Community

Mar 1, 2010 -- 11:49AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

This is why I keep close tabs on all LFR authors and play only builds that mimic theirs. This way I am assured optimal item placement. Finally it is confirmed and I have now won D&D. Yay

I am looking forward to see your sub-optimal tiefling bard at our tables then :P

Mar 1, 2010 -- 1:15PM, Uthrac wrote:

I'll voice my opinion against authors playing in their own mods . . . .

(1) As a judge, I'd personally be uncomfortable with the author sitting at my table.  His/her vision may not match mine, and it causes a potential source of conflict.  I have less difficulty with someone who has judged the mod, since my interpretation and theirs may differ - and there may not be a "better" interpretation between the two.  Not every author can/should be trusted to "play nice," and while I'd have no problem with dkay at my table, I'd rather not open the door for potential problems.

(2) I don't see what the author "gains" from playing their own mod. Treasure-bundles aside (I don't care), if the goal is to see how someone else interprets/runs your work, setting up a game day as a senior GM and observing (passing-by) seems like it would do the trick, in a less direct way.

To summarize - I have no ethical problem. I just don't see any benefit to the author physically playing at the table, vs. the potential conflict with the table judge.  

It's nice to see another perspective. I can see the concern of number 1 above. I guess that's between the judge and the author. I remember co-running IMPI1-3 Lost Souls with Ray Nagle (he ran the mod, I ran the combats) and watching him utterly changing not just the way some NPCs are portrayed, but some raw facts of the module. I bit my tongue at first, but I think he actually made it better... I think every author has to accept the fact that DMs are going to take their mods and make them their own - and that's the whole idea behind LFR and DME. I'd actually prefer it if I were playing a module I wrote. The one thing I can't stomach is when DMs go off-script and then complain that it's too easy/difficult because of what they changed, but that's another topic.

Regarding number 2 above, I can think of a few scenarios:

- As has been stated by the admins, we have a pyramid effect with level bands, where we have tons of low-level adventures, but very few adventures available at the upper echelons. Authors writing adventures for the upper echelons begin to face a quandary where there isn't enough content for them to play. I've spoken with two authors recently who have refused to write P2/P3 adventures because they want to be able to play as many of those as possible.
- Authors are often given the opportunity to write an adventure for a critical story arc. By excluding themselves from playing it, they are unable to get the most out of the story arc with their PCs, or are unable to complete major quests. Just recently, when asking if he could be involved in writing a particular mod, my author friend said "wait, is this in the XXX plot arc? Nevermind, you're on your own - I want to be able to play that with my  because I played ."
- Many authors write adventures that they themselves would enjoy. It stands to reason that they'd enjoy playing them (maybe).

Mar 1, 2010 -- 1:15PM, Uthrac wrote:

(1) As a judge, I'd personally be uncomfortable with the author sitting at my table.  His/her vision may not match mine, and it causes a potential source of conflict.  I have less difficulty with someone who has judged the mod, since my interpretation and theirs may differ - and there may not be a "better" interpretation between the two.  Not every author can/should be trusted to "play nice," and while I'd have no problem with dkay at my table, I'd rather not open the door for potential problems.

(2) I don't see what the author "gains" from playing their own mod. Treasure-bundles aside (I don't care), if the goal is to see how someone else interprets/runs your work, setting up a game day as a senior GM and observing (passing-by) seems like it would do the trick, in a less direct way.

To summarize - I have no ethical problem. I just don't see any benefit to the author physically playing at the table, vs. the potential conflict with the table judge.  

Hmm, but what if the table judge finds it amusing? Use DME to slightly change the mod.
Fellow player: "Dave, why did you make the NPC who hired us a French mime? And why do all the bad guys have English accents?"
Dave: "I didn't write that in the mod!"
DM: "No using knowledge of the mod, Dave."
 

Mar 1, 2010 -- 11:49AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

Mar 1, 2010 -- 11:38AM, Thanlis wrote:

I dunno, I kind of feel like anyone with that much paranoia would assume that authors conspire with each other. "Ha, Sean put that item in for Dave's PC!"

HAH! I just  KNEW it!!!11!

This is why I keep close tabs on all LFR authors and play only builds that mimic theirs.

I am saddened to report that imaginaryfriend has gone missing. We will shortly purge all of his posts. Please forget his existence.

(just kidding)

Interestingly, I do welcome other authors telling me what they want to see in mods. Not because I will reward them with the item, but because authors have often gone through a lot of trouble to think about good/balanced items at various levels. I have at least a score of items I considered for SPEC2-1 P2... that might be useful to another P2 author. In addition, knowing what their PCs like is useful information. I regularly ask any playtest group that I run (even for other authors) what they might want at this tier. I examine the ideas, then suggest any that might fit the adventure itself. If you look at SPEC2-1 P2, for example, you will see they largely fit the theme of the adventure. The item I suggested to Dave and Nick for CORE2-1 fit the theme, and they used it (I didn't take it, though I might have if I had played it early in that PC's P1 career).

On the overall topic, I think it would be cool to play your own adventures. As I raised in the CCG 2.0 thread, I think it needs to be clarified in both the writer's guidelines (so authors know) and CCG (so everyone knows). I know at least one author that has played their adventure thinking they could. (There is no written rule on the subject).

I do think it is best to have a "more gold only" rule. This prevents deliberate seeding. Sure, you can get items in other ways, but this just seems like a strong incentive for an author to pick "their" item over "an" item. Now, if the admins want this as a reward to authors for doing the work, then they should let authors choose items as a boon. For CORE1-14, to save time, I pretty much used my list of stuff my PCs would want... with the full knowledge I was pretty much ensuring I would not see these items in any other mods (since authors try to avoid duplicating) and thus hurt my chances of ever seeing them (which is ok).

The only other issue really is that of DMs being intimidated by authors. But, to be honest, I suspect most authors would only play their adventure when they know the DM or players and thus it would be pretty non-intimidating. Or, it might be when no option is available. You volunteer to fill a table... oh, it is your own mod... you explain it to the DM and life is good. If I were running something for another author I would just accept that they will likely be amused by something I do and that they will also be fine with that.

Mar 1, 2010 -- 5:53PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Mar 1, 2010 -- 1:15PM, Uthrac wrote:

I just don't see any benefit to the author physically playing at the table, vs. the potential conflict with the table judge.  

For me, I've twice written for the "new" tier. It means my PCs are a bit behind in getting to enjoy the new tier. All my buddies play, but I can only judge. They would run it for me if they could. It isn't a huge deal, as eventually more of the new tier is released and I am never noticeably behind. It is just a minor issue initially... I would love to play another P2 adventure, but mine is one of three.

Amen, brother. This is the kicker for me as well. I'm always writing for the highest tier available and thus, suffer from limited play options at that tier (which is what I want to be playing).