expeditions event, but those aren't that complex. I certainly have never had any trouble accurately reporting XE events I've run... played in is another matter entirely.

The thing of it is, an online backup is only good if it's an actual backup. If it's known to be unreliable, then that's a cascading problem. If nobody ever relies on it then people are going to care less about reporting quality, which means the system will be unreliable, and...

The only way to get it even close to quality would be to actually have consequences for conventions that screw up or don't post results in a timely manner. And that seems vanishingly unlikely.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 18, 2008 - 1:51PM #27
tombollis
Date Joined: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 696
I want to see access to core features and items as open as possible, with restrictions only appkied to new stuff introduced via modules, or to expansion material that might not be appropriate to the campaign. Let treasure be gold and resalable items (at full price, or close to it), with standard items, and ones accessed via modules, freely buyable. Let restrictions on gold available be the limit on what can be purchased.

Even rings should be buyavle at low level - they just won't function if the character's level is too low.

There should be little need for tracking. items and access.

Interesting treasure would be roleplaying items - named weapons and items with histories, favors, well bred mounts, etc., not unusually powerful items. The player should be able to freely develop character concewpts; modules should reward with items that link the PC to his adventure history and supply him with the wealth to advance his PC in the direction of the player's choice.

Tom Bollis
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 6:59AM #28
The_Jester
  • Stampeding Hybrid
Date Joined: Nov 1, 2003
Posts: 3,509

iskurthi wrote:

If everyone gets one - why have certs at all (as seperate from the AR).


Well, I was thinking everyone gets a different item. There are seven or eight different items in the mod and each person picks one but no doubles.

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

Spoiler: Show

My Webcomic



Updated Tuesday and Thursday


Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).

You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 9:57AM #29
tombollis
Date Joined: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 696

The_Jester wrote:

Well, I was thinking everyone gets a different item. There are seven or eight different items in the mod and each person picks one but no doubles.


There has been too much inter-player conflict at the tables when such have been divided up in the past, and ill will towards the players who consistently got the better items. And it lead to unbalanced wealth.

With characters from different tables getting the same items and playing together later, it is simpler, fairer, and nearly as realistic to allow PCs to duplicate the choices of others at the table - just assign a total value to each PC and indicate what they find available to take and/or purchase from.

Specific items should be less important for unusual game mechanics in the new system (wands, rings, etc. should be more generic, augmenting character abilities, rather than being used for specific magic effects).

Tom Bollis

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 10:09AM #30
RanielK
Date Joined: Feb 2, 2006
Posts: 727

tombollis wrote:

I want to see access to core features and items as open as possible, with restrictions only appkied to new stuff introduced via modules, or to expansion material that might not be appropriate to the campaign. Let treasure be gold and resalable items (at full price, or close to it), with standard items, and ones accessed via modules, freely buyable. Let restrictions on gold available be the limit on what can be purchased.

Even rings should be buyavle at low level - they just won't function if the character's level is too low.

There should be little need for tracking. items and access.

Interesting treasure would be roleplaying items - named weapons and items with histories, favors, well bred mounts, etc., not unusually powerful items. The player should be able to freely develop character concewpts; modules should reward with items that link the PC to his adventure history and supply him with the wealth to advance his PC in the direction of the player's choice.

Tom Bollis


Yeah, this would work well. As a few of the Admins have pointed out, the more it can be "read the Core books" the better. The only things I see as needing special access are those that need adjudication. Say some special access (not sure what is going to replace PClasses) that needs you to have "Done a grand service to the elves." You've gotta document that somewhere before you can run around gaining the benefits of Ruathar (for instance).

If someone were cracked enough to offer access to a moonblade to an elf, this would be another example needing very careful adjudication. Don't won't the player "accidentally" transfering access to the moonblade from his human cleric of Bahamut to his elven fighter who just happens to be from the correct family.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing