Community

Dempster wrote:

Well for me the removal of time units lead to my wizard, who took from year 3 until last Gencon to get to level 9, skyrocketing from 9-15 in about 7 months.

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.

I'm trying to be the voice of the people that I see that gave up on LG because of things like TUs. There are people who only want to play 1 or (at most) 2 characters, who could find others to play with, who could have great fun with LFR and be a vital part of the RPGA community. But we turn around and tell them that we don't like their style of play and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I fully understand and acknowledge that we cannot ever design a system that will be everything to everyone. Nor should we try. But if a rule is not absolutely necessary or have a significant impact to how games are run, we should question whether it is necessary.

Do TUs slow down advancement for some people? Yes. Whether this is good or necessary, is a matter of opinion. I personally think it's like suing McDonalds for serving Big Macs. If you don't want your character to advance too quickly, don't play that character as much. RPGA is not responsible for your lack of self control.

My preference is to focus on a character or two. Why? Because I enjoy a deeper, better role playing experience when I sit down with the same character and mindset on a regular basis. If I have to switch from one character to another too often, the characters feel more like just numbers on a page than a fictional person that I'm running. I do have multiple characters and support encouraging multiple characters, because there are times when I will switch to a different character so that we have a valid table. It's a compromise I happily make - but not one I want forced on me.

Want to limit people to a reasonable number of meta-orgs? Just set a max number of meta-orgs a character can belong to. Want to encourage people to run low level characters? Write fun, exciting mods that people will want to play - but make it only available to low level characters. Don't like it if your character advances "too quickly"? Take some personal responsibility and don't play as much. Worried that people might not play LFR for exactly the same reason you play? Get over it.

Allen.

I don't post here much, but I feel strongly enough about this that I'll weigh in.  I personally believe Time Units were one of the best things about LG.  Why?

While I agree that TUs do help keep a good mix of high and low-level characters available within the campaign for mustering purposes (as a veteran of Living City, I can attest to the mustering problems due to people having only 1 high-level character), as others have said, there are other ways to 'fix' that.  For me, what makes TUs so important is that level of 'realism' they add to the game.  Yes, I know it's a fantasy game, but I mean it makes it more realistic as a 'campaign' versus tournament D&D (which is essentially what the D&D Campaigns are).  How?

First, it makes you feel like your character actually lives in a world where he/she has to travel to reach their destination.  I loved the fact that if I wanted to play my character outside my home region, I had to pay more TUs to do it; I just wish LG had gone a bit farther and scaled the TU cost based on how far away the adventure was set from my home region.  And sure, I would totally support lower TU costs for special forms of travel (ie. horses, boats, flying mounts, teleportation, etc).

Second, as some others have pointed out, it puts certain negative effects to your character into context (ie. slavery, jail, falling in lust with an unseelie nymph, etc) that just makes the world that much more real for me.  I know some people just hate having bad things happen to their characters, but that’s part of the role-playing (vice roll-playing) part of the game for me.  If there were never any penalties for failure, then success wouldn’t mean nearly as much to me.

Finally, it puts various meta-gaming actions into the context of the world.  This allows for wizards who wish to craft magic items to do so, but with a ‘downtime’ penalty that should be there.  Also, it clearly makes since that meta-orgs that the PCs can join would require a certain amount of the characters’ time to conduct guild/organization business, in return for the bonuses that the PC incurs for being a member.  Also, the dynamic whereby PCs can utilize craft/profession skills to ‘burn’ TUs in order to make some extra money makes sense to me.

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).

And, as for those alts sitting out there who only use 40% of their TUs a year, maybe a system can be put in-place to allow them to advance just a bit by ‘burning’ TUs (ie. if a typical 6th level adventure gives 4,000 xp and costs 2 TU, then a 6th level character ‘burning’ 2 TU could receive 500 xp) as long as they’ve played a certain amount of adventures during the year (to keep people from making an infinite number of alts and just advancing them without playing them).

Just my 2 cents…

I wonder what the impact of TUs is on increasing the DM pool. I'd have to imagine there are more than a few players who decide to DM instead of playing an alt. The system also makes DMing more attractive because an active home group's DM's character will have an opportunity to catch up to the rest of his group in many cases.

While I'm a supporter of some sort of TU/advancement limiting mechanic, I don't think you can link TUs and a willingness to "eat" modules.

amysrevenge wrote:

While I'm a supporter of some sort of TU/advancement limiting mechanic, I don't think you can link TUs and a willingness to "eat" modules.

Eating mods really doesn't come into play with TUs just not getting XP for that play session. It's more of a matter of players realizing they can take a round to DM and still use all their character's TUs before the end of the year or have the ability to play their character outside of their usual group to catch up on XP because there is a finite limit. It allows frequent DMs, hardcore campaign participants and only occasional homegamers to better sync up at a common level.

MatteBlack wrote:

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

tombollis wrote:

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.

tombollis wrote:

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.

The_Jester wrote:

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.

MatteBlack wrote:

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

PrinceOfBoredom wrote:

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.

tombollis wrote:

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.

The_Jester wrote:

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.

Uthgardt wrote:

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.

Madfox11 wrote:

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.

MatteBlack wrote:

...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.

See, this is one of the things that confuses me about the whole TU argument.

How is playing a character on a regular basis "powering through" mods? I still have to sit my behind in a chair and play the game for (approximately) 4 hours per slot in order to play a mod. If I play 100 mods over the course of a character's career, I've spent 400 hours playing (assuming all 1 slot mods). It doesn't matter if it takes 3 months or 3 years to do that. I personally don't "savor" or "enjoy" a character all that much when I am not playing them ... I enjoy them when I am at a table playing. TU limits don't extend the amount of time I play a character.

As for the whole "real gamers like TUs argument", people play for different reasons. If you took a survey of active LG players, the majority may agree (or may not, I have no clue). I think you'd find a different story if you talked to people who tried LG and quit.

Allen.

aljergensen wrote:

How is playing a character on a regular basis "powering through" mods? I still have to sit my behind in a chair and play the game for (approximately) 4 hours per slot in order to play a mod. If I play 100 mods over the course of a character's career, I've spent 400 hours playing (assuming all 1 slot mods). It doesn't matter if it takes 3 months or 3 years to do that. I personally don't "savor" or "enjoy" a character all that much when I am not playing them ... I enjoy them when I am at a table playing. TU limits don't extend the amount of time I play a character.

I have certain seen players try to squeeze shorter running double length mods into one slot's time so they could play another one in the next slot by rushing every element possible. There are sometimes attempts to squeeze 3 mods into 2 slots and rumors of players rubber stamping mods for the xp/gold. I have seen players walk away from tables or pull out of mustering because they wouldn't rush the mod and also because other players were going to try to.

TUs won't fix this completely but, you are less likely to skip through a mod when you can only play a finite amount of them with a favorite character.

aljergensen wrote:

As for the whole "real gamers like TUs argument", people play for different reasons. If you took a survey of active LG players, the majority may agree (or may not, I have no clue). I think you'd find a different story if you talked to people who tried LG and quit.

I was only passing on my anecdotal experience but, as it happens, there are a number of the RP-oriented friends I mentioned who have quit or play LG infrequently because of it's generic nature or abundance of powergamey characters and practices who point out the TU system as a highlight of the campaign.

aljergensen wrote:

How is playing a character on a regular basis "powering through" mods?

For me, the fast levelling of other people's PCs is mostly a matter of stretching my suspension of disbelief. This isn't much of a problem if I am not confronted with them (in play), but if a PC levels to 18th level in a year, that as a player, it spoils (a bit, only) my perception of the campaign's continuity (though I expect most of my friends won't level that fast, so I expect not to be affected by it much).
As a designer, I do not really plan to cater my plotlines to people whose PCs level like crazy, and that is imo, fine if that happens sporadic. But if everyone does, that makes it very hard to make a consistent plotline that one would enjoy, even if we limit it to a 3-part plot arc spread over a year.
For me, TU's represent a certain amount of time, and while not perfect, add a bit of continuity. I like them, but I have to add that I am not hampered by them either, as I can't play often anyway.
And I am also the kind that likes certs for buying a house or bussiness, and AR access to items, etc. And there are enough people who don't like that, either.

Gomez

MatteBlack wrote:

I have certain seen players try to squeeze shorter running double length mods into one slot's time so they could play another one in the next slot by rushing every element possible. There are sometimes attempts to squeeze 3 mods into 2 slots and rumors of players rubber stamping mods for the xp/gold. I have seen players walk away from tables or pull out of mustering because they wouldn't rush the mod and also because other players were going to try to.

TUs won't fix this completely but, you are less likely to skip through a mod when you can only play a finite amount of them with a favorite character.

Personally I don't care much how other people play the game as long as everybody has fun than we have done our job well. If that means that those players rush through an adventure in record speeed with no RPing at all, so be it. It is not the kind of game I would enjoy, but to each his own. I do hope that they would warn others during mustering though since nothing ruins the fun more quickly when you realize halfway the majority of gamers at the table want a completely different game than you do...

Those players btw should also not expect the administrators to keep them in mind when designing adventures (specifically: level ranges).

MatteBlack wrote:

I have certain seen players try to squeeze shorter running double length mods into one slot's time so they could play another one in the next slot by rushing every element possible. There are sometimes attempts to squeeze 3 mods into 2 slots and rumors of players rubber stamping mods for the xp/gold. I have seen players walk away from tables or pull out of mustering because they wouldn't rush the mod and also because other players were going to try to.

TUs won't fix this completely but, you are less likely to skip through a mod when you can only play a finite amount of them with a favorite character.

I agree with Madfox11 on this one - as long as all the people at the table have fun, I don't care. IMHO the type of people who power through mods are more mechanics driven anyway and will just have multiple characters if they are limited since individual characters don't "mean" anything other than a collection of stats.

MatteBlack wrote:

I was only passing on my anecdotal experience but, as it happens, there are a number of the RP-oriented friends I mentioned who have quit or play LG infrequently because of it's generic nature or abundance of powergamey characters and practices who point out the TU system as a highlight of the campaign.

There is a problem with you, me, or anyone else stating what we think other people's opinions are. Other people that we personally interact with tend to mirror our own opinion, especially when it's an issue we feel strongly about that is not important to them.

gomeztoo wrote:

As a designer, I do not really plan to cater my plotlines to people whose PCs level like crazy, and that is imo, fine if that happens sporadic.

Gomez

I think it's a perfectly valid assumption to plan story arcs around average level advancement. Some people like tying their character's story closely with the setting's timeline. Just because I don't care doesn't make other styles of play invalid.

Allen.

aljergensen wrote:

There is a problem with you, me, or anyone else stating what we think other people's opinions are. Other people that we personally interact with tend to mirror our own opinion, especially when it's an issue we feel strongly about that is not important to them.

Are you questioning me noting my friends opinions or questioning whether I know their feelings on the topic? A haven't presented their views as anything but, a few players. I haven't claimed me and my friends to be all RP-oriented players and these are well-discussed thoughts not just guesses about how they feel.



Like many of you, I don't care about what doesn't touch my play experience but, as a convention attendee, what goes on at other homegames begins to bleed in as players are grouped into new parties. Play expectations from the home games begin to be forced on the rest of the campaign community and, frankly, I don't want to see the role of roleplay diminished at the expense of players used to boiling down the game to a bunch of numbers so they can record as many ARs as possible.

I also think the writers need to consider what playstyles the campaign wants to promote and write with those players in mind. Not to say that they should be writing to my tastes but, I got the feeling that LG was saying they were about Roleplay yet, alot of their attention and scaling was going toward challenging optimized characters. The two are not mutually exclusive but, keeping up an optimized character would often close a few more story-oriented options.

MatteBlack wrote:

I also think the writers need to consider what playstyles the campaign wants to promote.

Except the campaign does not want to promote ANY particular play style. It wants to, as much as is possible, reflect the game of D&D as presented in the 4th Edition rules, without passing judgment on which type of play experience is "correct" or "more fun" or "more like D&D should be."

MatteBlack wrote:

Are you questioning me noting my friends opinions or questioning whether I know their feelings on the topic?

I was commenting on my own misinformed viewpoint of the world as well. I think that when we start extrapolating what other people think we tend to mirror our own beliefs. You, me, everyone. I'm as guilty of it as anyone. Some people I've spoken to like TUs, some don't care, some hate them. I should probably leave it at that.

I certainly meant no offense, nor did I mean to imply that you weren't being honest.

Allen.

smerwin29 wrote:

Except the campaign does not want to promote ANY particular play style. It wants to, as much as is possible, reflect the game of D&D as presented in the 4th Edition rules, without passing judgment on which type of play experience is "correct" or "more fun" or "more like D&D should be."

While I might prefer something further on the RP end of the scale, I can agree with having the most inclusive campaign possible but, there can problems with pushing thoseunlike playstyles together. My point was more that their PR and game should be more down the middle instead of preaching RP and seemingly writing for optimizers.

For the record, I have what many would deem an optimized character (mostly for survival sake) among my 3 I play regularly but, much prefer when the game is a more sanely-scaled and well-rounded adventure where players can react as characters and tell a story cooperatively.

Okay, what should a good time system do:
1)    Limit play to encourage multiple characters
2)    Limit crafting between-mod activities
3)    Cap a character’s level advancement
4)    Allow characters to complete storylines
5)    Not hinder casual play
6)    Fuel in-character organizations

I still think the best way is to have Time Units not tied to adventuring but everything else. That way a character is never completely unplayable.

Having TUs be spent for travel between regions still allows characters to travel and play but encourages them to stick in one area and play through its mods and story-arcs.
When a character runs out of TUs they can’t change regions but they can still play there.

There are 12 regions, so it should be possible to play the majority of mods with one character but possibly not all mods.
For example, let’s say you have 50TUs. It might cost 5TUs to move from one region to another between mods, so you can change 10 times. So even if you methodically go from region to region you can’t play every mod.
The problem being if you frequently change regions you might rapidly get stuck…
This could be reduced by varying time between regions. Neighboring regions might cost as few as 2 or 3 TUs while farther away locals might be 7 or 8.

Having a more fluid system also makes it easier to have favours that reduce travel time or other factors (spending money, using spells, etc).

We don’t know much about 4e crafting, but so far it looks like magic items are bought-n-found more and made less. Disposable items look to be fewer. So this might mean TUs for crafting are on the way out.

Really, I’d like to see a larger number that mods can be more flexible with. Say 100 TUs with a higher “cost” for play. But also opens the door for more flexibility in mods beyond single and double rounds.

It might also be nice to see meta-orgs really supported in-play. Fewer orgs but more reason to be involved and more national LFR-wide groups  and fewer small, local groups. If they were more important it would really encourage people to join and spent TUs.

Greyson wrote:

I favor Time units. I think they are a great tool to manage in-game benefits and penalties and other investments of in-character time. I also think TUs are a good way to gauge an adventure's length and help create the standard or measuring stick upon which XP and gold can easily be determined.

As noted above, TUs are one of Living Greyhawk's (many) strengths. I vote for keeping them.

I, too, am fully in support of TUs. In addition to being used as a good standard by which to assign XP and GP rewards for adventures, TUs help regulate gameplay. If a particular PC is limited in how much he can be played every year, then the campaign coordinators/administrators can accurately measure or plan almost any line of adventures by being able to esimate the max level a particular PC might be after a particular period of time. This way, the campaign doesn't have to release adventures that support a particular "APL" until it is feasible for PCs to actually be that high level.

Furthermore, as others have said, a limitation on gameplay for each particular PCs (in the form of TUs or something similar) encourages avid players to make multiple characters, which in turn stimulates the gaming environment and helps make conventions more successful.

I will be VERY disappointed if there is no form of regulation on how much any given PC can be played every year, month, etc. LG was successful for a number of reasons, and TUs are one of the big ones!

dkay807 wrote:

I, too, am fully in support of TUs. In addition to being used as a good standard by which to assign XP and GP rewards for adventures, TUs help regulate gameplay. If a particular PC is limited in how much he can be played every year, then the campaign coordinators/administrators can accurately measure or plan almost any line of adventures by being able to esimate the max level a particular PC might be after a particular period of time. This way, the campaign doesn't have to release adventures that support a particular "APL" until it is feasible for PCs to actually be that high level.

I don't think TUs have actually had that effect, partly because of the great differences between players' play of their PCs, and the continuous starting of new PCs in the campaign. The average PC is well bellow the max possible level, an their is a full spectrum of PC levels from 1st to max. The max supported PC level is easier to regulate merely by limiting the supported levels of modules without limimiting PC play artificially via TUs. If a PC exceeds the max supported level, that PC would not be playable until its level becomes supported, so the play must use a lower level PC to play, without reference to TUs.

IF a PC is of a level already supported by modules, why not let it be played? this can allow newer players to have a PC catch up with those of longer played PCs by playing the PC more often.

Furthermore, as others have said, a limitation on gameplay for each particular PCs (in the form of TUs or something similar) encourages avid players to make multiple characters, which in turn stimulates the gaming environment and helps make conventions more successful.

As I indicated, TUs don't do this for most players, and aren't needed to stop PCs from advancing too rapidly for support. Whether a player wants to concentrated on one PC or on several should be entirely up to the player.

What we know today is that TU have been a part of the LG campaign for the last six years.  Since this time they have not caused any significant player disruptions worth reporting.  They have worked well, serving a variety of game mechanics.   They have served their purpose.  They successfully regulated time and it’s time that makes the game “living.”

The player base has had a fair time to react to the potential injustice TUs cause and the devs have had ample opportunity to fix them or remove them if they felt so inclined.  Let's not forget how good the game has run during the last six years and how little TUs has affected anyone's fun.

Now let's consider a new system, with no time regulation and then attempt to "guess" what will happen without time regulation.  In the last six months I have seen characters sky-rocket in level advancement.  Is this good or bad?  I dunno.    Have I seen the lack of time regulation affect the convention muster process?  Yes I have.  I hope the devs also decide to poll the RPGA Coordinators across the world to get a handle on what happens at the convention level.

The bottom line here is this… if the system is not perceived or demonstrated to be broke, why fix it?  Why take a chance on removing a core mechanic that is proven to work so well?

Uthgardt wrote:

What we know today is that TU have been a part of the LG campaign for the last six years. Since this time they have not caused any significant player disruptions worth reporting. They have worked well, serving a variety of game mechanics. They have served their purpose. They successfully regulated time and it’s time that makes the game “living.”

Not so. They have limited the module play of some, but their main effect has been in limiting out of play activities, such as creating magic items, earning gold between adventures, and meta-org requirements. These could be regulated without the limitations on module play.

The campaign mechanic, in the form of Day Units, was around in LC long before LG began.

The player base has had a fair time to react to the potential injustice TUs cause and the devs have had ample opportunity to fix them or remove them if they felt so inclined. Let's not forget how good the game has run during the last six years and how little TUs has affected anyone's fun.

The developers did not include TUs in the core rules - they were introduced by the RPGA for specific campaigns, thus your dev argument has no merit, as they weren't ever core D&D.

TUs have not affected my fun in LG only because I never played enough each year , never created magic items, never joined meta-orgs, and only made Performance checks for gp a couple of times.
I have heard plenty of complaints from those who have run out of TUs each year. I have been unhappy about the inability to use Craft skills to create items in LG, even with YUs.

I don't mind the TU concept, but don't like how it was used in LG, nor do I want to see it used to limit player choice in LFR. It should be specific to out-of-module activities, helping to add options in a balanced manner, rather than an attempt to limit PC advancement.

tombollis wrote:

I don't mind the TU concept, but don't like how it was used in LG, nor do I want to see it used to limit player choce in LFR. It should be specific to out-of-module activities, helping to add options in a balanced manner, rather than an attempt to limit PC advancement.

When this thread originally came up, the person who originally conceived of TUs basically said that they were never designed to limit how many meta-orgs a person could belong to and how much they could craft. That's it.

I agree there is a need to limit out of adventure activity. I just think TU limits have too many unintended consequences and are more hassle than they are worth.

As far as lack of TUs causing problems mustering at cons - I think that has far more to do with the campaign ending. I know several people who don't want to start up new characters that will be retired before they have time to enjoy them.

Allen.

I dislike the TU system.

I also disagree with many of the reasons within this thread given for keeping the TU system.  Simply because a system exists is not sufficient reason to continue it.  If that were the case, we'd all still be playing 3.5 next year.

1) Limit play to encourage multiple characters
2) Limit crafting between-mod activities
3) Cap a character’s level advancement
4) Allow characters to complete storylines
5) Not hinder casual play
6) Fuel in-character organizations

1.  Why does it matter if play is limited?

I can see that at the beginning of Forgotten Realms, without a TU system, you will see characters racing ahead, then for year 2, you will have veterans with high-level characters and new players with low-level characters.  From this, you will have veterans only playing with veterans and new players only playing with new players (exceptions being veterans that level their characters out of the campaign and start new ones).

BUT how does this DIFFER from the Living Greyhawk system?  In that system, you have 52 TUs, so your ability to advance in level is LIMITED per character.  By that TU system ALSO, veteran players will STILL have higher level characters than new players.

With that in mind, character level is going to be disparate between new and veteran players no matter whether there is a TU system or not - but WITHOUT a TU system new players will have more ability to catch up than WITH a TU system in place (without a TU system, a new player with a new character can play many existing mods in a year and gain a lot of levels; with a TU system, a new player can only play that new character so many times, so will never be able to catch up with veteran players).

2.  Why limit crafting?  I mean, honestly, if your goal in a campaign is ENHANCED realism which is something that proponents of the TU system are supposedly in favor of, why is it that your character can NOT craft as much as the character likes?

Again, it seems to me that people are trying to place limits on players and characters just because they don't like something.  It is wrong, I say, to limit something JUST TO LIMIT it.

3.  TUs cap character advancement per year.  But as I pointed out in 1, that will still open up level gaps between veteran and new players.  I do NOT think that character advancement caps are inherently good.  In fact, I think they are bad.

4.  I don't see how characters completing storylines is encouraged by TUs.  If anything, I think them discouraged, as TUs lessen the number of mods you can play with a character a year.

5.  I think a TU system INHERENTLY limits character play whether casual or not, due to the additional restriction it places on characters (and players).

6.  Metaorgs can be supported by taxes or a set gold piece contribution, and can be further supported by mods written with those metaorgs in mind.  A TU cost is possible, but I think not inherently necessary.

it makes you feel like your character actually lives in a world where he/she has to travel to reach their destination

Well all right, and the poster went on to describe how TU penalties for jail time, TUs used to restrict crafting opportunities, and TUs spent for metaorg purposes contributed to the realism of the game, which is something I agree with - although I am still against the TU system.

In brief, my thought is that although TUs DO add an important element to the game, a TU system restricts play.  A TU system increases level gaps between veteran players and new players.  Although a TU system might be good for the Forgotten Realms campaign for the first couple years, tournament organizers WILL see the results of the TU system around the third year when the only players that can play high level tables are the veterans that were around for the first two years, and I think this can only be bad.

Given that, I think the best thing to do is to DO AWAY with time units and address the problem of level disparity during mustering by having mods specifically written for low-level characters (hence, high-level characters will be unable to play those mods, but the PLAYERS of those high level characters would instead be encouraged to make new characters - it's not like they're making their high-level character burn a mod by playing the intro/low-level mod).

Newpaintbrush wrote:

I dislike the TU system.

I also disagree with many of the reasons within this thread given for keeping the TU system. Simply because a system exists is not sufficient reason to continue it. If that were the case, we'd all still be playing 3.5 next year.



1. Why does it matter if play is limited?

I can see that at the beginning of Forgotten Realms, without a TU system, you will see characters racing ahead, then for year 2, you will have veterans with high-level characters and new players with low-level characters. From this, you will have veterans only playing with veterans and new players only playing with new players (exceptions being veterans that level their characters out of the campaign and start new ones).

BUT how does this DIFFER from the Living Greyhawk system? In that system, you have 52 TUs, so your ability to advance in level is LIMITED per character. By that TU system ALSO, veteran players will STILL have higher level characters than new players.

With that in mind, character level is going to be disparate between new and veteran players no matter whether there is a TU system or not - but WITHOUT a TU system new players will have more ability to catch up than WITH a TU system in place (without a TU system, a new player with a new character can play many existing mods in a year and gain a lot of levels; with a TU system, a new player can only play that new character so many times, so will never be able to catch up with veteran players).

2. Why limit crafting? I mean, honestly, if your goal in a campaign is ENHANCED realism which is something that proponents of the TU system are supposedly in favor of, why is it that your character can NOT craft as much as the character likes?

Again, it seems to me that people are trying to place limits on players and characters just because they don't like something. It is wrong, I say, to limit something JUST TO LIMIT it.

3. TUs cap character advancement per year. But as I pointed out in 1, that will still open up level gaps between veteran and new players. I do NOT think that character advancement caps are inherently good. In fact, I think they are bad.

4. I don't see how characters completing storylines is encouraged by TUs. If anything, I think them discouraged, as TUs lessen the number of mods you can play with a character a year.

5. I think a TU system INHERENTLY limits character play whether casual or not, due to the additional restriction it places on characters (and players).

6. Metaorgs can be supported by taxes or a set gold piece contribution, and can be further supported by mods written with those metaorgs in mind. A TU cost is possible, but I think not inherently necessary.



Well all right, and the poster went on to describe how TU penalties for jail time, TUs used to restrict crafting opportunities, and TUs spent for metaorg purposes contributed to the realism of the game, which is something I agree with - although I am still against the TU system.

In brief, my thought is that although TUs DO add an important element to the game, a TU system restricts play. A TU system increases level gaps between veteran players and new players. Although a TU system might be good for the Forgotten Realms campaign for the first couple years, tournament organizers WILL see the results of the TU system around the third year when the only players that can play high level tables are the veterans that were around for the first two years, and I think this can only be bad.

Given that, I think the best thing to do is to DO AWAY with time units and address the problem of level disparity during mustering by having mods specifically written for low-level characters (hence, high-level characters will be unable to play those mods, but the PLAYERS of those high level characters would instead be encouraged to make new characters - it's not like they're making their high-level character burn a mod by playing the intro/low-level mod).

Hey while 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. WE NEED THE T.U. SYSTEM if crafting was only about using EXP then we would instantly have magic items appearing all over the place. Some people have access to craft really stupid crazy items that cost very little EXP. But they can't because their going to a Con and need the T.U.s to spend there. Imagine if they Crafted an item that cost 1500 exp and NO T.U.s a 10th level charactor could play up and negate the loss with one APL twelve adventure.

Greetings Jester:

1)Limit play to encourage multiple characters

This doesn’t need to be enforced to encourage people to make multiple characters.  If a person feels like trying something different then they can just make a character at first level then play an adventure scenario which they have not played yet.  The mustering at the table can encourage (discourage) the making of a new character too.

2) Limit crafting between-mod activities

I don’t know about this one.  The new 4e rules for crafting could be simple and would need some form of restriction. Or the new rules could be complex and not need some form of restriction.

3) Cap a character’s level advancement

The amount of adventure scenarios available, the mustering at the table and the retirement dates will probably help cap a player’s level advancement. If everyone is 1st or second but one person is 5th ,then this person can make another character at first.  If a player burns through all the mods available for the year then they met their cap and have to sit and wait until a new scenario comes out of the appropriate level.

4) Allow characters to complete storylines

The players I personally inducted into the RPGA in late February of ’07 would disagree with this one.  They only met once month and since the announcement of 4e have abandoned Greyhawk for home play games.

5) Not hinder casual play

If you are running an adventure scenario at home then a gaming group can get away with causal play.  If you are at a convention then you have 4 hours to finish the adventure.  TU's have no bearing on causal play when the module has a built in time limit.

6) Fuel in-character organizations

I’m not sure how they are going to handle or even allow meta-organizations at the start of the year.  I will wait in see.

Vamroc wrote:

Hey while 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. WE NEED THE T.U. SYSTEM if crafting was only about using EXP then we would instantly have magic items appearing all over the place. Some people have access to craft really stupid crazy items that cost very little EXP. But they can't because their going to a Con and need the T.U.s to spend there. Imagine if they Crafted an item that cost 1500 exp and NO T.U.s a 10th level charactor could play up and negate the loss with one APL twelve adventure.

This thread is about TU's, not about the merits or flaws of APL system. As for using TU's to put a limit on crafting magical or non-magical equipment in the new 4e system, we just don't have any information on how it works. Unless you know something about 4e crafting rules that we don't.

Vamroc wrote:

WE NEED THE T.U. SYSTEM if crafting was only about using EXP then we would instantly have magic items appearing all over the place.

No we don't need a TU system to limit crafting. We need a system to limit crafting to a reasonable level with appropriate cost if crafting is allowed. Don't confuse the two issues.

Now, if you want to start a thread on how to limit crafting (once we know how 4e works) I would be happy to discuss ideas.

Allen.

Lord Toast wrote:

This thread is about TU's, not about the merits or flaws of APL system. As for using TU's to put a limit on crafting magical or non-magical equipment in the new 4e system, we just don't have any information on how it works. Unless you know something about 4e crafting rules that we don't.

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.

Lee

Lord Toast wrote:

This thread is about TU's, not about the merits or flaws of APL system. As for using TU's to put a limit on crafting magical or non-magical equipment in the new 4e system, we just don't have any information on how it works. Unless you know something about 4e crafting rules that we don't.

I was responding to one bad idea with another in the opening of my post. The second part was to emphasize WE NEED THE T.U. SYSTEM I used crafting as a example because we know that's how it works now.

My post was meant to list what a perfect TU-style system should do:

The_Jester wrote:

Okay, what should a good time system do:
1)    Limit play to encourage multiple characters
2)    Limit crafting between-mod activities
3)    Cap a character’s level advancement
4)    Allow characters to complete storylines
5)    Not hinder casual play
6)    Fuel in-character organizations

It's very clear that the current one causes problems with 4 and a bit of 5. You should never be unable to play a character. You should never have to go down to a lower table or be unable to play because your preferred character is locked out. You should never be forced to complete a storyarc with an alt because your main ran out of TUs.

Reasoning:
1) Multiple characters make it easier to work around APLs and play at multiple tables. You should be encourages to have multiple characters of varying levels.

2) Crafting takes time. Weeks even. It shouldn't be possible to craft for six months and still get a full years' worth of adventuring in.

3) Advancement shouldn't be totally unlimited. You shouldn't race through the campaign. If only so you won't be caught with only a low level character in year 3 when half the mods are high-only. Or have to bring a new character into arcs that assume you've played a dozen other mods.

4) A good system should allow you to complete a story with a character invested in it.

5) As it says. You should never be unable to play.

6) More of a side-benefit. A good system also works with organizations with a give-take relationship. There is a cost for joining in addition to benefits. While TUs should not be the only cost it's nice to have an option.

The_Jester wrote:

My post was meant to list what a perfect TU-style system should do:



It's very clear that the current one causes problems with 4 and a bit of 5. You should never be unable to play a character. You should never have to go down to a lower table or be unable to play because your preferred character is locked out. You should never be forced to complete a storyarc with an alt because your main ran out of TUs.

Reasoning:
1) Multiple characters make it easier to work around APLs and play at multiple tables. You should be encourages to have multiple characters of varying levels.

2) Crafting takes time. Weeks even. It shouldn't be possible to craft for six months and still get a full years' worth of adventuring in.

3) Advancement shouldn't be totally unlimited. You shouldn't race through the campaign. If only so you won't be caught with only a low level character in year 3 when half the mods are high-only. Or have to bring a new character into arcs that assume you've played a dozen other mods.

4) A good system should allow you to complete a story with a character invested in it.

5) As it says. You should never be unable to play.

6) More of a side-benefit. A good system also works with organizations with a give-take relationship. There is a cost for joining in addition to benefits. While TUs should not be the only cost it's nice to have an option.

Ok, problem fixed, no XP, gold or crafting once your TUs are expended. If you really want to play you can but, most of the pressures to diversifiy your playtime over a number of characters, still exist.

The_Jester wrote:

1) Multiple characters make it easier to work around APLs and play at multiple tables. You should be encourages to have multiple characters of varying levels.

TUs are irelevant to this. You always have the option of multiple characters, and it isn't encouraged for most by TUs.

2) Crafting takes time. Weeks even. It shouldn't be possible to craft for six months and still get a full years' worth of adventuring in.

Separate from TUs dor module play, which don't correspond to actual passage of time. PC lives don't conform to linear time, jumping back and forth, even a year or more, compressing long adventures into little time, or stretching short adventures into long time.

Some crafting effort could hav been done in earlier time, or during some adventures. If TUs are used for tracking out-of-adventure activities, it would be simpler to use day units (FR does not have 7 days per week or 52 weeks per year) and allow PCs a number of them per year (such as 100) for nonadventuring activities, without restricting play opportunities (assume others find other ways to spend their down time).

3) Advancement shouldn't be totally unlimited. You shouldn't race through the campaign. If only so you won't be caught with only a low level character in year 3 when half the mods are high-only. Or have to bring a new character into arcs that assume you've played a dozen other mods.

I don't see that. Newer players are frozen out of higher level play, even if they wish to devote play to one PC in order to catch up with local players so that they cane game together in higher modules. With TUs, the players of the higher level PCs would have to slow their advancement to give newer PCs any chance to catch up.

4) A good system should allow you to complete a story with a character invested in it.

not if the PC went on other adventures that advanced him beyond the supported levels for the completion of the story arc.

TUs interfere with completing arcs with a character, by running out of TUs needed to complete the arc.

5) As it says. You should never be unable to play.

You will be unable to play if you don't have a PC of a level supported by a module. TUs are a hinderance rather than a help in this regard.

6) More of a side-benefit. A good system also works with organizations with a give-take relationship. There is a cost for joining in addition to benefits. While TUs should not be the only cost it's nice to have an option.

This is a between adventures issue, like crafting. Some costs of meta-orgs are in-game, part of adventures played, so don't require separate costs. Some meta-orgs don't reasonably take up much of the PC's time. so TUs aren't appropriate. Many of the meta-org costs are for retaining membership, or advancing within the org, rather than for joining.

Here's an idea if a player really wants to bring his 12 lvl beat stick to an APL 6 mod make everyone at the table burn one T.U. for every 2 charactor levels above the APL being played. His 12 would mean everyone spends 3 additional T.U.s at APL 6 if you wanted extra fire power for Dominion this would give the means to get it at price. As there are no odd numbered APL mods (well except for one Adaptable) that I know of. This would be the means to fix the problem of what to do when an eleven is the only PC available to round out an APL 8 table. This falls under a new use for T.U.s and I think it's brilliant it also solves the endless issue sending people home because a charactor is to high to play this mod or that one. This extra T.U cost would not aply to a table where everyone is in the APL range. Further more NOBODY wants to play an eight up to 10 just so the eleven or twelve can play. List this as reason 2001 as to why WE NEED THE T.U. SYSTEM

None of that makes any sense. Sorry.

Well, Jester, I don't mean to pick on you. It's just that you organize things so well, it's easiest to respond to your replies.

The_Jester wrote:

Reasoning:
1) Multiple characters make it easier to work around APLs and play at multiple tables. You should be encourages to have multiple characters of varying levels.

Let us say a player started Living Greyhawk in April 2007 and had plenty of play opportunities. Regardless, that player would only be able to make level 6 or 7 that year because of the TU system. Although the player might have multiple characters of level 6-7, that player would NEVER be able to catch up to a player that had been playing since Year 2, who would have two 12th level characters and a couple 8-9th level characters.

A TU system inherently encourages a tiered system in which veteran players have higher level characters.

I think if players are supposed to have multiple characters of varying levels, that mods written for low APL is the system by which this must be done.


2) Crafting takes time. Weeks even. It shouldn't be possible to craft for six months and still get a full years' worth of adventuring in.

True. But this can be addressed outside the currently used TU system as previously described with having up to 100 days spent for nonadventuring activity. (There would still be TUs after a fashion, but ADVENTURES would not cost TUs.)

3) Advancement shouldn't be totally unlimited. You shouldn't race through the campaign. If only so you won't be caught with only a low level character in year 3 when half the mods are high-only. Or have to bring a new character into arcs that assume you've played a dozen other mods.

That is to say, you're worried about players playing so much that their characters become very high level and level out of the campaign, forcing them to start new ones.

But in a system in which there are a lot of low-APL mods written, half the mods won't be "high-APL only". Again, I think this problem is addressed by having a system in which there are a lot of low-APL mods.

For the Forgotten Realms, without regions, I think we will have a system in which there will be a LOT of mods available for play.

4) A good system should allow you to complete a story with a character invested in it.

So is a good system restrictive or permissive? A LOT of mods are "part 1-5 of the X series", and each part doesn't necessarily release in the same year. So if you had a character taking part in a core story arc and four regional story arcs, it could well be that that character would have to go well over the TU limit, if there WERE a TU limit as currently in place.

5) As it says. You should never be unable to play.

But I think a TU system RESTRICTS play more than anything else.

6) More of a side-benefit. A good system also works with organizations with a give-take relationship. There is a cost for joining in addition to benefits. While TUs should not be the only cost it's nice to have an option.

In sum, Jester - I think you make some pretty good points for what a *Living System* should have, but I do not think those points necessarily require a TU system. If you do have a suggestion for a TU system that would incorporate all those points, please post it.

However, a system that tracks downtime that can be spent crafting or meta-orging but has no effect on adventures is still a TU system.
I'm not arguing for something identical to LG (actually, quite the opposite) I'm just setting-up what a new system should do.

There are some problems with the current system and I'm just looking about for possible fixes.
Which is probably not necessary as the LFR team has probably already made all their decision and has the campaign set, not that we'd know since we haven't had an official announcement since last September. Heck, it doesn't even have its own sub-page. The RPGA page:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=rpga
Just has a link to the outdated call for admins:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=rp … /20070905a

Newpaintbrush wrote:

"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.

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.

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.

Newpaintbrush wrote:

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.

MatteBlack wrote:

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.

tombollis wrote:

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.

tombollis wrote:

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.

dkay807 wrote:

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.

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

dkay807 wrote:

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.

Hi everyone,

I simply glanced through the thread... Interesting arguments.

I believe what I'm going to say was mentioned before, but not as one single argument, so here goes:

EDIT: Changed the beginning of the argument. I'm too mind-lazy right now to figure out which rule would bring about the second step: TUs or no TUs.

Incorrectly implemented TU limit rule => Relatively small number of players with high level PCs with many others having low level PCs => A level gap as opposed to a good distribution of levels => Demand for 'very' high level mods when most folks are nowhere near those levels => Campaign resource management problem for the directors and authors.

The "=>"s in there may not be "strictly implies" arrows, but I think this is an angle worth considering.

Baris

aljergensen wrote:

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.

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.

Imagine if you spend as much time playing as he does getting awesome gear going to cons and carefully budgeting time and money to do so. Then someone a year later forms a home group and decides we want high level PC's right now so they play 2 mods a night and 6 over the weekend at that rate in two weeks you would have a 7th level PC. Are you really going to say that's fair DKay BUSTS HIS ARSE FOR YEARS to make sure his charactors "STOMP THE YARD" where ever they go. So for some lazy person to spend half the effort and still reap the same reward MAKES ME SICK.

stonebasher wrote:

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.

BUT is that because of unlimited TUs or the ending campaign?
I'd argue that it's more to do with the latter: people want to get their main characters as close to retirement as possible.
Plus, interest in the campaign (and setting, and game system) are waning so there might be fewer and fewer new players.

Really, I've been pushing my main lately as well. Made it to 10 in two years. And last year, even with the TUs being removed, I only played one mod that would have knocked her into negative TUs (and that's with crafting).

No one claims this thread to be anything more than opinion. You quoted my post, so you should clearly be able to tell that I simply shared my opinion.

I see nothing silly about my opinion. I'm not trolling to "PO" anyone... I'm honestly stating that a little elitism is good for a campaign - some might even describe it as a necessary evil.

Besides, who cares if people that start the campaign later on can't catch up to the PCs of players who started in the beginning? Does that dissuade people from joining? I doubt it. I think just as many people (if not more) would be dissuaded from a campaign that has no elitism.

Furthermore, and this is again just my personal opinion, I like having playing constraints enforced on my PCs. I like knowing that I can only play a particular PC a certain amount each year - it keeps me from feeling pressured to play as much as possible to "keep up." If I started playing in the campaign from the beginning, I'd expect to be in the first generation of PCs that stayed ahead of the newer PCs, and likewise, if I started a year late, I would not expect to catch up to the prior generation.

aljergensen wrote:

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.

tombollis wrote:

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.

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.

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.

A very opposite opinion from my own, but certainly a valid one (opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong, after all). I think it could be an endless argument and the merits of both sides have been discussed logically. I do think that you're overstating the impact that playing restrictions that TUs might have on players new and old... LG has continued to grow over the years (laden with playing restrictions such that it is) and I see no reason why LFR wouldn't experience that same growth. Would it have grown more without a play restriction? Who knows. Could the campaign's infrastructure have supported much more growth than it has experienced? I'm not sure it could.

I guess we'll see what the campaign turns out like. I am personally hoping for playing restrictions - I like elitism in small doses.

Vamroc wrote:

Imagine if you spend as much time playing as he does getting awesome gear going to cons and carefully budgeting time and money to do so. Then someone a year later forms a home group and decides we want high level PC's right now so they play 2 mods a night and 6 over the weekend at that rate in two weeks you would have a 7th level PC. Are you really going to say that's fair DKay BUSTS HIS ARSE FOR YEARS to make sure his charactors "STOMP THE YARD" where ever they go. So for some lazy person to spend half the effort and still reap the same reward MAKES ME SICK.

Gee, here I thought the whole idea of LFR was to have fun gaming with a cooperateive group and to make new friends in a social environment. Thanks for enlightening me that it's all about competition and one-upmanship!

I'm sorry, but the last time I checked there is no "shortcut" to getting to higher levels. And if you are honestly bitter about the fact that someone else has a character of the same level as yours or that they may be more effective then I hope I never have to sit down at a table with you.

By the way, the all caps is just getting old. We disagree. Get over yourself - your opinion is no more important than mine or anyone else's on this board.

Allen.

just would like to express my 2 cents worth.

I like the time unit idea for adventures, metaorgs and possibly crafting. -things that advance/give advantages to your caracter. this is to give some sort of balence when mustering at the store/convetion games.

to me time units work, I started playing LG at 3-17-07. when LG's death march was announced (and TU were ignored for adventure purpose) I had a 2nd, 3rd, and 5th level caracter (about 9-14-07) right now I have two 3rd lvl and one 12th (if he doesnt die next mod) - im about to attend "weekend in the county of urnst", tho I dont cover apl's 6 or 8.. with the con looking the way it is I may have to sit out of games (or vollenter dm..) .

it may suck not being able to play a (seemingly) favorite caracter cause of TU limitations but for getting people together at a convention/store game it works.
-although I would ask to let people at conventions use TU's from "next years total" if they would run out - at least for interactives... and only for that convention... not another one after that. (to follow a plotline adventure not availible otherwise.. ect. for pc that got TU penalty shafted.)


if all else fails there is always home games.

Vamroc wrote:

Imagine if you spend as much time playing as he does getting awesome gear going to cons and carefully budgeting time and money to do so. Then someone a year later forms a home group and decides we want high level PC's right now so they play 2 mods a night and 6 over the weekend at that rate in two weeks you would have a 7th level PC. Are you really going to say that's fair DKay BUSTS HIS ARSE FOR YEARS to make sure his charactors "STOMP THE YARD" where ever they go. So for some lazy person to spend half the effort and still reap the same reward MAKES ME SICK.

Absurd. That is a diatribe against home play, not for TUs. It applies just as easily to the player who only plays at cons two or three times a year being upset with others playing at home once a week, without having to pay to go to cons. It has nothing to do with earning levels through play, or the effort of the PC needed to advance. The attitude Vamroc portrarys here makes me sick.

aljergensen wrote:

Gee, here I thought the whole idea of LFR was to have fun gaming with a cooperateive group and to make new friends in a social environment. Thanks for enlightening me that it's all about competition and one-upmanship!

I'm sorry, but the last time I checked there is no "shortcut" to getting to higher levels. And if you are honestly bitter about the fact that someone else has a character of the same level as yours or that they may be more effective then I hope I never have to sit down at a table with you.

By the way, the all caps is just getting old. We disagree. Get over yourself - your opinion is no more important than mine or anyone else's on this board.

Absurd. That is a diatribe against home play, not for TUs. It applies just as easily to the player who only plays a cons two or three times a year being upset with others playing at home once a week, without having to pay to go to cons. It has nothing to do with earning levels through play, or the effort of the PC needed to advance. The attitude Vamroc portrarys here makes me sick.

Those of us that are on the ground floor are blazing a trail others can only follow we've "been there done that" first. That should make us special so for a charactor to start a year later play a ton of mods and be on par with the players aproaching eleven or tweleve cheapens the game as a whole. That is what makes the game not fun knowing what you spent a whole year doing has no meaning. Home play was also not the issue either I'm fine with home play but as I pointed out a non T.U. system is ripe for abuse. Writers need time to write mods don't forget so if you blow through all the mods just to get to a high level. Your going to have to wait a looong time before the next one and it might not be something you can play if your only charactor is a thirteenth level something.

Vamroc wrote:

Writers need time to write mods don't forget so if you blow through all the mods just to get to a high level. Your going to have to wait a looong time before the next one and it might not be something you can play if your only charactor is a thirteenth level something.

This time is grantred by not creating mods that support high level PCs until enough PCs reach such levels. How fast other PCs can catch up with the leaders (if they can) has no impact on this. TU limits are irrelevant; levels for which modules are written is relevant, with or without TUs.

While Tom and I may disagree about TUs, I would have to agree with him here on not accepting this sentiment that veteran players who started earlier are in some way entitled to a level advantage. I am fine with folks who get in at the beginning having such an advantage but, they aren't owed anything.

We devote our time and money to play the games but, the only thing we should expect is a good adventure to play and a system that supports a fun experience in those adventures. If someone plays the game within the rules, they can be whatever XP they earn. If they found a faster way to catch up good for them.

For the most part, none of us around the table is being paid for it nor, directly paying the campaign to be in it. Everyone has to do their part to make the games work and be fun for everyone else around the table. Especially for those of us who don't DM or organize the cons, the least we can do is be a little less selfish and a little more flexible. I see accepting the restrictions and benefits of TUs and other procedures as part of this.

I think a better discussion might be about how we can make such a system more easily abided by than arguing whether it should exist. Perhaps, more TUs could be a start as could the idea to allow TUs to be borrowed from the next year with some limitations. I personally would be a fan of rewarding no XP or gold once you have run out of TUs because it at least gives back the freedom to play if you really want to while still supporting a maximum yearly advancement and a stable of characters across a broad range of levels.

MatteBlack wrote:

I think a better discussion might be about how we can make such a system more easily abided by than arguing whether it should exist. Perhaps, more TUs could be a start as could the idea to allow TUs to be borrowed from the next year with some limitations. I personally would be a fan of rewarding no XP or gold once you have run out of TUs because it at least gives back the freedom to play if you really want to while still supporting a maximum yearly advancement and a stable of characters across a broad range of levels.

I guess I'm just saying to take it another step back ... what are we trying to accomplish with TUs? Once we identify what we are trying to accomplish, how do we best accomplish that?

I'd say that I have 2 basic areas that in LG were addressed by TUs that need to be addressed in LFR.
1) Limit non-adventuring activity (crafting, meta-orgs).
2) Encourage multiple PCs supporting multiple APLs.

These may or may not affect how much I can play in a year. IMHO how quickly a character can advance is a side effect of the system, not a campaign goal as long as we are not allowing for "level bumps" or similar.

Allen.

Okay, it sounds like the biggest reason for TUs is multiple characters. Alts. I think this is a fair statement to make.

So, if the big reason for TUs is to limit a character's play so people make alternate characters... can't this be done in a way that doesn't stop you from playing the high level character?
Sure, it's nice to encourage people to have low level characters for a rounded APL and play experience and preventing low level tables from falling apart, but this is done at the expense of occasionally preventing a high level character from being used and causing high level tables to fall apart.

Wouldn't a better system encourage people to have multiple characters? Perhaps something similar to Xen'drick Expedition's "take one for the team" where you can play a different character but still earn xp for your main. Or a system that let you temporarily level up or down to a different APL.

Vamroc wrote:

Imagine if you spend as much time playing as he does getting awesome gear going to cons and carefully budgeting time and money to do so. Then someone a year later forms a home group and decides we want high level PC's right now so they play 2 mods a night and 6 over the weekend at that rate in two weeks you would have a 7th level PC. Are you really going to say that's fair DKay BUSTS HIS ARSE FOR YEARS to make sure his charactors "STOMP THE YARD" where ever they go. So for some lazy person to spend half the effort and still reap the same reward MAKES ME SICK.

The person who plays 16 mods a week gaming 4-8 hours a day for a fortnight is "lazy"?!?
They've put in the same number of hours in-mod. Why does it matter if they crammed it in rapid-fire instead of spacing it out with one-mod a month for 2 1/2 years?
And if half the 32 mods are regionals or metaregionals you could do that in LG even WITH the TU system.

Is it fair that this person managed to catch up? I don't know. Is it fair someone has to play nightly for two weeks just to play at mid-level tables?

The_Jester wrote:

Wouldn't a better system encourage people to have multiple characters? Perhaps something similar to Xen'drick Expedition's "take one for the team" where you can play a different character but still earn xp for your main. Or a system that let you temporarily level up or down to a different APL. ?

I think the most effective system would be to have separate heroic, paragon, and epic modules (which I am confident will be the case). In order to play heroic modules when your current PCs are paragon or epic, you would need to start a new heroic character. No TU limits required.

Initially, there will be no paragon or epic support; they will come when TPTB believe there are enough PCs to support them. The nature of modules should be different for paragon and epic.
4e will naturally separate paragon PCs from heroic ones via the nature of the adventures.

The_Jester wrote:

Okay, it sounds like the biggest reason for TUs is multiple characters. Alts. I think this is a fair statement to make.

So, if the big reason for TUs is to limit a character's play so people make alternate characters... can't this be done in a way that doesn't stop you from playing the high level character?
Sure, it's nice to encourage people to have low level characters for a rounded APL and play experience and preventing low level tables from falling apart, but this is done at the expense of occasionally preventing a high level character from being used and causing high level tables to fall apart.

Wouldn't a better system encourage people to have multiple characters? Perhaps something similar to Xen'drick Expedition's "take one for the team" where you can play a different character but still earn xp for your main. Or a system that let you temporarily level up or down to a different APL.



The person who plays 16 mods a week gaming 4-8 hours a day for a fortnight is "lazy"?!?
They've put in the same number of hours in-mod. Why does it matter if they crammed it in rapid-fire instead of spacing it out with one-mod a month for 2 1/2 years?
And if half the 32 mods are regionals or metaregionals you could do that in LG even WITH the TU system.

Is it fair that this person managed to catch up? I don't know. Is it fair someone has to play nightly for two weeks just to play at mid-level tables?

That statement was made within the context of a no T.U. system where abuse will run rampant it's ok now because there are no real repercussions. By lazy I mean reaping the same reward in two weeks while it took that person months to accomplish the same goals. At a home game there are usually "house rules" and not every jugde rules the same way a T.U. system helps maintain a small portion of uniformity and fairness in the game as a whole.

I think that having some mI think that having some mechanic that simulates the passage of time is a good thing. 100% necessary? Perhaps not, but in a home game the GM controls the passage of time and limits things that the characters can do accordingly. In an RPGA game the table GM controls the 'tactical' passage of time, but that GM can't necessary oversee the 'strategic' passage of time that would occur between adventures. I see the TU system as the mechanic to control this 'strategic' passage of time by the campaign GM (RPGA/Circle/Campaign Admins/etc).

In a home game, this 'strategic' control over the passage of time keeps the PCs in sync with each other and doesn't allow for one character to gain too much of an advantage from using more time than the others. (I know that there are people out there that will rush to gain more levels faster than anyone else, because they want to be the biggest, strongest, fastest, most powerfulest character there is, like playing DnD is some kind of competition. I know that many people aren't bothered by this, but there are some people who are. Personally, these kind of people annoy me and tend to ruin the fun a bit, but that is another topic and I digress.)

Time is a resource. Most of us I am sure are aware of that as many of us don't play as much as we'd like to. There are only so many hours in the day. We have to balance our time between work, family, other hobbies, etc. Why would a PC not have the same limitations? Yes it's a fantasy game, but basic laws of physics, like gravity, still work in it, right? (Though magic often fiddles with them, they are still there.)

I'll admit that I've enjoyed the benefits of the removal of TUs from LG. It's allowed our group to be able to play and complete several of the big adaptables(RHoD, DWP). IMHO, this is a great way to end the campaign on high note. Characters are afforded the opportunity to retire early since the campaign is ending. That said, I think that NOT having some meta game mechanic to control the passage of time, the pacing of the campaign as it were, would be more of a detriment than a benefit.

I know one aspect that's been brought up here is with some kind of play limit, that newer players would not be able to catch up with the older player's main characters. This isn't always true. I know some people who still have characters that they started in year 1 or 2 that are about the same level as my highest that I started in year 4. Of course, in year 5 there was no way I could match that. I think that someone who's been playing in the campaign longer should have an advantage in level. I think that the level of your character in any game should reflect how long you've been playing said game. )By that logic my first WoW character should be 70th, but he's still only 10th and I have a newer character that I've been playing more that is approaching 39th.) Of course, frequency of play effects how fast you progress, (whish is why I'm still only 38th level) and some people can play more frequently so their character will progress faster, but I think there should be a limit to that somewhere to keep things from getting too discombobulated.

One final note about someone said about the higher level characters being around the campaign for a while and becoming known in the region etc. I think that adds to the regions flavor and history. Having to take time to raise up through the ranks allows time for the character to be known to the other characters in the campaign and gain a reputation that would be fitting to a character of his/her stature.

That is my case for TUs or something similar to them. It's one of the things I like about LG, that and the ARs, but again that is another subject. I, also like the resource management side of it for my crafter.

jhorred wrote:

I think that having some mechanic that simulates the passage of time is a good thing. 100% necessary? Perhaps not, but in a home game the GM controls the passage of time and limits things that the characters can do accordingly. In an RPGA game the table GM controls the 'tactical' passage of time, but that GM can't necessary oversee the 'strategic' passage of time that would occur between adventures. I see the TU system as the mechanic to control this 'strategic' passage of time by the campaign GM (RPGA/Circle/Campaign Admins/etc).

Unlike a home campaign, time in a living campaign ius nonlinear - modules take place in a specific order, but can be played in any order, disrupting any clear link between real world time and game world time. THe passage of game world time is entirely controlled by the modules, with TUs irrelevant.

In a home game, this 'strategic' control over the passage of time keeps the PCs in sync with each other and doesn't allow for one character to gain too much of an advantage from using more time than the others. (I know that there are people out there that will rush to gain more levels faster than anyone else, because they want to be the biggest, strongest, fastest, most powerfulest character there is, like playing DnD is some kind of competition. I know that many people aren't bothered by this, but there are some people who are. Personally, these kind of people annoy me and tend to ruin the fun a bit, but that is another topic and I digress.)

TUs don't help. They support PCs who have a level advantage maintaining that advantage. They support competition between players to efficiently advance a character by maxing its play each year at the expense of alternate PCs, since any delay in advancement becomes a permanent disadvantage in the battle for the "best" (you can't make it up later).

Time is a resource.

RW time is a resource - a player has only so much available for gaming. How he spends that time should be up to him. If he wants to devote alot in a short period to be able to play paragon or epic with those who started earlier, let him.

Adventures don't take specific amounts of game time, and TUs don't accurately indicate how much game time passes.

I'll admit that I've enjoyed the benefits of the removal of TUs from LG. It's allowed our group to be able to play and complete several of the big adaptables(RHoD, DWP). IMHO, this is a great way to end the campaign on high note. Characters are afforded the opportunity to retire early since the campaign is ending. That said, I think that NOT having some meta game mechanic to control the passage of time, the pacing of the campaign as it were, would be more of a detriment than a benefit.

TUs don't control the passage of game time. They limit it differently for different PCs. The LG campaign has never had a pace controlled by anything other than the release and retirement of modules - that is the only real time control mechanic in LG.

I know one aspect that's been brought up here is with some kind of play limit, that newer players would not be able to catch up with the older player's main characters. This isn't always true. I know some people who still have characters that they started in year 1 or 2 that are about the same level as my highest that I started in year 4. Of course, in year 5 there was no way I could match that. I think that someone who's been playing in the campaign longer should have an advantage in level. I think that the level of your character in any game should reflect how long you've been playing said game. )By that logic my first WoW character should be 70th, but he's still only 10th and I have a newer character that I've been playing more that is approaching 39th.) Of course, frequency of play effects how fast you progress, (whish is why I'm still only 38th level) and some people can play more frequently so their character will progress faster, but I think there should be a limit to that somewhere to keep things from getting too discombobulated.

I disagree. I played LC from trhe beginning and never advanced any of my several PCs beond 9th level. I played LG from the beginning and never advanced any PC beyond 7th level. This is parly due to a poor finances and lack of play opportunities. I don't begrudge newer polayers from pacing me by. But I dislike a meta-game mechanic that stops someone with the time and money from getting to high level if he's willing to put in the effort. TU limits allow those who put in effort early to obtain and maintain an elitist lead in the race for highest levels that they haven't really earned. They get to play at high level tables segregted from others who remain levels behind. A lack of TU limits allows the possibility of a player eventually joiuning them through dedicted play.

One final note about someone said about the higher level characters being around the campaign for a while and becoming known in the region etc. I think that adds to the regions flavor and history. Having to take time to raise up through the ranks allows time for the character to be known to the other characters in the campaign and gain a reputation that would be fitting to a character of his/her stature.

I disagree. Any PC that reaches high level. thether after 6 years of play or two, has contributed to regional flavor and history. If one has been known for awhile while another is a newcomer with a meteoric rise to fame, they are different, but equally notable. THe newcomer deserves his new reputation as an up-and-coming legend as much as the oldcomer desrves his reputation as a long-standing legend. They both deserve high stature.

That is my case for TUs or something similar to them. It's one of the things I like about LG, that and the ARs, but again that is another subject. I, also like the resource management side of it for my crafter.

I don't mind TUs, mainly for between adventure activities, but see them more as a detriment than an advantage when used to limit play of PCs. I still have not seen a good case for TU limits on play.

jhorred wrote:

I think that having some mI think that having some mechanic that simulates the passage of time is a good thing.

There are 2 things I don't understand about this argument.

I don't see why the real world has anything to do with my character. We watch TV shows and movies where years may pass or moments may pass over the course of hours. Why tie the real world calendar (or anything else for that matter) to a fantasy character?

The other is that if this is important to you, nothing stops you from limiting yourself. I'm sure there are people that always play mods in sequence, who pay a lot of attention to the FR calendar, etc. I don't, so why force me to?

I understand that different people play for different reasons. I just don't see enough justification here to force everyone to put up with TUs.

Allen.

tombollis wrote:

I don't mind TUs, mainly for between adventure activities, but see them more as a detriment than an advantage when used to limit play of PCs. I still have not seen a good case for TU limits on play.

Have you tried to start a new character in the last 2 or 3 months? I have enjoyed playing out my character to my hearts content but, the last few conventions I have attended have seen fewer and fewer players to support APLs 2-8 while the ranks of APL 10-14 have swelled.

If you are an APL 14 player it has probably been eaiser to find a game and APL 10s and 12s are enjoying much better table composition but, I don't even level 8 games occurring and the lower level tables seemed to be comprised of what can be scraped up between new players looking to get involved and nice veteran players who begrudgingly decide to help them out. I don't recall this lack of low level tables in my previous year and a half to two years when I was playing them regularly.

The two answers I see to this are giant bonuses to play low level games or some sort of a mechanism that disuades or limits players at high levels.

I think alot of players would view level bumps or increased XP would be viewed as devaluing what they have earned. It could also speed players through the low levels too quickly. The game should value play at all levels over anything else including percieved advancement disadvantages disadvantages.

The current TU system sets a hard cap on play opportunities but, there is no reason that limit couldn't be softened. Rewarding half or no XP, gold and/or rewards points could be possible ways to promote low level play over high. Players could play past that TU limit but, to less negative impact on the campaign and less positive reinforcement for doing so. If playing the game is actually more important than showing off a high level, this method would solve alot of complaints.

MatteBlack wrote:

Have you tried to start a new character in the last 2 or 3 months? I have enjoyed playing out my character to my hearts content but, the last few conventions I have attended have seen fewer and fewer players to support APLs 2-8 while the ranks of APL 10-14 have swelled.

I don't think TU limits or the lack have anything to do with this. This is a result of LG coming to a close and players wanting to max their higher level PCs, regardless of TUs, with little interest in starting new PCs with very limited futures. There is some low level play, but nowhere near what there would be if the campaign were continuing.

A new campaign with years of life in it, like LFR, would not have such a problem filling low level tables, even after a few years, with or without TU limits. Filling higher level tables would be more of a problem in a few years if TUs limit advancement for newer PCs.

tombollis wrote:

I don't think TU limits or the lack have anything to do with this. This is a result of LG coming to a close and players wanting to max their higher level PCs, regardless of TUs, with little interest in starting new PCs with very limited futures. There is some low level play, but nowhere near what there would be if the campaign were continuing.

A new campaign with years of life in it, like LFR, would not have such a problem filling low level tables, even after a few years, with or without TU limits. Filling higher level tables would be more of a problem in a few years if TUs limit advancement for newer PCs.

I believe you to be absolutely wrong in that assessment. I'd dare say the majority of the player base always wants to play up their primary character. Now that they are allowed to, unsurprisingly, that is exactly what they(we) are doing.

Perhaps, new interest is down. I haven't seen figures on it but, I still see a similar amount of players looking to join LG and RPGA at each con so, I don't see that as being the case. It also doesn't explain the vacuated middle ranges.

Overall numbers might be down but, I think it is fairly obvious(especially if you know the players in your local community) that players are focusing on their highest level characters. Most likely, this is because they are allowed to. Many say as much.

Advancing in levels is always going to be part of the game but, broader level ranges will never make for a better living campaign. Tighter level ranges make for better table composition and fewer levels to write adventures for makes for better focus and better written, more on-time modules. More character through fewer levles is a good thing so mechanisms that place a drag on advancement at the top make for a better campaign.

MatteBlack wrote:

I believe you to be absolutely wrong in that assessment. I'd dare say the majority of the player base always wants to play up their primary character. Now that they are allowed to, unsurprisingly, that is exactly what they(we) are doing.

I've discussed this issue with several people - every one has said that they aren't creating new characters because the campaign is ending. YMMV, but from what I'm seeing lack of new PCs has nothing to do with lack of TUs.

I know a lot of people were excited about the Greyhawk Ruins story arc (which requires a first level PC) before the end of the world was announced. After the news, there was pretty minimal interest.

Or put it another way. Before adaptables like RHOD were introduced in LG, what percentage of characters actually ran out of TUs? 5%? 10%? At most it was 20% (once again this is just my experience). Yet we had no problems supporting tables with lower levels.

Introduce enough interesting mods aimed at lower levels and the characters will follow.

Allen.

I feel sorry for ypou and your aquaintances for the lack of ongoing deire to play a variety of PCs at various levels. Never in LC or LG have I been motivated by the deire to play the highest possible character. Regardless of TUs (I've never reached the max in LG), I played multiple PCs suitable for all levels up to my highest, and picked the one to play based on the blurb and the levels of other PCs available to play. I've always been willing to play a low level PC to make a table for new players, and have sometimes declined higher level tables if it seemed the players were more interrested in advancing and gaining access to playing their charactyers.

I have met many players over the years who played lower level PCs for the fun of it and variety, rather than because they maxed out their main character's TUs. Some people concentrate on a main PC, usually because they like the character, some to advance it as fast as possible, but I doubt very much that a majority of players would not play alternate PCs ijust because there were no TU limits on play of their primary.

For those who would restrict themselves to one PC, missing out on the fun of low level adventures, let them.

The dieing months of lG are not typical of no TU limit play.

MatteBlack wrote:

I believe you to be absolutely wrong in that assessment. I'd dare say the majority of the player base always wants to play up their primary character. Now that they are allowed to, unsurprisingly, that is exactly what they(we) are doing.

Perhaps, new interest is down. I haven't seen figures on it but, I still see a similar amount of players looking to join LG and RPGA at each con so, I don't see that as being the case. It also doesn't explain the vacuated middle ranges.

Overall numbers might be down but, I think it is fairly obvious(especially if you know the players in your local community) that players are focusing on their highest level characters. Most likely, this is because they are allowed to. Many say as much.

Advancing in levels is always going to be part of the game but, broader level ranges will never make for a better living campaign. Tighter level ranges make for better table composition and fewer levels to write adventures for makes for better focus and better written, more on-time modules. More character through fewer levles is a good thing so mechanisms that place a drag on advancement at the top make for a better campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I have pretty readily played characters of the levels needed to make tables happen and tried to keep as broad of a selection through the levels as I can. I have had fun playing my lower level characters and my mid-level character is involved with RHoD while I have been attending extra cons to play my primary more often while I now get the opportunity to.

Lots of other players play low level or mutiple characters and enjoy the experience but, it's hard to say what the motivation is while we have all been playing with the TU cap in effect. It's alot easier to say you do it for the best of reasons when you have no other option.

Simply put:
Spreading fewer characters over more levels is bad for the campaign and it is what will happen if there is no limit placed on advancement.

Maybe not every player will just play their top character but, we can safely say more will and at the very least we are opening the door to that problem if, the TU system is simply removed with no advancement slowing method to replace it.

MatteBlack wrote:

Simply put:
Spreading fewer characters over more levels is bad for the campaign and it is what will happen if there is no limit placed on advancement.

Maybe not every player will just play their top character but, we can safely say more will and at the very least we are opening the door to that problem if, the TU system is simply removed with no advancement slowing method to replace it.

Simply put, I disagree.

Also. there wi;; be a limit on advancement and encouragement for lower level PCs even without TU limits. Every indication is that adventures will be written separately for heroic, paragon, and epic characters, initially only for heroic, Even later, adventures that require heroic PCs should be plentiful, and fun to play even by veteran players.

I have played living campaigns before TU limits were imposed, and many people played multiple PCs. I have played without the likelyhood of reaching TU limits. as have many others who don't play often, and have played multiple PCs regardless, as have others.

some players would concentrate on one PC, advancing it as fast as possible, but I think they are a minority. They would only afect the campaign adversely, with or without TU limits, if they swayed the admins to turn out too many high level modules at the expense of low level PCs.

Level advancement need only be limited by the modules made available in the campaign.

tombollis wrote:

Level advancement need only be limited by the modules made available in the campaign.

Hi,

That statement is correct, of course. However...

The folks who demand high level adventures (much higher than the rest of the pack) can end up being a vocal minority. They may end up being a very small minority and yet still demand adventures. If this (supposedly) vocal (supposed) minority ends up forcing the administration to devote an unduly large amount of time which would be better spent elsewhere, this would be a problem.

OTOH, I'm sure the admins have met vocal minorities before and they wouldn't need me to tell them what to hear and what to ignore. It would still be a headache though.

Baris

HassanSabbah wrote:

The folks who demand high level adventures (much higher than the rest of the pack) can end up being a vocal minority. They may end up being a very small minority and yet still demand adventures. If this (supposedly) vocal (supposed) minority ends up forcing the administration to devote an unduly large amount of time which would be better spent elsewhere, this would be a problem.

OTOH, I'm sure the admins have met vocal minorities before and they wouldn't need me to tell them what to hear and what to ignore. It would still be a headache though.

Baris

This is true wiuth or without TU limits. The PTB can track play activity at various levels and know the relative demand for adventures that sipport various levels, regardless of how vocal some players are. There is little excuse for giving in to a vocal minority at the expense of others. I don't believe TU limits help.

aljergensen wrote:

There are 2 things I don't understand about this argument.

I don't see why the real world has anything to do with my character. We watch TV shows and movies where years may pass or moments may pass over the course of hours. Why tie the real world calendar (or anything else for that matter) to a fantasy character?

The other is that if this is important to you, nothing stops you from limiting yourself. I'm sure there are people that always play mods in sequence, who pay a lot of attention to the FR calendar, etc. I don't, so why force me to?

I understand that different people play for different reasons. I just don't see enough justification here to force everyone to put up with TUs.

Allen.

In game time does not have to be tied to the real world calendar. In a home game the rate of passage of time often varies depending on the actions of the heroes. But this isn't a home game and the campaign staff, in the past, decried that one game year is equal to one calendar year. A TU type mechanic helps prevent the suspension of disbelief being broken by one person cramming a couple years worth of character activity into one year.

I know that the games can be played in any order, I play them in the order that I can get on a table. I'm not suggesting at all that the mods have to be played in any certain order. I just that there needs to be some limit set. I'm not suggesting that the limits restrict play of the Tom Bollis' of the campaign but to limit those players that will try to take a mile when you give them an inch.

I don't think that TUs would be that important in the beginning of the campaign, as the mods themselves will prove to be the limit for character advancement. When it comes down to it, I'd prefer that there be some kind of time resource, but it'd not be a deal breaker for me if the campaign doesn't have one.

I have to agree with tombollis here. People are favouring high level tables because
a) they want to retire ("win") their main
b) they don't want to start a new character that won't likely make it past level 3
The no-TUs helps this and is certainly a factor, but not the only or largest one.

In my town LG is pretty much dying. Alot of the core players, the people you could count on showing up and playing, have stopped. A couple marriages, a couple leaving town, a few with new responsibilities, etc.
So, of course we're doing whatever levels can fill a table. We've had a few low tables strictly because new players signed up.

In a place with limited LFR players, unlimited TUs would drive them to only play high level games. This is where there's 4-8 or so core players that rotate about and Game Days might only run a table or two, so they always stay about the same level and never need a low-level alt.
But in a limited game environment like that, breaking in is already hard and even with TUs people aren't going to make alts until they they're so high they can't play some mods.

The_Jester wrote:

I have to agree with tombollis here. People are favouring high level tables because
a) they want to retire ("win") their main
b) they don't want to start a new character that won't likely make it past level 3
The no-TUs helps this and is certainly a factor, but not the only or largest one.

In my town LG is pretty much dying. Alot of the core players, the people you could count on showing up and playing, have stopped. A couple marriages, a couple leaving town, a few with new responsibilities, etc.
So, of course we're doing whatever levels can fill a table. We've had a few low tables strictly because new players signed up.

In a place with limited LFR players, unlimited TUs would drive them to only play high level games. This is where there's 4-8 or so core players that rotate about and Game Days might only run a table or two, so they always stay about the same level and never need a low-level alt.
But in a limited game environment like that, breaking in is already hard and even with TUs people aren't going to make alts until they they're so high they can't play some mods.

Our local group has all but abandoned low level play in an effort to be able to retire a tables worth of high levels. This isn't driven by the absence of TU restrictions but because the campaign is going away and we would like to retire our characters as planned. Granted removing the TU restriction completely has enabled us to do that. The TU restriction removal isn't the main cause of this but it does contribute. In past years we all had at least one alternate character that we played so we could play in as wide a range of APLs as possible. I had started a 5th character shortly before the announcement of the end of the campaign, but he'll never be played past the one intro mod I played him in, as I doubt I'll play everything else.

jhorred wrote:

In game time does not have to be tied to the real world calendar. In a home game the rate of passage of time often varies depending on the actions of the heroes. But this isn't a home game and the campaign staff, in the past, decried that one game year is equal to one calendar year. A TU type mechanic helps prevent the suspension of disbelief being broken by one person cramming a couple years worth of character activity into one year.

To me the time frames set up in LG were there for mod authors and story arc progresssion. But since I play thing so out of sequence I just suspend disbelief and enjoy the mod without worrying about "when" I am.

Adaptables like RHOD make even less "in game" sense since they are a whole separate mini-campaigns.

But once again, if that sense of versimilitude is important to you, limit yourself to what you think is appropriate.

Allen.

HassanSabbah wrote:

Hi,

That statement is correct, of course. However...

The folks who demand high level adventures (much higher than the rest of the pack) can end up being a vocal minority. They may end up being a very small minority and yet still demand adventures. If this (supposedly) vocal (supposed) minority ends up forcing the administration to devote an unduly large amount of time which would be better spent elsewhere, this would be a problem.

OTOH, I'm sure the admins have met vocal minorities before and they wouldn't need me to tell them what to hear and what to ignore. It would still be a headache though.

Baris

I think looking at how modules have slowly become scaled for optimized characters over well-rounded ones is a good example how caving in to a hard-core player minority can be a problem. As the years have past, an optimized build has nearly become a neccessity because the guys playing all the time driving for advancement tend to be the squeaky wheels campaign admins see over and over at events.

I wish it were different but, I'd be very careful about discounting the power of vocal minorities.

tombollis wrote:

Simply put, I disagree.

Also. there wi;; be a limit on advancement and encouragement for lower level PCs even without TU limits. Every indication is that adventures will be written separately for heroic, paragon, and epic characters, initially only for heroic, Even later, adventures that require heroic PCs should be plentiful, and fun to play even by veteran players.

I have played living campaigns before TU limits were imposed, and many people played multiple PCs. I have played without the likelyhood of reaching TU limits. as have many others who don't play often, and have played multiple PCs regardless, as have others.

some players would concentrate on one PC, advancing it as fast as possible, but I think they are a minority. They would only afect the campaign adversely, with or without TU limits, if they swayed the admins to turn out too many high level modules at the expense of low level PCs.

Level advancement need only be limited by the modules made available in the campaign.

If, the modules are produced in a schedule to properly moderate advancement it, does reduce the need for TUs.

Let's say avaiable mods limit players to 6th or so by the end of the year and they don't offer any paragon ones until next GenCon and then Epic the year after or so, that could be reasonable advancement in my eyes. I'd say it might need to be a touch slower but, I could accept it.

The debater in me needs to point out that still is a limit on the campaign's level advancement. I still think we'd miss out on that 3rd resource above and beyond gold and XP to act as something to invest in metaorg training or act as a meaningful consequence when captured or jailed. Removing that 3rd resource, potentially tinkers with the gold/XP curve and/or leaves many players with nothing to be risked. Sort of like playing poker with no money on the line.

I am fine with newer players catching up if they put in the effort but, I really think that the ability to catch up to the module limited maximum through unrestricted amounts of play exposes the campaign to alot of rubberstamped modules/ARs and players rushing through mods trying to squeeze in an extra adventure while the players are gathered. Not really a big deal if, they are all fine with it but, a problem when players at the table want to genuinely enjoy that mod or those practices begin to spillover into the campaign's communtiy as a whole.

In the end, I'd prefer more clearly defined limits and expectations and just avoid alot of those potentially slippery slopes. Yes, that requires some player freedom to be lost but, as I see it playout in similar social situations, a clear policy/rule/limit avoids alot of arguments and exploited grey areas. I'd rather be free from arguments and exploits than and adapt my play to what is good for the campaign.

jhorred wrote:

In game time does not have to be tied to the real world calendar. In a home game the rate of passage of time often varies depending on the actions of the heroes. But this isn't a home game and the campaign staff, in the past, decried that one game year is equal to one calendar year. A TU type mechanic helps prevent the suspension of disbelief being broken by one person cramming a couple years worth of character activity into one year.

It didn't work out that way. You could play modules from the current game year or the previous year for your TUs, in any order, breking any dirrect link between game year and real year. The closest true link link is the expiry of modules - you can only play modules from this year or last year - and that does not relate to TUs.

Module expiry can link game time loosely to the passage of real time, without TU limits.

I know that the games can be played in any order, I play them in the order that I can get on a table. I'm not suggesting at all that the mods have to be played in any certain order. I just that there needs to be some limit set. I'm not suggesting that the limits restrict play of the Tom Bollis' of the campaign but to limit those players that will try to take a mile when you give them an inch.

Not needed. There are unlikely to be enough ligh level modules available before the campaign grows old for anyone to find a mile to take. If they find them, then there is still no problem, as they will retire when the pass level 30 - it's self-correcting.

tombollis wrote:

If they find them, then there is still no problem, as they will retire when the pass level 30 - it's self-correcting.

The problem with this is that for the same size player base you have fewer characters spread out over all 30 levels instead of over how many the TUs would have limited them to. If the limit capped folks down to level or 20 or so you'd likely have a 5th, 10th and 20th from the same amount of play. Your veteran players can then fit into 3x more of 2/3 as many APL tables and, maybe, your writers are able to ignore the epic game for an extra year.

Retiring at 30 would be an ineffective method of self correction that wouldn't occur until sometime down the road. A sliding cap or even the spectre of running out of TUs at year's end helps squeeze the level ranges and probably has a positive effect on table composition within the first month.

When they sit down to discuss whether or not to include TUs in LFR, I hope they take the conservative route and strongly consider this method that has served LG well. Tweaking or relaxing precedures a year or two in will be alot easier to do than add them in after the fact. If TUs really don't work, they can throw open the gates with little adjustment but, once we slide down those slippery slopes and let the genies out of their bottles, the campaign is most likely saddled with some deeply established problems that have no easy fixes.

MatteBlack wrote:

The problem with this is that for the same size player base you have fewer characters spread out over all 30 levels instead of over how many the TUs would have limited them to. If the limit capped folks down to level or 20 or so you'd likely have a 5th, 10th and 20th from the same amount of play. Your veteran players can then fit into 3x more of 2/3 as many APL tables and, maybe, your writers are able to ignore the epic game for an extra year.

Retiring at 30 would be an ineffective method of self correction that wouldn't occur until sometime down the road. A sliding cap or even the spectre of running out of TUs at year's end helps squeeze the level ranges and probably has a positive effect on table composition within the first month.

But if people are only interested in higher level characters, TUs don't necessarily buy much. I can have 2 characters both high level - certainly after the first few years I could easily have a paragon and an epic level character. After the first few years, if my "secondary" character is still heroic level it will be because I hardly ever play them. If I hardly ever play them, it's kind of pointless isn't it?

Which is not saying that going up to level 30 (instead of 15) is not a concern if we need to have all characters within 4 levels of each other - that's simple math. Hopefully 4e will be more flexible on it's mix of character levels.

I assume I'll have multiple characters just like in LG. Not necessarily because I ran out of TUs but because I want to play different mods with different level characters.

Allen.

MatteBlack wrote:

The problem with this is that for the same size player base you have fewer characters spread out over all 30 levels instead of over how many the TUs would have limited them to. If the limit capped folks down to level or 20 or so you'd likely have a 5th, 10th and 20th from the same amount of play. Your veteran players can then fit into 3x more of 2/3 as many APL tables and, maybe, your writers are able to ignore the epic game for an extra year.

Retiring at 30 would be an ineffective method of self correction that wouldn't occur until sometime down the road. A sliding cap or even the spectre of running out of TUs at year's end helps squeeze the level ranges and probably has a positive effect on table composition within the first month.

I see no indication that the average player would play fewer characters if there were no TU limits. Most players will want to play as many modules as they can fit into there schedules, including those that are heroic rather than paragon or epic. Thus, they would still have the extra PCs that you think are enouraged by TU limits.

I see TU limits having more the effect of discouraging players from playing at all if they thing they are unfairly delayed from reaching paragon or epic while others are already playing such PCs. I don't think any likely TU limit will actually encourage many players to play additional characters at lower levels. It is the availability of adventures aimed at fifferent character levels that is likely to encourage this.

A TU cap will help keep levels even INITIALLY. But OVER TIME, a TU cap will make levels UNEVEN. If you have a TU cap on playing, then character advancement will be limited by real time. Veteran players are going to have higher level characters than new players after a few years pass. How will you avoid this?

By relaxing campaign standards on TUs a couple years in? But why should that even be necessary?

Continually release mods with different narrow bands of APL. Your 12th level character cannot play a mod if that mod is only for APL 2-4; your 12th level character will never be able to play that mod (barring killing the character six times deliberately). So you will use a new character.

I think there should be intro mods, APL 2-4 mods, APL 6-8 mods, APL 10-12 mods, and APL 14-16 mods, with adventures in a "series" being in increasing APLs.

You can plan your character's progression accordingly.

Even if you join late, and have a lot of mods to choose from, you know that if you play a LOT of different storylines with one character, that the character just won't be able to complete all those storylines because playing that many storylines will push the character out of APL for some of the storylines.

So you will STILL play different characters.

Newpaintbrush wrote:

A TU cap will help keep levels even INITIALLY. But OVER TIME, a TU cap will make levels UNEVEN. If you have a TU cap on playing, then character advancement will be limited by real time. Veteran players are going to have higher level characters than new players after a few years pass. How will you avoid this?

By relaxing campaign standards on TUs a couple years in? But why should that even be necessary?

Continually release mods with different narrow bands of APL. Your 12th level character cannot play a mod if that mod is only for APL 2-4; your 12th level character will never be able to play that mod (barring killing the character six times deliberately). So you will use a new character.

I think there should be intro mods, APL 2-4 mods, APL 6-8 mods, APL 10-12 mods, and APL 14-16 mods, with adventures in a "series" being in increasing APLs.

You can plan your character's progression accordingly.

Even if you join late, and have a lot of mods to choose from, you know that if you play a LOT of different storylines with one character, that the character just won't be able to complete all those storylines because playing that many storylines will push the character out of APL for some of the storylines.

So you will STILL play different characters.

I'd forsee this being a huge pain for convention organizers trying anticipate what their players will want to play but, it could work in alot of homeplay situations with regular playgroups. I'd certainly say the campaign should be creating more low level content than high to entice players to play alts with or without TUs.

As has been stated, if TUs were the only reason people created alternate characters people would only ever have two characters, with the second advancing a little slower but still inevitably getting higher. Which would eventually make it just as hard for new players ("Gee, I'd like for you to play but we only have 15s and 10s).

Newpaintbrush wrote:

Continually release mods with different narrow bands of APL. Your 12th level character cannot play a mod if that mod is only for APL 2-4; your 12th level character will never be able to play that mod (barring killing the character six times deliberately). So you will use a new character.

I think there should be intro mods, APL 2-4 mods, APL 6-8 mods, APL 10-12 mods, and APL 14-16 mods, with adventures in a "series" being in increasing APLs.

With the more gradual power increase it will probably be easier for people to play together. A first or second level character has a much better chance at APL4 or 6 of both surviving and making a contribution.

As I've said before, I think it'd be easier to have odd-numbered APLs. Why have both APL2 and intro mods (which give xp as APL 2) when you could just have APL1? And with the campaign just starting it's alot harder (read: impossible) to get a higher level person to knock your average level up as the standard mod text recommends.

Plus with the ease of monster adjustment (as seen in today's preview article) it should be possible for DMs to adjust monsters on-the-fly for tables.
For example, the table is an average level of 2 so the DM can take the APL1 monsters and add AC, attack bonus, damage and HP or take the APL3 monsters and reduce them.
Heck, modules could be designed for a single broad level range (1, 5, 10, 15, etc) and adjusted accordingly for each table. It could be a level 5 module playable by characters levels 1-10.

As I've said before, I think it'd be easier to have odd-numbered APLs. Why have both APL2 and intro mods (which give xp as APL 2) when you could just have APL1? And with the campaign just starting it's alot harder (read: impossible) to get a higher level person to knock your average level up as the standard mod text recommends.

Intro mods are supposed to be easier than regular mods, and are supposed to introduce the player to general aspects of the role-playing world. Regular mods are typically more focused. That's a reason for having a distinction between "intro mods" and "low-APL mods", I think.

As far as having mods at odd APLs, a party of 1st level characters can often handle an APL 2 mod with, say, guard dogs (25 gp each), oil (1 sp each), and lit torches (1 cp each). Not EASILY, perhaps, but it's quite possible. But then, if they were concerned about playing an easy mod, they could always opt to play an "intro" mod.

The even APL paired with the 3-levels or more from APL half XP/half gold system means that characters that are, say, 7th level playing in an APL 4 mod will get half gold and half XP. Odd levels (3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and so forth) are when many spellcasters gain a new level of spells, hence representing a significant power difference; the difference in this example is the presence of 4th level spells like empowered scorching ray and delay death at APL 4.

If you had odd APLs with a 3-level or more APL, an APL 3 mod would penalize a 6th level character for playing but not a 5th level. But a 6th level character is not THAT much stronger - sure, the 6th level character has another 3rd level spell, and has more equipment; definitely better than a 5th level character. But it's nothing like, say, having 3 more 4th level spells (for a 7th level cleric with domain spell and 18 Wisdom, or a 7th level specialist wizard with 18 Intelligence)

Plus with the ease of monster adjustment (as seen in today's preview article) it should be possible for DMs to adjust monsters on-the-fly for tables.
For example, the table is an average level of 2 so the DM can take the APL1 monsters and add AC, attack bonus, damage and HP or take the APL3 monsters and reduce them.
Heck, modules could be designed for a single broad level range (1, 5, 10, 15, etc) and adjusted accordingly for each table. It could be a level 5 module playable by characters levels 1-10.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the preview article.

--

As I wrote before, I think restricting each mod to a narrow band of APL is the best way to encourage people to have multiple characters of different levels. Still, MatteBlack's point that this could make things difficult for convention organizers is a good one.

I suppose it's back to the drawing board.

Newpaintbrush wrote:

Odd levels (3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and so forth) are when many spellcasters gain a new level of spells, hence representing a significant power difference; the difference in this example is the presence of 4th level spells like empowered scorching ray and delay death at APL 4.

You aren't thinking 4e, where we have been told spell llevels will equal caster levels (8th level spells at 8th level, 15th level spells at 15th level, eyc.), so your odd/even distinction won't apply. Spells that carry over from 3.5 D&D will have new levels in 4e. progression in power from one level to the next is supposed to be more uniform than it has been.

Newpaintbrush wrote:

Intro mods are supposed to be easier than regular mods, and are supposed to introduce the player to general aspects of the role-playing world. Regular mods are typically more focused. That's a reason for having a distinction between "intro mods" and "low-APL mods", I think.

True, but for the first little while ALL mods will essentially be intro mods to the game and region and storyarcs.

Newpaintbrush wrote:

As far as having mods at odd APLs, a party of 1st level characters can often handle an APL 2 mod with, say, guard dogs (25 gp each), oil (1 sp each), and lit torches (1 cp each). Not EASILY, perhaps, but it's quite possible. But then, if they were concerned about playing an easy mod, they could always opt to play an "intro" mod.

But there's no guarantee parties will be able to buy any of those. Or that hunting dogs will pose any challenge for a monster (they might be considered minions).

Newpaintbrush wrote:

The even APL paired with the 3-levels or more from APL half XP/half gold system means that characters that are, say, 7th level playing in an APL 4 mod will get half gold and half XP. Odd levels (3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and so forth) are when many spellcasters gain a new level of spells, hence representing a significant power difference; the difference in this example is the presence of 4th level spells like empowered scorching ray and delay death at APL 4.
If you had odd APLs with a 3-level or more APL, an APL 3 mod would penalize a 6th level character for playing but not a 5th level. But a 6th level character is not THAT much stronger - sure, the 6th level character has another 3rd level spell, and has more equipment; definitely better than a 5th level character. But it's nothing like, say, having 3 more 4th level spells (for a 7th level cleric with domain spell and 18 Wisdom, or a 7th level specialist wizard with 18 Intelligence)

Post above mine handles this nicely.
But a broad-band system that's adjustable could give XP for the exact APL and not just the closest of 2.

Newpaintbrush wrote:

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the preview article.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080418a