I can best answer this question with another question. If you played an adventure two months ago with a person who really caused you to have a terrible time at a table, and you ended up seated at a table with that person again tomorrow, how would you handle it? Assuming that playing with a replayer, in your opinion, is going to be equivalent to playing with someone who you are absolutely sure is going to completely ruin the experience for you, then I would handle the former case in the same way you would handle the latter, whatever that might be.
Shawn
Well I'd see their name on the warhorn site and would avoid the table as much as if the blurb said 'James don't play this mod'. That's assuming that only one table was running.. with multiple tables of the same thing running you have more options.
But the key being is that you know ahead of time, and with this I don't see how I'm going to know until the slot is underway. Then you're in the place where you could break a table by walking, and even if not are likely aren't going to find a slot to play in and at best only annoy the poor overworked musterer.
And yeah I see playing with a replayer as being, at best, playing with someone that I know isn't going to be as involved in the module as the average other person. You don't think it will detract from the table?
But yeah, I just can see mustering being a pain and it being more prevalent than people I'd actively avoid otherwise. Mind you I've traveled to most North American regions in LG over the years and the number of people that I would avoid at a table I can count on one hand. If replay is going to be less frequent than that then there's no point in even allowing it..
If you sit down at a table and one or more of the people have played it before, then you have the option to leave.
I find that one of the strangest comments: how does that solve anything? Now, the eprson that already played the mod can play it again, but the person that didn't can't? Ther are various reasons that I woudl try to avoid replayers. It doesn't have to do with trusting players (I know there are jerks, I am not assuming most player are), but with the inherent difficulty to ignore foreknowledge even if you try. It depends on thea dventure, of course. If most adventures are dungeon crawls without much surprise this won't be a problem, but I don't anticipate that they are - I expect many will have investigations, plot twists, etc., some of which may be hard to ignore. You can play dumb, but that may not be fun either. Another fear may be that the DM changes the module beyond recognition to accomodate the replayer, in such a way that it doesn't match up with the overarcing plot line (i.e. a DM turns an important local PC ally into a villain). We may have to wait and see how this pans out - it may turn out to not be as bad as some people fear it will be. But just because there are benefits doesn't mean that those with concerns are suddenly jerks. They are valid concerns - hopefully they turn out to be unfounded.
I find that one of the strangest comments: how does that solve anything? Now, the person that already played the mod can play it again, but the person that didn't can't?
The point he's making is, if it bothers you that much, you don't have to sit at that table. In LG I have not sat at tables because of a DM or player I refused to play with. Sometimes it meant I had to try to pick that scenario up at a later date.
The point is, the choice is up to the player. If a replayer would bother them that much, then they can not sit at the table and play it some other time. Maybe not right then, but that is entirely their decision. No one is forcing them to walk away.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e?
1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
So it goes back to if you do not want to replay an adventure, you do not have to. Nobody is forcing anybody to replay. So how does that ruin everything?
Those of you who know me from conversation here, other groups, in RL, or on OpenRPG know that I'm a stickler for sticking to the rules of the game and the campaign. I'm the guy who doesn't play on OpenRPG because we have an obsolete 5-day rule that HQ doesn't address. I'm the guy who thinks a mod is burned/eaten when ordered. I'm the guy who thinks games need to be played on the day they are ordered. It won't surprise you that I have a knee jerk reaction against the replay option. It may surprise you to see that I've reconsidered that through the course of writing this article.
As I see it, there is no problem in people making their own choices about how to play when those decisions are homogeneous or irrelevant to the group as a whole. That is, when everyone is making similar choices, there is no problem, regardless of who another group of players is choosing. Folks are stating that it is a choice to replay. If it isn't stated, it is being implied that one player's choice is independent of another's, to the point of people starting to talk about mustering along replay vs. non-replay lines.
It is very clear that this decision is not homogeneous. Some have talked about the RPGA experience being odd due to the lack of replay. Others welcome the replay opportunity. Others see it as a necessary evil. Some might have their arm twisted to replay. Others state they won't. Others have called it the reason for abandoning RPGA. Clearly there is a heterogeneous response along a broad spectrum.
Is it relevant whether some players replay and others don't? Yes, it is. However, the issue is effectively a variation of character optimization. In other words, I suspect that there is a high level of correlation between those who are complaining about the issue and those who otherwise complain about character optimization. I don't think this is the only issue and will address the idea of excellence below.
Role playing games are at their their best when there is a reasonable balance in character development, such that all players contribute. This doesn't mean that all characters are equally effective in combat. Rather, it means that all players have an opportunity to participate in a manner that they see as being important to them. There is a statement that is uses alot in elementary education these days: "Fairness is not everyone getting the same thing; fairness is everyone getting what they need." This is a statement that is made in an industry that puts tremendous thought into the issue of tolerance and diversity.
The issue has been presented both in terms of "I don't want Joe to spoil my experience," and "I don't want Joe to unduly get the Widget of Doom." The first speaks to the sociology of the gaming experience. The second speaks to balance and character optimization.
As far as spoiling the experience, I'm expecting this to play out as change in the mustering culture. Everyone sits along a spectrum about replay and this will play out in terms of convention mustering. In homeplay and smaller groups, it will have variations of that. Everyone will find their place in a diverse landscape. They will welcome the experience, reject it, or compartmentalize it as they see fit. There will be unfortunate experiences in which players get screwed by the player-who-can't-help-but-tell in the same way as there are differences now. We'll learn to find our niches in the new landscape. As always, those who are more particular will have fewer niches.
There have been what I consider some false distinctions made, "Do you think so poorly of your fellow gamers...." The fact is, I think highly of my fellow gamers as intelligent and creative people. I also recognize that there are those who thrive on knowing (and telling) that the widget is gotten by the ritual of fubar. It isn't one or the other. The folks that cheated will continue to do so. The folks that spoil mods will continue to do so. The folks who contribute to an excellent game will continue to do so. The issue, whether minor or acceptable is to be determined, is that it is now ok to obtain and act upon spoiler info. It is no longer a no-no. So, is that a problem? I'll get back to that.
So what about "Joe getting the Widget of Doom?" This comes down to a variation of character development. If player A never replays, and player B always replays, player B will have the stronger character due to having more choices. This is fact. While there isn't a competition, this may negatively affect player A, and I'm not seeing this as being accepted. The reason is that player A may have the most optimal character he can have without replaying, and it will still be less than player B. Which introduces the question of competition vs. balance.
This isn't a tournament. No one wins an RPG. However, the play experience does depend on balance, with the caveats stated above. I don't consider this opinion; I consider it fact. I stipulate that characters who were optimal early in LG became obsolete in terms of combat contribution due to the resources unleashed via later rules sources, most specifically MIC. It highlights, makes more common and more extensive, the variance that is effectively character optimization. Replay from the perspective of the Widget of Doom is character optimization.
So, this brings us to excellence of RPG experience. LG suffered from problems in balance. There is a "worst table..." conversation that has been ongoing in the LG board since Origins that is effectively a balance issue. Some folks like optimization, and others just wanna play from time to time. "Joe unduly has the widget of doom" is a character optimization issue, and speaks to balance.
This is a biggie: LG only suffered from a balance issue because DMs were hogtied regarding content. Striving for a common experience meant striving for the same encounter. That is gone. Read that again. That is gone. The new LFR standard is that the DM is empowered to make the experience what the players want. I haven't seen a boilerplate or campaign standard yet, but every indication is that if a DM surrenders responsbility for a bad game to the author, he isn't taking responsbility for the game. If fully expect that I'll screw it up until I make the transition, and I fully expect to take responsibilty when I do. The balance issue is gone.
This leaves us with excellence. My first response to the replay rule was a negative one. I have always seen the RPGA as striving for excellence in the RPG gaming experience. It is the reason I joined and contributed to LG as an author and reviewer. I am concerned that this focus has been lost in merely seeking to promote a fun game. I mentioned this recently on OpenRPG and the reply was, "I hope so..."
Any game can be fun. I expect more from an RPG campaign, and I expect more from the premiere RPG organization, the RPGA. I expect not only a fun game, but the best RPG experience that can be had in terms of imersive experience, wallowing in the rules, and excellent social experiences. I do think that this rule abandons the idea that there can be a best RPG experience. Instead, I think that this has been replaced with the the idea that there can be the best RPG experience that an individual can have, with the caveat that includes the diverse exposure to players.
So, we're no longer striving for the best experience, objectively. Instead, we're striving for the best experience for each of us, subjectively. That isn't comfortable. For me, this means a big change in mindset; I no longer know what is best for my players. I'll struggle with that. I hope I'll get there. I hope I'll get there without abandoning what makes the DMing experience important for me, or which makes me an effective DM. Ultimately, we are in a time of transition that calls on each of us to open our minds to change.
So, is it ok to validate obtaining spoiler information? I do think this takes away from the RPG experience and it will color my PoV in the choices I make about the games I play and DM. I do think it takes away from the excellence of the RPG experience. I also think it only does so for those who (edit: removal or brain-o "don't") care.
Quite frankly, it is only the freedom of the new viewpoint that even gives me the room to think that this is acceptable, and I've poo-poohed those who have adopted this point of view prior. Call me a late adopter. Better late than never.
I can understand people's apprehension as this is a huge paradigm shift, and essentially makes LG and LFR as different from each other as LG and Xendrik Expeditions are.
I have seen the first few LFR mods, and there is a lot of LG mod insert 4th edition monsters going on, but thats a function of having the same writers as LG just doing the same thing.
But these mods are going to change-when you have 4 mods a year one of two things is going to happen-1)the best mods are going to be picked or 2)the regional writing director is going to pick his mods and those of his select group.
The best mods are going to have replayability built into them as a consideration. Writers are going to put pen to paper and think "how can I make this more fun for replayers?" The mods will reflect this and the mods will get better, and the overall experience will be better. The contributors are good, and want to do good, it's going to be great.
I read "Lean Times in Lankhmar" for the 20th time last Friday. It was better than the 19th time I read it.
Well I'd see their name on the warhorn site and would avoid the table as much as if the blurb said 'James don't play this mod'. That's assuming that only one table was running.. with multiple tables of the same thing running you have more options.
But the key being is that you know ahead of time, and with this I don't see how I'm going to know until the slot is underway. Then you're in the place where you could break a table by walking, and even if not are likely aren't going to find a slot to play in and at best only annoy the poor overworked musterer.
And yeah I see playing with a replayer as being, at best, playing with someone that I know isn't going to be as involved in the module as the average other person. You don't think it will detract from the table?
But yeah, I just can see mustering being a pain and it being more prevalent than people I'd actively avoid otherwise. Mind you I've traveled to most North American regions in LG over the years and the number of people that I would avoid at a table I can count on one hand. If replay is going to be less frequent than that then there's no point in even allowing it..
-James
There is mustering. Now instead of just asking people what level and class of characters people are playing, you throw in the "have you played this mod before?" question. It is not some great secret. But if they answered no to you and then revealed to GM that yes they had, I could see an issue. Frankly though, if they were willing to lie to you about whether they have played or not, I think the replay is the least of your problems. So while organizers cannot disallow players because they have played before, no one is mandated to have to sit down to a table with a replayer. This is the same as with any other reason you choose not to sit down with someone. Be it you know they've cheated in the past, or they are loud and obnoxious, or just personal reasons of you don't like somebody. Personally, I not found many men that can play female characters. I just don't like playing with those people. Yet I have played in several mods where such a person was. It did not ruin my whole experience. I ust played and tried my best to not let it bother me. And low and behold, I don't really remember the character's actions during the mod as much as the mod itself. I may remember who that player was on a mental note so as to try and not sit with them again.
The question was posed of what does this solve? Everything. While the player who has not played may walk away from a table because there is a replayer at the table, that is a choice. This is just the same as if Joe Obnoxious were to be at a table and you walk away. You have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them and know when to walk away.
There is mustering. Now instead of just asking people what level and class of characters people are playing, you throw in the "have you played this mod before?" question. It is not some great secret. But if they answered no to you and then revealed to GM that yes they had, I could see an issue.
The question was posed of what does this solve? Everything. While the player who has not played may walk away from a table because there is a replayer at the table, that is a choice. This is just the same as if Joe Obnoxious were to be at a table and you walk away. You have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them and know when to walk away.
What is to be determined is who has the cultural imperative to walk away? The guy who refuses to play at a table with a replay or a guy who is replaying? In actuality, this will vary and a DM should solicit a converstation. Why the DM rather than the players? Because he's the guy most likely to run into it. Accept a new responsibility. He's also the guy who should provide parameters to the replayer (and thus the character most likely to affect the experience for the others). If there is no consensus, defer to the Sr. DM. (Hi, guys!)
I've asked on Chris Tulach on the main RPGA board if there are more changes for the RPGA General Rules, which affect issues like the ability for a senior DM to refuse play to a player who is a replayer (currently the answer is NO) at a no replay table, 5-day order, etc. There has been no-reply as of yet, and I hope there will be one as time allows.
I have seen the first few LFR mods, and there is a lot of LG mod insert 4th edition monsters going on, but thats a function of having the same writers as LG just doing the same thing.
I don't know what you mean here. LG mods have varied wildly in how they were set up, and so will LFR mods. These plots will have to comply with one single constraint: the play-in-4-hours limit. This will affect how they are set up, and I expect there will be few other criteria that are that 'fixed', though I hope each adventure will have internal consistency, a good story, and interesting encounters.
The best mods are going to have replayability built into them as a consideration.
No. The best mods will have, as I wrote above, internal consistency, a good story, and interesting encounters. I expect few - if any - of the WDs will make exceptional effort to make adventures replayable. If it so turns out that an adventure is replayable, that is fine, but I, at least, will not weigh it in favor. In fact, if you make it a priority, your risk having the adventure suffer. Can you replay 'The Prospect'? I guess you can. There are some elements that can be spoiled, but nothing big. To try and make it specifically replayable would be a pain though, and means removing any amount of surprise or trickery, which would almost make it impossible. Almost all adventures that are coming in the Dalelands pipeline have surprise elements, some big, some small. I am not going to remove these because people wish to replay. The DM and replayer should sort that out.
Almost all adventures that are coming in the Dalelands pipeline have surprise elements, some big, some small. I am not going to remove these because people wish to replay. The DM and replayer should sort that out.
I agree with this sentiment.
I see replay as a necessary evil; something that, if allowed, fixes more problems than it creates. It's not something mod authors should necessarily cater to. Like all other things you can do within the RPGA rules, it comes with an implicit "... as long as you don't be a dick and ruin the game for everyone else." clause. People replaying a mod should, to the best of their ability, be RPing their appropriate level of character knowledge of events.
Or, to put it another way: Let's say there's a mod where players are hired by Duke Benedict to do a mission, finding out at the end of the mod that the Duke is actually a bad guy and set them up to do something wrong. A replayer who says "Aha! I know the Duke is evil and stab him right away" because he played the mod before and knows how it ends, is as much of a dick and should be shunned as much as the player who does the same thing because a friend of his played it the day before and told him how it ends.
I see replay as a necessary evil; something that, if allowed, fixes more problems than it creates. It's not something mod authors should necessarily cater to. Like all other things you can do within the RPGA rules, it comes with an implicit "... as long as you don't be a dick and ruin the game for everyone else." clause. People replaying a mod should, to the best of their ability, be RPing their appropriate level of character knowledge of events.
Or, to put it another way: Let's say there's a mod where players are hired by Duke Benedict to do a mission, finding out at the end of the mod that the Duke is actually a bad guy and set them up to do something wrong. A replayer who says "Aha! I know the Duke is evil and stab him right away" because he played the mod before and knows how it ends, is as much of a dick and should be shunned as much as the player who does the same thing because a friend of his played it the day before and told him how it ends.
On a more personal side, I felt like I ran into more mods that had ironic twists or whatever at the end than I cared to. I never found being tricked, especially in stacked deck situations as often occurred, to be enjoyable. I am fine with them occasionally throwing in one to keep folks honest and from being too trusting but, I often felt like I was always waiting for how the party was going to be screwed at the end by some "diabolical" ruse that was nearly impossible to have discovered. If this new policy reduces those types of endings, you won't find me crying over it.
