|
5 years ago ::
Nov 18, 2008 - 9:50AM
#31
|
|
|
I cannot think of an LFR-specific rule that we have not discussed since the initial discussions of the form and function of the campaign. Everything that is said is taking into consideration. However, some decisions are made at WotC and are not in the hands of the admins. We do not have the time to debate every point of every issue.
Thanks,
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
Point acknowledged and understood.
If this is actually due to a WoTC mandate there isn't much that can be done (although that does not mean that they might not also revisit their decisions if the point were made appropriately by the RPGA admins). But it's not my place to tell you guys how to pick your battles. Of course, your answer didn't say that this issue was a WoTC call, only that some issues are WoTC calls.
Regardless, my own perspective, based upon too much time spent on internet forums over the years (including several years moderating the BioWare NWN forums) is simple: I try to make the merits of my point heard by those capable of making decisions, and once my views have been acknowleged my work is done.
Thank you.
Carl
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 18, 2008 - 9:57AM
#32
|
|
|
Questioning a rule is a separate issue from following the rule. Whether or not you agree with the rule or think it serves any desirable purpose, you are required to follow the rule.
Indeed, bad rules should be enforced more strictly than good rules--it's the only way that those making the rules will ever feel any pressure to change them. In the same way that, if the answer to bad modules is "Well, just judge empower everything away", any pressure to write good modules disappears, if the answer to bad rules is "Well, we'll just ignore them", then any pressure to write good rules disappears, because you never see any negative impact from them.
You can follow a rule while still questioning its validity.
I agree. If I was not concerned with following the rules, I would just go and do what I wanted to do and not bother with making my point heard.
My point is that I see this as an issue that will end up working, perhaps subtly, to the detriment of the current incarnation of the RPGA* and thus I think it is a rule that is worthy of being changed.
However, as I stated in my last post, my point has been heard (whether it has been understood cannot be judged from the formulaic response, of course, so I can only hope for the best) and there is nothing more to be said at this time.
However I will end this with one final note: I predict that this issue will be back to bite us all next Gen Con. Although I am done with this subject for now, I reserve the option to revisit this issue following GenCon Indy 2009.
Carl
*Even if only because bad rules are frequently ignored and once DMs/Players start ignoring bad rules the barrier drops to start ignoring the good rules. Think of it as a gateway infraction.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 18, 2008 - 4:14PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
Seems like this thread has wandered away from the original poster's issue, but let me offer a few comments.
To the best of my knowledge, the designation of the strict, narrow (4 level) level ranges was set by WotC R&D. Certainly none of the LFR campaign staff had input, although much discussion did occur.
When I first was told of that rule, I quickly recognized potential headaches which it would give event organizers (aka Senior GMs). I still have some concern, but this is a cost/benefit type of rule, and they feel the benefit of the sweet spot play experience outweighs their view of the downside.
Initially, before I understood 4E as well as I do now, I advocated STRONGLY that we expand the level ranges. That was not accepted, and now that I have written adventures, seen the play, etc. and deal with scaling adventures, scaling the adventure does have limits. So I am no longer pushing for the wide level ranges as I originally did.
Please do not assume my words have fully captured the WotC decision making on this rule (or other such rules). I am sure my understanding is limited.
So now I am focused on constructive ideas on how to plan and run a con featuring LFR to meet the gamers desires (or at least most of them).
If DDXP and later other cons, such as Origins, Gencon, and Dragoncon demonstrate there is a major problem due to the strict, narrow level ranges of adventures, then I think that is likely motive for WotC to reconsider their course of action. Gnashing of teeth before then is not real likely, IMHO, to change anything.
Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 18, 2008 - 4:19PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
OK, I'll concede this point. Partially. By intentionally targetting the convention at those who have higher level characters (from their website: "This show is aimmed [sic] at the range of characters from 4th to 10th level") they have filtered the community and discouraged those who do not have characters of that level from attending. Thus they have created a situation where the majority of those expected to attend that specific convention will have higher level characters. And they are certainly within their rights to target their convention at whomever they wish.
But this does not mean that these 'experienced players with higher level PCs 'are necessarily the majority of con-goers. For example, as a (very long-time) member of the RPGA, I often attend cons (not as many per year as I did in the '80s/early '90s unfortunately), but until the past year (when two of my players decided to become Heralds and start DMing) I never played LG or LFR outside of conventions (although I occasionally DMed it). We played our own campaigns. Thus (excepting those campaigns with level kicks) my characters were always 1st level at conventions (and I sometimes had to play at a much higher APL and sometimes I died because of that). So to assume somehow only those with higher level characters bother to attempt conventions is at best oversimplistic.
Regardless, my question again is: Is this a good idea for the hobby or the organization? Is intentionally making those with lower level characters feel as if their presence at a major RPGA convention is unwelcome a good idea? Or should we instead be looking for ways to bring in more people - to expand the hobby rather than to shrink our audience?
But D&D Experience is a side issue and thus tangential to the rule question.
Again, if a rule change of this nature (allowing, at the DM's option, those who lack a lower-level character to take their chances and play a higher level adventure fairly) expands those options - is this not an idea at least worthy of consideration?
Ummm. I think there is a major (and basic) mis-communication here.
Your posts are apparently based on the assumption that ALL future conventions are going to automatically target the higher level bands of PCs. My response is based on DDXP being a single point on a line, with experience playing at a recent large local convention that both had scheduled mods in plenty for both level bands 1-4 & 4-7; and was able to work with groups deciding what module they wanted to play "on the fly" as it were.
2 slots on Thursday, 3 each on Friday and Saturday, and 2 more slots on Sunday, not counting Midnight Madness on three nights; and, for the most part, there were games available in most, if not all, slots for LFR PCs in either level band, high level adventures permitting.
I know that, when an LG slot failed on me, I was able to join in to a low-level adventure with my 1st level fighter without a problem. The con had plenty of attendees, lots of games, and still managed to run modules for at least 3 different Organized Play campaigns, LG, LFR & PSS.
IMO, really, the place where the strictness of the level bands will most come into play is at Game Days, which, for me at least, are my only source for LFR games other than conventions at this time. And my interest at the last convention was in LG rather than LFR, since it was probably my last chance to play my LG archer PC.  Our November Game Day doesn't even have an LG mod scheduled now, much less the chance of finding a group of LG players with characters around the same level interested and able (no replay rule, after all) to play in the same module...
My current LFR "stable", after all consists of 3 played PCs, in a total of 6 mods, and a bunch of unplayed PCs, with only one of my PCs higher than 1st level...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 18, 2008 - 5:27PM
#35
|
|
|
Seems like this thread has wandered away from the original poster's issue, but let me offer a few comments.
To the best of my knowledge, the designation of the strict, narrow (4 level) level ranges was set by WotC R&D. Certainly none of the LFR campaign staff had input, although much discussion did occur.
When I first was told of that rule, I quickly recognized potential headaches which it would give event organizers (aka Senior GMs). I still have some concern, but this is a cost/benefit type of rule, and they feel the benefit of the sweet spot play experience outweighs their view of the downside.
Initially, before I understood 4E as well as I do now, I advocated STRONGLY that we expand the level ranges. That was not accepted, and now that I have written adventures, seen the play, etc. and deal with scaling adventures, scaling the adventure does have limits. So I am no longer pushing for the wide level ranges as I originally did.
Please do not assume my words have fully captured the WotC decision making on this rule (or other such rules). I am sure my understanding is limited.
So now I am focused on constructive ideas on how to plan and run a con featuring LFR to meet the gamers desires (or at least most of them).
If DDXP and later other cons, such as Origins, Gencon, and Dragoncon demonstrate there is a major problem due to the strict, narrow level ranges of adventures, then I think that is likely motive for WotC to reconsider their course of action. Gnashing of teeth before then is not real likely, IMHO, to change anything.
Keith
Thank you for this additional insight into the situation.
As noted, I am content that the point has been given consideration by the RPGA at least and will reserve comment until after GenCon 2009. At that time, we will see how things work out.
One related concern is that I would not be surprised to see a significant number of players sign up for, and pay for, events despite lacking a character of the appropriate level. While one might expect players to read the event descriptions and be appropriately prepared, based on prior experience I have no such expectation. So a mechanism to handle such players will have to be developed over the next few conventions (and such a mechanism may well be a half-dozen standby judges ready to DM band 1-4 adventures prepared just for that purpose).
But of course DMs are always in short supply so that approach is problematic in itself.
Another option would be to allow a 'fast-play character', but to mark such a character on the DM record sheet in such a way that the character does not actually receive experience. In other words, you can either play the adventure as a living character or as a fast-play character - but not both.
But I'll leave such exercises for the adminstrators....
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2008 - 7:46AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2007
|
Not to mention my own particular perspective on the hobby (it's only a game and as long as fun is had by all, it doesn't matter what happens - even if what happens is death)...
This is the best advice available on these boards right now...and I think 99% of all concerns can be addressed by this statement.
The concept of cheating in what is supposed to be a cooperative game experience is difficult to fathom for me...but then again perhaps bragging rights are more important to others than they are to me.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Nov 26, 2008 - 9:03AM
#37
|
|
|
Thanks to everyone for the advise.
In the end, I canceled the event in the system and I will re-order the event when everyone is 4th or higher so they get credit for it, but only after everyone is already 4th.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 01, 2008 - 11:57PM
#38
|
|
|
This is a particularly interesting topic for me as a GM with a diverse gaming group that is invested in the LFR setting.
My problem is related to this, but is not at the extremes discussed by the more vocal fringe participants (i.e., twinking up, or other types of active cheating). My problem is that the characters played by the various people in my gaming group do not rise at the same levels. . . two of the players are regulars, and always attend. They are already at level 3 while the other characters from other players with reduced attendance are early level 2 (folks with more demanding jobs and family obligations).
Extrapolating the rates of attendance through the next six low-level modules, I expect I will have a set of two L5 characters, three L4 characters, and three less-commonly appearing L3 characters between the eight members of my group. I generally have five people show up each week, so if I can field a team that meets the requirements of four minimum legal level characters, I would like to play the higher level module, and have whichever L3 guy also attend.
Note that these players are all very experienced gamers, tacticians, and role-players, and we have had zero deaths to date despite playing the high-level version of all modules since the first two. This is a relevant note because I do not believe the L3 will be under particular stress to survive, and will still be able to participate in a meaningful way (i.e., not cowering under the cleric's tunic the whole adventure).
Based on the discussion here, it seems that this would be "fine" so long as the L3 guy didn't pick up any high level loot, and so long as the other module rewards were not used. Playing a low level (1-4) module would be out of the question (we will have two L5s), so the high level (4-7) is simply going to have to be the proper solution in order to keep challenging the core members of the group.
All in all, this makes sense to me as a "fun and challenging" path forward to address a likely problem in the near future. Thank you all for assembling a spirited discussion on the many issues surrounding this topic.
RTM
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 02, 2008 - 12:12AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
RTM,
Unfortunately, that solution is not LFR legal.
The "correct" solution would be for the two most dedicated players to build and play a second character.
Given how much they play, it seems likely that the secondaries would be running up to 4th level fairly quick, as well.
Downside: They are unable to keep playing the same character (for maximum XP soakage) all the time.
Upside: They can play with a totally different character, both race and class, including options that have come out since they started their original characters.
Remember that the replay rule would allow the frequent gamers to play in the same module again with the folks that weren't there the first time with their alts. It allows a lot more flexibility.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2008 - 1:19PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2006
|
Agreed, I"m coming to terms with realizing that there simply will not be enough modules for dedicated players to play the same character all the time. The level 5 and 3 problem will likely rear its ugly head in a month or so for my playgroup as well. At some point, they will have to roll up a secondary character anyway, so its better to convince them now when it benefits the group than to do it later when they are level 7/8 (or 10/11) and the don't have a choice.
|
|
|
