|
5 years ago ::
Apr 10, 2008 - 7:59AM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
"I am all for staying on topic but, that comment about the APL system was a valid metaphor to highlight how letting players do just what they want isn't necessarily going to be a good decision for good table composition or the campaign as a whole."
I think it an invalid metaphor, as first, I never said players should just be able to do whatever they want, and second, the metaphor used was impolite and hence, I think, inappropriate.
It's as if I said why don't you just take your computer, set it on fire, and throw it out the window? Because it would do more good out there heating some bum's hands than it would enhancing your reputation for wisdom and fairness.
Not that I would ever use such an impolite . . . metaphor . . . of course.
Perhaps you would not even call that a metaphor. It's like an insult, isn't it?
Exactly. Exactly my point.
Let's keep the discussion out on the threads. I have no use for PMs like this one. Say it in public or keep it to yourself.
Not everything is an attack. Maybe the post whose validity I was backing up went beyond what it was directly in response to but, the comment was valid to the thread's discussion as a whole where many hold a sentiment that players should be able to do what ever they want.
Maybe complete freedom is the way. Maybe, it isn't. I think a little control put on the campaign is good for it and TUs are a system that works well and should continue in a largely recognizable form.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2008 - 4:16PM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Jun 26, 2003
|
Let's keep the discussion out on the threads. I have no use for PMs like this one. Say it in public or keep it to yourself.
The terms of use prohibit forum disruption by posting off-topic posts. Since you have gone so far as to broach the subject, though, I shall respond in kind.
Not everything is an attack.
Since when did I call everything an attack? You're going too far here.
Maybe the post whose validity I was backing up went beyond what it was directly in response to
In other words, the other guy may have gone too far?
but, the comment was valid to the thread's discussion as a whole where many hold a sentiment that players should be able to do what ever they want.
The comment was not directed towards the "thread" discussion. It was directed at my post specifically, and I ask you to show me where my post to which that poster was responding showed ill intent, hostility, or rudeness.
Hey while [i]your at it let's advocate no restriction on APL either because lots of people would love to play lvl 16's at APL 8 just to get Favor Access to this or that
[/i]
Note also that I did not argue or attack Vamroc for his opinion. It's fine with me that he has his opinion and I have mine.
But your comment
I am all for staying on topic but, that comment about the APL system was a valid metaphor to highlight how letting players do just what they want isn't necessarily going to be a good decision for good table composition or the campaign as a whole.
Did *I* say players should be able to do whatever they want? No. So how does it make it a "valid metaphor" that a criticism of such a practice should apply to me?
Frankly, I think you distorted my statements, as described above.
I pushed it up a notch and returned the favor (in private), and it seems that you did not like the results.
Since based on what I've seen of your other posts, I think you are generally a decent poster, I invite you to draw your own conclusions as to the sequence of events and whether or not the actions at any particular step were justified. Perhaps you think I went too far in my PM, and I think perhaps you may be justified in some righteous anger, but I think you have gone too far twice, first by distorting and indirectly misrepresenting what I wrote, and second by airing publicly what you SHOULD have handled privately.
Regards.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 12, 2008 - 12:22AM
#73
|
|
|
While I appreciate the sentiment I was simply pointing out there are a lot of rules I wish we didn't have. But they are there for our benefit whether we like them or not. It also wasn't a crafting issue it was a trust issue do you know what gamers do with enough rope? Thats right they hang themselves I've said it before give players a tooth pick and in an hour they'll try to make the Grand Canyon.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 13, 2008 - 9:52PM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
The terms of use prohibit forum disruption by posting off-topic posts. Since you have gone so far as to broach the subject, though, I shall respond in kind.
Since when did I call everything an attack? You're going too far here.
In other words, the other guy may have gone too far?
The comment was not directed towards the "thread" discussion. It was directed at my post specifically, and I ask you to show me where my post to which that poster was responding showed ill intent, hostility, or rudeness.
Note also that I did not argue or attack Vamroc for his opinion. It's fine with me that he has his opinion and I have mine.
But your comment
Did *I* say players should be able to do whatever they want? No. So how does it make it a "valid metaphor" that a criticism of such a practice should apply to me?
Frankly, I think you distorted my statements, as described above.
I pushed it up a notch and returned the favor (in private), and it seems that you did not like the results.
Since based on what I've seen of your other posts, I think you are generally a decent poster, I invite you to draw your own conclusions as to the sequence of events and whether or not the actions at any particular step were justified. Perhaps you think I went too far in my PM, and I think perhaps you may be justified in some righteous anger, but I think you have gone too far twice, first by distorting and indirectly misrepresenting what I wrote, and second by airing publicly what you SHOULD have handled privately.
Regards
My impression is that you took a valid comment meant more generally for the thread as a whole as a direct attack along with my support of said comment. I won't assume yours or the other poster's exact intentions but, feel players wanting to play several levels down is a good example of how what players want may not make for a good play experience. Player wants vs. campaign needs is a big part of this threads central argument.
For the record, I don't wish to have any of my thread arguments "pushed up a notch" in PMs. I am not looking for any discussion not meant for public consumption and felt that bringing it back public was the best way to disuade the practice.
I do understand the frustrations tied to the TU system but, feel they (as well as a number of other restrictions) help to maintain a higher quality play experience through more situations.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 13, 2008 - 10:37PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2005
|
I do understand the frustrations tied to the TU system but, feel they (as well as a number of other restrictions) help to maintain a higher quality play experience through more situations.
I still see no way in which TU costs for adventures help to maintain a higher quality of play experience. They limit play of some PCs without adding anything for a player other than contributing to some players' sense of the passage of time, and maintaining an elitism for players who started early and developed higher level PCs than the pack, excluding newer PCs from ever adventuring with them.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 14, 2008 - 7:52AM
#76
|
|
|
I still see no way in which TU costs for adventures help to maintain a higher quality of play experience. They limit play of some PCs without adding anything for a player other than contributing to some players' sense of the passage of time, and maintaining an elitism for players who started early and developed higher level PCs than the pack, excluding newer PCs from ever adventuring with them.
In saying the above, you are assuming that the players who begin first consume all of their "TUs" each year. Based on this assumption, you are correct for the most part.
However, I am alright with this. I think a little "elitism" in this sense is a good thing - the adventurers that "have come before" have always been looked up to by others - it helps set create stories for the others.
I also don't think that someone who starts LFR a year later than someone else should be able to "catch up" just by playing a lot.
Dave Kay
LFR Writing Director Retiree
dkay807 [at] yahoo [dot] com
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 14, 2008 - 8:11AM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
I still see no way in which TU costs for adventures help to maintain a higher quality of play experience. They limit play of some PCs without adding anything for a player other than contributing to some players' sense of the passage of time, and maintaining an elitism for players who started early and developed higher level PCs than the pack, excluding newer PCs from ever adventuring with them.
Your best game is going to come form a table of like levels looking to enjoy the game they are playing right then. Level splits and worries during play about the getting to the next level tend to detract.
The TU system or other caps on maximum advancement helps bracket the range of levels throughout the campaign. Characters are less spread out over broad ranges of levels and lower levels are better populated. This means greater likelihood of tables with characters of like or common levels and an easier time for new players to find games at low level tables.
True, you lose the possibility of playing mad rush of mods to catch up to the highest level characters but, how necessary is that. The players could still play together at the lower character's level and that is largely promoted by the system.
It also helps avoid rewarding the practice of grinding (or rubberstamping) mods to make up those levels. A table that goes off that isn't going off with huge level disparities and a secondary motivation to rush through it is going to be a better game.
With LG's system, any player starting the same year can have a character at the same maximum level and as the campaign goes on any established XP total gap slowly shrinks in it's effect on level as as the XP tables go higher in level.
The overall upper limit sets a common point for players who were there from the beginning and helping group those tables betters and allows the writers to focus their efforts on providing content for the range the campaign will actually attain at that time.
The major arguments are basically the desire to catch up quickly to high level characters or groups, wanting to play a character more than the proscribed limit and the occasional end of the year frustrations if you haven't begun to plan for the limit ahead of time. Alot of this is solved by players thinking ahead, accomodating others they wish to play with and accepting that the campaign takes priority over an individual player's wishes in some areas.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 14, 2008 - 8:18AM
#78
|
|
|
I also don't think that someone who starts LFR a year later than someone else should be able to "catch up" just by playing a lot.
Wow. As someone who didn't have the chance to start playing LG year one, I sincerely hope that statement was just a troll in order to get people po'ed.
I understand not liking level bumps like in the campaign style games. But if someone dedicates the time to invest in a character to get them to a high level, nothing else should matter.
And now, I personally think this whole thread has gotten just about as silly as possible. The problem with discussions like this is that sooner or later it comes down to opinion. The logic supporting TUs seem rather circular to me. Stating that we need TUs because we need TUs to improve the game, or we need TUs to protect ourselves doesn't justify their use.
But someone else will make the decision, and we will either live with it or start home campaigns. All I know is that I was at a recent con and listened in on a conversation where several people stated that they weren't sure they'd continue with LFR if it had as many arbitrary rules and regulations as LG. I think things like TUs have hurt living campaigns far more than they help.
Allen.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 14, 2008 - 9:47AM
#79
|
|
|
Hnoestly, while I have enjoyed playing my character rom RHOD more without time units, it does have it's side affects. Almost every game I've played since the announcement has been APL 8+, with almost all of them recently being 12+. The only reason I've played anything APL 6 or 4 is because we had some newer players start at a local con in February. Without the time units, everyone is completely ignoring lower lvls (except for people just starting,) and while I am unsure how it is in the rest of the regions, I don't consider that a good thing. It's very hard to get people interested in playing a game if everyone around you is too busy playing their higher lvl characters to help out newer players.
On dkay's post, and aljergensen's response, I have to vote in favor of dkay. It is very disconcerting to have people that were lvl 4 a year ago suddenly be lvl 15, especially when you spend 4 years or so building up your character to 15. While you're right, that player is just playing his character and should get all the enjoyment they can out of it, is still is just disconcerting. But maybe I'm just jealous, who knows.
Anyway, enough with my rambling... for now.
Wes
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 14, 2008 - 10:06AM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2005
|
In saying the above, you are assuming that the players who begin first consume all of their "TUs" each year. Based on this assumption, you are correct for the most part.
I make no such assumption. What I assume is that some early players develop high level characters by playing many (but not necessarily the max possible) adventures, that adventures are available for them to play at high levels, and that the PCs continue to advance. I ssume that a TU limit will stop characters started a year or three later from advenuring enough to catch up. TUs limit PCs who start later, not those who start first.
However, I am alright with this. I think a little "elitism" in this sense is a good thing - the adventurers that "have come before" have always been looked up to by others - it helps set create stories for the others.
Even as a player who played both LC and LG from the beginning, I do not consider such elitism a good thing for a campaign. Someone who is willing to put in the effort with a PC should have the chance to catch up by gaining similar experience from a simlar number of adventures. The newer PCs who adventure alot also create stories - TUs hinder this.
I also don't think that someone who starts LFR a year later than someone else should be able to "catch up" just by playing a lot.
Why the hell not!? Level of the PC should depend on the PC's experience, not on when he was started. Do you want to discourage new players from joining the campaign, or old players from continuing with new PCs if their old high level PCs die permanently? I think that the attitude you portray is harmful to a campaign. It typifies what I don't like about TU limits on adventuring. TUs can have benefits for some nonadventuring uses, but I see no benefit from TU limits on adventuring.
|
|
|
