|
5 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2008 - 4:29AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2005
|
IF they keep TUs and they represented days instead of weeks (obviously we would get more) they could function as a nice way to reward not taking too many rests between encounters in some mods. Being able to shave some TUs off a mod would be a big motivator.
That is actually a point against such use of day units. It discourages roleplaying adventures when taking time between encounters is appropriate. Rushing the action can spoil the fun. Having each adventure use up the same amount of play opportunity is better than having the number of days within an adventure determine how many adventures you can play in a year.
Tom Bollis
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2008 - 6:42AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
That is actually a point against such use of day units. It discourages roleplaying adventures when taking time between encounters is appropriate. Rushing the action can spoil the fun. Having each adventure use up the same amount of play opportunity is better than having the number of days within an adventure determine how many adventures you can play in a year.
Tom Bollis
I think you are missing the point here. The roleplay occurring in a given mod is unlikely to add up to a day. I am talking about in-game rests to regain daily spells and abilities and extra creativity in reducing travel times. Playwise, players could stop and RP and spend their real time as they please. The only thing counted would be the "overnight" rests and days taken to complete the adventure in-game. Taking fewer TUs would likely mean a more challenging mod but, little effect on the play experience otherwise.
Many of the mods take these factors into account in their rewards very well but, supporting them via the TU system could make some sense.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2008 - 6:49AM
#33
|
|
|
That is actually a point against such use of day units. It discourages roleplaying adventures when taking time between encounters is appropriate. Rushing the action can spoil the fun. Having each adventure use up the same amount of play opportunity is better than having the number of days within an adventure determine how many adventures you can play in a year.
Tom Bollis
It would also encourage people not to waste days. Rest needlessly between fights just to make the remaining ones easier, or rest overnight in investigate mods which (ussually) advances the plot.
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"
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2008 - 8:58AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2007
|
It would also encourage people not to waste days. Rest needlessly between fights just to make the remaining ones easier, or rest overnight in investigate mods which (ussually) advances the plot.
I'd prefer "wasting" days rather than constant metagaming about shaving the time a module takes down to the bare minimum.
TUs were an adequate level of abstraction. Any more granularity and they become more trouble than they're worth.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2008 - 9:53AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2005
|
I think you are missing the point here. The roleplay occurring in a given mod is unlikely to add up to a day. I am talking about in-game rests to regain daily spells and abilities and extra creativity in reducing travel times. Playwise, players could stop and RP and spend their real time as they please. The only thing counted would be the "overnight" rests and days taken to complete the adventure in-game. Taking fewer TUs would likely mean a more challenging mod but, little effect on the play experience otherwise..
No, I did not miss that point. It is part of roleplaying to have the PCs take as long as a sensible character would take to prepare for encounters. Poor roleplaying to always rush in unprepared in order to finish as fast as possible (in game time), if the PCs aren't unusually impacient and reckless.
There are situations where PCs are under time constraints to deal with a foe, but that isn't what you are referring to. When the characters believe they have the time, good roleplaying would include having them take as long as necessary to improve their chances of survival and success.
Tom Bollis
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2008 - 12:27PM
#36
|
|
|
For me, what makes TUs so important is that level of 'realism' they add to the game.
...
For me, for a shared world/campaign to work, there needs to be some standards that minimize the suspension of disbelief as much as possible to make it ‘Living’. It just doesn’t pass the sanity test to me to have PCs who spend 370 days adventuring in a 365 day year (just as an example).
If limiting a character's activity over a period of time is important to you, limit how much you play. Personally I don't really care - real world calendar years don't have much to do with my fantasy character's passage of time.
There are some inherent limitations to a living campaign. I regularly end up playing mods out of sequence, which can be really confusing when you have to play "who's on the throne" and "is that really important NPC dead or alive?". In a home campaign I can play every night with the same character for a month and years may pass in the campaign. Or we can go months without playing and moments pass. Weird passage of time in a living campaign is just one of those things we have to live with.
But honestly, why do you care what other people's characters have done over the past year? What matters to me is whether or not I have fun playing with or judging a mod for them. I don't know of anyone that has ever done an audit of another person's character records to see how much they've played in the past year. I don't ever remember anyone ever asking.
Allen.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2008 - 12:37PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
No, I did not miss that point. It is part of roleplaying to have the PCs take as long as a sensible character would take to prepare for encounters. Poor roleplaying to always rush in unprepared in order to finish as fast as possible (in game time), if the PCs aren't unusually impacient and reckless.
There are situations where PCs are under time constraints to deal with a foe, but that isn't what you are referring to. When the characters believe they have the time, good roleplaying would include having them take as long as necessary to improve their chances of survival and success.
Tom Bollis
It's called character impatience. Even if there is no time component written into a mod, some characters may very well want to not waste their lives waiting to be perfectly prepared for an expected encounter when they might have a chance to get on to the next good deed. In real life, when I decide to fly somewhere instead of drive it is very similar to how a character would preserve TUs in such a system. It's just addin a little more risk/reward factor to the game that is supported both in and out of game.
If careful players want to take their time they should but, it is very realistic that there be some sort of cost to it. Presently, there is not.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2008 - 1:35PM
#38
|
|
|
But is that related to TUs?
I started my main in Feb of '06 and she's now level 10. The removal of TUs helped but I wouldn't have run out last year. I just craft more. I'd actually be more xp into lvl10 with a TU limit.
Yes, I did a lot of scribing and crafting plus was in a few metaorgs so I ran out of TUs every year around august.
Also there were no adaptables back in the day so fast level advancement was harder. There just were no mods where one mod got you a levels worth of ex.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 27, 2008 - 8:25AM
#39
|
|
|
Continuing on a personal side, the RPGA represents the epitome of role-playing excellence. If you've been around for a bit, you know that this is the key principle that the organization was founded on - hence we have restrictions that other non-RP focused players would prefer not to deal with. Our standards weeds them out.
No it doesn't. The RPGA's job is not to tell others how to play the game. It's job is to help as many people as possible enjoy their RP-games both at home and at conventions. Granted, LG favors specific styles of gaming above other, but to call that the epitome of roleplaying excellence is a bit overdone. It is also rather ironic, since a large majority of players consider LG to more for power-gamers and tactical minded players and less for the storyteller and method actor. It are among others the RPers who dislike TUs and the extensive ARs.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 27, 2008 - 10:37AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
No it doesn't. The RPGA's job is not to tell others how to play the game. It's job is to help as many people as possible enjoy their RP-games both at home and at conventions. Granted, LG favors specific styles of gaming above other, but to call that the epitome of roleplaying excellence is a bit overdone. It is also rather ironic, since a large majority of players consider LG to more for power-gamers and tactical minded players and less for the storyteller and method actor. It are among others the RPers who dislike TUs and the extensive ARs.
While I'll agree that LG does not enjoy the reputation for high levels of RP it should or may have, it been my experience that it the Roleplayers who are bigger fans of the TUs than the powergamers. The perception being that the TUs are an obstacle to build advancement. I am of the opinion that taking the emphasis off being the highest level guy and not powering through as many mods as possible is better for RP and most of my friends who at least respect the role of RP in our gaming tend to be fans of the TU system as well.
|
|
|
