Community

Sep 14, 2009 -- 1:58AM, Madfox11 wrote:

As a devil's advocate: do we really care if the table plays high challenge and some PCs get low rewards (assuming both low xp and gp, and only provide low treasure bundles IF those are found*), especially if the group does so to loose a bit of xp to stay on an equal level with the group? As far as potential things to do to loose xp, this is really minor. After all, the PC could also "sleep" through an encounter, arrive  little bit later or die on purpose to achief the exact same effect.  * If you play up, you usually do not find the low-tier treasure bundles and hence cannot claim them.

If staying in the same bracket is the objective, is it possible to get the XP, and not level up when you have enough experience? Say after a mod, your character would go from 4->5 but your buddies are still 4's and you want to play a 1-4 bracket adventure. Could you simply choose not to level up your character?

Sep 14, 2009 -- 1:58AM, Madfox11 wrote:

As a devil's advocate: do we really care if the table plays high challenge and some PCs get low rewards (assuming both low xp and gp, and only provide low treasure bundles IF those are found*), especially if the group does so to loose a bit of xp to stay on an equal level with the group? As far as potential things to do to loose xp, this is really minor. After all, the PC could also "sleep" through an encounter, arrive  little bit later or die on purpose to achief the exact same effect.  * If you play up, you usually do not find the low-tier treasure bundles and hence cannot claim them.

I really don't have a problem with that. If you want to play high but receive all low rewards so as to advance less quickly, that seems fine.

This is similar to another question: Do we care if the table plays high and the one or more PCs want the "LOW" magic item pick?

Personally, I think the LOW pick should be ammended in the rules to be allowed for the high tier. I have trouble really thinking it is a huge deal (you are usually close enough in level to be able to afford buying the Low item, which is probably preferable), but a number of people wanted this flexibility.

Taking a step back, I wonder if the question of staying at the same XP level is primarily something newer groups experience. I mean, either these people really play at different rates (and thus will end up in different tiers of play no matter whether you play low) or they have a periodic case of missing a mod (in which case getting Low rewards might help, so long as you don't miss many sessions). But, as soon as you miss more than a couple of games, you have to have the rest of the group play Low a lot to catch up.

I wonder if, for most of the players that play frequently, the real answer isn't to change Adventuring Company rules such that you can have more than one PC in the same AdCo, and thus the players in an AdCo can stay together and not worry about playing different PCs. (Because, as soon as you drop down or rise in level a bunch, you can't possibly play with the rest of the AdCo).

I was hoping ADCP1 would bring AdCo issues to the forefront, but instead it seemed everyone just dealt with fictitious AdCos being created/joined so everyone could play.

It could be cool. If you had real AdCos that you could actually be a part of, and you had your group page on the WotC site, and you had a couple of ADCP mods, and you could have a high score posted somewhere...

And really, many like grouping together anyway. We want to create some shared history. You don't need rules for that. The current rules are actually counter to the concept.

"Hey, let's all be part of the Sundered Hall and take care of the East Rift! Oh, darn, I adventured too much and have to not see you all anymore. Sorry."