|
3 years ago ::
Feb 28, 2010 - 8:59AM
#81
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
If someone misses a few game days or has to judge a lot or is new to the group but comfortable with paragon level I'd let them create a character at whatever level the "high" level group is playing, or "gain" XP/GP to keep up with the group. This is very similar to what I would and have done with every home game I've ever been involved with over the years. It's also pretty much what the DMG recommends.
At the point that campaign staff decide that LFR will no longer offer heroic-tier modules, it will make perfect sense to let PCs start at paragon level.
Until we reach that point, however, it makes no sense at all--if players can start their PCs at paragon (or play one module and then get bumped up to paragon), they will, resulting in very little heroic tier play. It doesn't make any sense at all to put a lot of time and effort into producing heroic tier modules and then establish character creation guidelines to make them irrelevant.
I get that the campaign doesn't fit the type of gameday you want. Rather than taking steps which would (IMO) effectively destroy the campaign to get you the type of gameday you want, I would suggest that a better option would be to either change the way you do your gameday or change what you're offering.
If what you want is effectively an ongoing home campaign, you may want to simply shift to offering a home campaign on your gamedays. If your players would rather play LFR instead of a home campaign, then perhaps you should consider why that is the case, and whether changing LFR to be more like a home campaign would thus be counter-productive.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 28, 2010 - 8:59AM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
To me a group of characters that continuously play together is much more "living"
Whereas to me this sounds like a home game.
In my world, one of the aspects of a Living game, which was true even in LG to a lesser extent, is that it is a group of players (a wider group than 5-7 people at one table) that continuously play together that defines a living game.
The setting and story come at you almost at a meta-level. You absorb the story as a single thread at a player level, not individual story threads at a character level. You embrace the abstraction of the system (no, 5000 groups of adventurers did not individually turn in separate Black Knights of Arabel - it happened exactly once) and place the PC you are playing right now into the story as a whole, not just that PC's part of the story.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 28, 2010 - 9:10AM
#83
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
lorika, the problem you're describing (and that others have) is either a feature of the game or it is a problem with the amount of XP being given out.
Having played multiple PCs in a past campaign (LG) I don't approach the "army of PCs" situation as a problem. Far from it. I tend to get bored playing the same kind of PC (the diplomat, or the defender, or the rogue (archetype, not class)) and need to play other things. Thus, having multiple PCs is a good thing for me, as it allows me to try out different characters, different classes and different play styles.
Of course, I don't play so frequently that I have 10 characters, nor many of them above 4th level. I believe my total at present stands at 5 PCs actively played (as in the last three months) with a couple of others ready if I need them at level 1.
The problem of PCs needing to go on the shelf if you're playing a lot (versus the PCs being on the shelf because they don't play enough) is that there's a lot XP being thrown around in LFR. A PC can reasonably level twice every 5 games if they play up (and less if you add in SPECs and ADCPs which are slightly over XP). Which, let's face it, most people do. Thus, in theory, one PC should be able to play all the games that come out in one year (if you're willing to wait for them because they come out at differing levels). But I'm betting they would actually level out and be unable to play some of the games at each tier because of the amount of XP being thrown around. They might even level out of the campaign entirely (18th) before playing all the mods released in the year.
You mentioned that 4E gives out too much XP ... and I will only say that LFR gives out way too much XP. So making PCs of random levels isn't going to help ... except to make XP irrelevant. Which some might see as a good thing. Certainly if the mods weren't XP capped anymore, I think writers might be able to throw in more of a challenge ... for some. ;-)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 28, 2010 - 10:08AM
#84
|
|
|
To me a group of characters that continuously play together is much more "living"
Whereas to me this sounds like a home game.
If by "home game" you mean a game where I can role-play a character, get to develop in-depth interactions with my fellow adventurers, build a personal story, feel like I'm part of a living, breathing world ... then yes. I want LFR to feel more like a role-playing game than a roll-playing complex magic tournament where my "deck" (character build, powers) changes every mod. It's why I play D&D.
Allen.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 28, 2010 - 12:11PM
#85
|
|
|
lorika, the problem you're describing (and that others have) is either a feature of the game or it is a problem with the amount of XP being given out.
Having played multiple PCs in a past campaign (LG) I don't approach the "army of PCs" situation as a problem. Far from it. I tend to get bored playing the same kind of PC (the diplomat, or the defender, or the rogue (archetype, not class)) and need to play other things. Thus, having multiple PCs is a good thing for me, as it allows me to try out different characters, different classes and different play styles.
Of course, I don't play so frequently that I have 10 characters, nor many of them above 4th level. I believe my total at present stands at 5 PCs actively played (as in the last three months) with a couple of others ready if I need them at level 1.
The problem of PCs needing to go on the shelf if you're playing a lot (versus the PCs being on the shelf because they don't play enough) is that there's a lot XP being thrown around in LFR. A PC can reasonably level twice every 5 games if they play up (and less if you add in SPECs and ADCPs which are slightly over XP). Which, let's face it, most people do. Thus, in theory, one PC should be able to play all the games that come out in one year (if you're willing to wait for them because they come out at differing levels). But I'm betting they would actually level out and be unable to play some of the games at each tier because of the amount of XP being thrown around. They might even level out of the campaign entirely (18th) before playing all the mods released in the year.
You mentioned that 4E gives out too much XP ... and I will only say that LFR gives out way too much XP. So making PCs of random levels isn't going to help ... except to make XP irrelevant. Which some might see as a good thing. Certainly if the mods weren't XP capped anymore, I think writers might be able to throw in more of a challenge ... for some. ;-)
Then maybe a good solution would be for LFR mods to give out less XP. I'd be fine with that. (Assuming, of course, that that doesn't mean all mods become less challenging... Many of the mods are too easy as it is because mod writers are restricted in the amount of XP they can use.) Having the entire LFR world leveling much less quickly could solve many of the problems already stated. For example, it would be easier for organizers to arrange games and find PCs in the same level band because people wouldn't vault from one tier to the next so quickly.
Unfortunately I don't think such a change would work too well if it was implemented this late into the campaign. The damage is done. People already have dozens of characters each all at really high levels. This has already disrupted the continuity and story and living aspect for a lot of players. Unless all the old mods got instantly retired (which I doubt will happen and would cause a lot of outcry), a lot of people would still want to play the old mods just to get the high XP rewards. Maybe it would have worked fine if this was how the system was designed for the beginning.
I agree that sometimes it's nice to not always be playing the same character. Sometimes it's nice to play around with a different build or try something new for a change. But it'd still be nice to be able to play 1 or 2 primary characters and then have several back-ups. There's a big difference between having a dozen characters that you (and each other player) have to constantly rotate through and having a small handful of characters. Personally it's hard for me to get into and enjoy my PC of the week that's constantly changing. There's also a big difference between playing lots of PCs because you want to and playing lots of PCs because you "have" to (i.e. otherwise you couldn't play). I know, I know. No one is forcing anyone to play LFR. But I'm not too fond of a system that says "If you want to play a lot of D&D you have to make a bunch of different characters, otherwise just don't play - and don't complain."
I've found that people who are happy with how LFR is working are the ones who play a moderate amount of it (or DM frequently, or whatever). I think the people that are most frustrated (myself included) are the ones that play so much they end up with a dozen characters (and maybe only really like half of them). My group finally gave up and turned one of our weekly LFR days into a home-campaign. We still play a lot of LFR, but not as much as we did before. I've found that I like LFR a bit better now that I'm not playing it constantly. Maybe that's the solution. Maybe people should just play less frequently. 
Lori Anderson
WotC Freelancer, LFR author
@LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author)
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author)
CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author)
QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author)
EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author)
TotalCon: http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 28, 2010 - 12:55PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
LFR awards xp consistent with the design rate for 4e and WotC R&D (and Marketing) for some strange reason want us to run D&D as they intend. The WotC marketing team believes, based upon their market research, that the target market demands quick progression, quick rewards, and a typical campaign lifetime (read attention span) is 1.5 to 3 years. Those considerations drove the design of 4e, and therefore the design of LFR. It is hard to make one campaign meet the needs of all manner of gamers and venues. Obviously a home campaign DM may make adjustments which better suits that particular group of players.
Starting PCs at a higher level may seem like a reasonable fix, but the reality is that will not help high play rate players advancing PCs out of playable adventures (eventually to Epic and retirement) and who will need more PCs to sustain the play rate. That is simple math. The amount of time you play each PC will actually shrink, particular as I think the rate that Epic tier adventures roll out may be slower.
A strong emphasis for LFR has been providing good on-ramps for new players and I have doubts that encouraging them to take a short cut to paragon tier will generally provide a rewarding outcome. If that is good, would having PCs start at 30rd level, for a E3 three-round adventure, at the end of which your PC is retired be better? So options to add flexibility for particular game events may have undesirable consequences in other ways.
IF LFR is given a 1-2 year notice of campaign termination, then I foresee serious consideration of closing down heroic tier play (as experience teaches the number of new players for a campaign being terminated drops significantly) and starting PCs at the base level of paragon. Not a promise by any means.
However, the campaign staff has been recently encouraged to think more about how to increase the story content/continuity/focus of the campaign. What changes the Global Administrators will direct to move towards that goal are as yet unknown to me.
Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 28, 2010 - 1:59PM
#87
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2005
|
Bah bring back TU's and bring back regions and meta-regions.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 28, 2010 - 2:24PM
#88
|
|
|
Having the entire LFR world leveling much less quickly could solve many of the problems already stated. For example, it would be easier for organizers to arrange games and find PCs in the same level band because people wouldn't vault from one tier to the next so quickly.
I don't think that would actually make a real difference. While it might seem like an improvement at first, the people with more mods under their belt will still eventually level out of the level band and then the with less mods would need to play even more mods to also level out of the band.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 28, 2010 - 2:37PM
#89
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
Bah bring back TU's and bring back regions and meta-regions.
To solve what problem?
TUs were created to force choice, between adventures and downtime activities. LFR has no downtime activities and with the rapid rate of level advancement, limiting adventures does not seem to have merit.
While the in-crowd of LG who liked and were egaged in their region's activities no doubt felt that paradigm was wonderful, it was seen in a negative light by those who did not care for their region, or for those with poor performing regional admins (triad), it was a barrier to new players, and it limited play for each (regional and meta-regional) adventure. WotC did not like those effects. Some regions also had quality issues, but that was not an outcome of being a region, but rather because there were so many regions, so many adventures, that the decision had been made to let them go unpaid and unreviewed by WotC.
All choices involve consequences, including unintended or undesirable consequences.
Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 28, 2010 - 6:50PM
#90
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I want LFR to feel more like a role-playing game than a roll-playing complex magic tournament where my "deck" (character build, powers) changes every mod. It's why I play D&D.
Same here. And to show just how different people's interpretations can be, this exact quote pretty much sums up my "no higher level PC creation" argument. lol
|
|
|
