Community

Mar 4, 2010 -- 7:18AM, Uthrac wrote:

I'll pose the question back to you that went unanswered:  "What, exactly, do authors benefit from being able to play their own adventure?"  (i.e. How is not allowing them to play an adventure they have written a punishment?)

1. Play opportunities: The higher the tier, the fewer available adventures there are to play.

2. Ability to complete quest/story arcs: Author played parts 1 and 2 of a story arc. He then wrote part 3. His character cannot complete the story arc. Or worse: Author wrote part 1, and then can't get the full enjoyment out of parts 2 and 3 because his character wasn't involved in the story and he can't complete the major quest (and all the stuff that might come along with it).

Those are just some examples. One of my personal concerns is that the quantity of Epic tier adventures is supposedly going to be quite low. I'm very interested in both writing and playing Epic tier adventures, so I face a conflict.

Mar 4, 2010 -- 7:18AM, Uthrac wrote:

My concern is that - by the mere presence of the author at the table - the DM's authority comes into question.

But a player who has DMed the same adventure 15 times poses no authority problems?  What about if the guy is also the President of the local gaming club, and the owner of the store you're playing in?  I'd imagine that I personally steal authority away from every new DM I play under, just because I'm super experienced and have a really big personality (I don't own the store - imagine my influence if I did).  I tend to drag inexperienced DMs who get sidetracked or lost back into focus.  I'd imagine that I can be waaaay more intimidating than a mere adventure author would be.


I guess I have a hard time imagning a table of players repeatedly listening to a DM present a situation and then turning as one to the playing author for confirmation before going on.  It just seems ridiculous (and it also seems just as likely to happen if the author just happens to be in the same room but at a different table - if these hypothetical players are big enough jerks to ruin the game with the author at the table, why wouldn't they feel entitled to go interrupt a different table to pester their author).

Mar 5, 2010 -- 4:39AM, gomeztoo wrote:

Maybe we should hold a survey? There are likely other ideas for rules changes for which we migth want to know who would be in favor and who would be against - not to dictate how rules would be changed, but so that the globals can make informed decisions.

You won't get unbiased survey results by posting on the boards -- most LFR players I know don't even read 'em. Inserting a survey question into the adventure questionnaires would probably work OK, though.

Mar 5, 2010 -- 9:00AM, Newpaintbrush wrote:

@ Iorika:  Well, you end up with stuff like Auspicious Dice, so yeah, you could make the point that Dragon article writers might just be trying to make good stuff for their PCs.  But I'd say that's good, because we all want useful magical items anyways.  It adds to the value of Dragon and D&D Insider.  Anyways, if a Dragon item really IS ridiculously overpowered, it'll almost certainly get errataed.  (I in no way mean to discount the concerns Iorika brought up.  But WotC really HAS been pumping out those updates - I particularly enjoyed the March update.)

There's a difference between a ridiculously overpowered item/feat/power and an obscure one that would only be extremely useful for a very rare/specific build (presumably one of the author's characters).  For example I remember seeing at least one article for a class where several of the feats had a specific racial prerequisite (and the racial prerequisite made no sense for what the feat did).  It's since been errata'ed and maybe it was a typo or something, but I can see how an author of an article would be able to slip in something that could be very powerful for their characters and few other builds (and so would not necessarily stand out as "ridiculously overpowered, needs instant errata").  The Auspicious Dice were overpowered, but at least they were equally powerful for everyone.  Obviously this is an extreme example, but what if you could only use the Auspicious Dice if your character was a blue-eyed female Gnome Fighter/Warlock from the East Rift?  That'd be an entirely different story.

There are certainly things that could benefit the article author but not the community as a whole and the potential for conflict of interest is definitely there.

To clarify my points:  

"I think really, what you're concerned about is players and DMs being immature."
This is incorrect. Maturity has nothing to do with my opinion on this matter. While immature players are a subset of the issue, the larger issue of "Expert-at-the-table" remains, regardless of maturity.

"it's easy enough to "credit" the character playing the adventure for 0XP/0GP"
You have taken this quote completely out of context.  There is no "reprimand" or "cheating" here.  This is a proposed solution to the SPECIFIC problem of an author who wants the STORY. (Hence, no mechanical advantage.)  I have a much larger problem with an author who wants to PLAY a mod they've written because they are really interested in the STORY.  That's a simple conflict of interest.  If they are that interested in the story (and want to qualify for finishing the story in, say, part 3 of the quest), I was noting that I have no problem assigning "story-credit" to an author without playing the mod.