Community

Aug 23, 2010 -- 8:49AM, Festivus wrote:

Is it really that difficult?  I'd love a adventure where there was less combat, more roleplay opportunities, and longer skill challenges.  Those are not everyone's cup of tea but I am just saying, I can predict when everyone is going to use their daily powers in almost every single LFR adventure I play in (that isn't a MYRE)

CORM 1-5 (H1 adventure) is an adventure you should try then.

I need to remind myself not to use infinitives.  Yes, I did play that one and enjoyed it.

Aug 23, 2010 -- 8:32AM, Kurald_Galain wrote:

campaigns. For example, the RPGA could prohibit carrying three identical items to get around a "once per day" or "once per encounter" usage limit; this is never an issue in any home campaign that I'm aware of, yet some people abuse this in RPGA.

I think the new item rarity rules will fix some of this.

Aug 23, 2010 -- 8:35AM, Painlord wrote:

One of my frustrations is that I don't know or understand the relationship between the Global Admins and WotC and want a clear foundation upon which we can build a truly living campaign. 

Yes, we are currently working on an Administrators document that spells out what the abilities and responsibilities of all of the campaiagn volunteers are and how those people are reviewed. Once finished, we will post it for all to see, just like the Writers Guidelines and the CCG.

As I have mentioned here and there, I very much look forward to the "reboot" of LFR, and really do hope it's a good fit for me.

Things that I want to see include follow up to dangling plot threads from year 1 and year 2, real uses for story rewards other than this guy/girl helps in skill challenge, place magic item bundles which will have definite uses in later area adventures like lunia's bracelet for werecreatures or boots of swimming for lots of underwater combats, and finally on time adventures for PRIVATE PLAY.

Aug 23, 2010 -- 8:49AM, Festivus wrote:

Is it really that difficult?  I'd love a adventure where there was less combat, more roleplay opportunities, and longer skill challenges.  Those are not everyone's cup of tea but I am just saying, I can predict when everyone is going to use their daily powers in almost every single LFR adventure I play in (that isn't a MYRE).

If you ask whether or not we are going to remove the minimum of 2 combat rule in the writing guidelines: unlikely. The generic group wants those fights.

Of course, I still love to ask Imaginaryfriend about the time where his group was being slaughtered in the first fight, and one of the players asked whether it was a good idea to use the daily or not since it clearly was not the last fight. I love seeing the steam coming from his ears Sometimes the first fights are the more lethal ones So I fully understand were you are comming from.

Aug 24, 2010 -- 5:39AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Of course, I still love to ask Imaginaryfriend about the time where his group was being slaughtered in the first fight, and one of the players asked whether it was a good idea to use the daily or not since it clearly was not the last fight. I love seeing the steam coming from his ears -snip-

Yeah I noted you take great pleasure in reminding me..  To be clear, I was in fact DM-ing the table and they were in dire straits when the particular player posed that question. I may have overreacted a little, but I still maintain some fire was warranted and I am still very happy that I was not alone in my ehm, shall we say..annoyance. Most of the other players were also of a "say WHOT???" state of mind.

As for the topic at hand. Less predictability to counteract some of the more obnoxious meta gaming is a good GOOD thing.

Aug 24, 2010 -- 6:27AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

Aug 24, 2010 -- 5:39AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Of course, I still love to ask Imaginaryfriend about the time where his group was being slaughtered in the first fight, and one of the players asked whether it was a good idea to use the daily or not since it clearly was not the last fight. I love seeing the steam coming from his ears -snip-

Yeah I noted you take great pleasure in reminding me..  To be clear, I was in fact DM-ing the table and they were in dire straits when the particular player posed that question. I may have overreacted a little, but I still maintain some fire was warranted and I am still very happy that I was not alone in my ehm, shall we say..annoyance. Most of the other players were also of a "say WHOT???" state of mind.

As for the topic at hand. Less predictability to counteract some of the more obnoxious meta gaming is a good GOOD thing.

Hmm... Reduce metagaming, watch certain people go crazy every convention... I don't know... tough choice...

honestly, i play in a group that bounces about 20 people around tables. we've played together for a year or more, and have played several mods multiple times each (different characters). even though we know how the encounters are made, by using the +/- characters rules (adding & removing creatures) and hi/low rules, we can tailor mods to be challenging. 

As opposed to changing rules, how about we change players:

Extreme Character Optimization (to the edge of rule breaking) is prohibited.
DM's who simply through creatures at the PC's w/o being tactical are banned

These 2 simple changes would put the challenge back into 4E more than any rules changes. 

Yeah, I think this is more of a matter about adapting player habits rather than changing game rules.

The weak monster damage for paragon and above has been fixed in MM3 and mods will surely take that into account from now on.

At one of the local game stores, the organizer asked people who wanted to play their optimized characters and mainly enjoyed the fighting side of D&D to identify themselves (I think by placing Tactical next to their names on warhorn) to make sure that they get paired up with similar players/DMs.  Likewise, those who wanted to mainly RP or wanted to de-emphasize the combat side of things were grouped together. 

Now, most people didn't bother to identify themselves with one camp or the other, preferring a mix of both, but it did help to group players and DMs of similar playstyles together and everyone had more fun.

Aug 24, 2010 -- 10:56AM, CdrcJsn wrote:

Yeah, I think this is more of a matter about adapting player habits rather than changing game rules.

The weak monster damage for paragon and above has been fixed in MM3 and mods will surely take that into account from now on.

At one of the local game stores, the organizer asked people who wanted to play their optimized characters and mainly enjoyed the fighting side of D&D to identify themselves (I think by placing Tactical next to their names on warhorn) to make sure that they get paired up with similar players/DMs.  Likewise, those who wanted to mainly RP or wanted to de-emphasize the combat side of things were grouped together. 

Now, most people didn't bother to identify themselves with one camp or the other, preferring a mix of both, but it did help to group players and DMs of similar playstyles together and everyone had more fun.

Oh, where was that?

Aug 24, 2010 -- 5:39AM, Madfox11 wrote:

If you ask whether or not we are going to remove the minimum of 2 combat rule in the writing guidelines: unlikely. The generic group wants those fights.

Madfox/Skerrit--  I hope that when the document that outlines the powers/responsibilities/whatever is released we can go back over statements like this.   While I believe and understand that some people lurve the fighting, I don't know why there needs to be mandated combat in any mod.  Or mandated skill challenges.

I believe modules will be better, funner, and more unique when authors have more freedom to create.  After we have a clear understanding of what we can do *THEN* decide, as a community, if we want to have a generic 2 combat rule or 6 combats or no combats, rather than have it decided by Admin fiat.

I would like to have discussions, as a community, that includes mandatory skill challenges in mods, what magical equipment is allowed, what new content is brought in, etc.  If you're telling us that this campaign is being run by volunteers working with the community, then let's make sure that happens.  

I understand the need for 'combat' mods, but why can't we have roleplaying mods?

I shudder to think of a campaign wherein mods like "Madhouse" cannot exist.

Thanks.

-Pain

 Even in the Madhouse, there were combat elements, even if there was no true combat.

In any case, combat represents approximately 75% of the game content (per a WotC representative) and there truly is an expectation of combat in an adventure by players. I can't see a skill challenge-only adventure being sanctioned, especially as they still seem to be misunderstood by many DMs. There is still plenty of room for originality in the guidelines.

Oh and the Madhouse was one of my favourite LG adventures. Britt and I got into a pretty lengthy discussion about what a good DM could do with it - it's a crying shame he's too busy travelling the globe earning millions to still be involved in organised play.

Aug 25, 2010 -- 2:34PM, Surgebuster wrote:

In any case, combat represents approximately 75% of the game content (per a WotC representative) and there truly is an expectation of combat in an adventure by players. I can't see a skill challenge-only adventure being sanctioned, especially as they still seem to be misunderstood by many DMs. There is still plenty of room for originality in the guidelines. 

Mr. Buster--

See?  This is the kind of discussion we should have with the community rather than accepting an Admin or WotC representative fiat.    I just want a discussion after we figure out what we can and can't do before we re-boot this campaign.   It's pretty clear that the old structure wasn't working and a new one was needed. 

Players may expect combat because that's all we've given them...and if we continue to force-mandate 2 combat mods, then we really aren't exploring as we should explore nor giving players options and chances to see new types of mods. 

The Admins are trying to make LFR more storybased and 'living' and it seems silly to me to re-arrange things toward that end but stop part way.  

Am I wrong to want to give the community more input into how we re-build this?

-Pain

p.s.  I'm neither for all-combat or no-combat mods.   I'm for allowing authors to build really interesting and cool stories by eliminating both the restrictions on combat AND skill challenges.    Even moreso, I want the community to have voice into our direction rather than mandations of a few. 

Aug 25, 2010 -- 7:27PM, Painlord wrote:

Mr. Buster--

See?  This is the kind of discussion we should have with the community rather than accepting an Admin or WotC representative fiat.    I just want a discussion after we figure out what we can and can't do before we re-boot this campaign.   It's pretty clear that the old structure wasn't working and a new one was needed. 

Players may expect combat because that's all we've given them...and if we continue to force-mandate 2 combat mods, then we really aren't exploring as we should explore nor giving players options and chances to see new types of mods. 

The Admins are trying to make LFR more storybased and 'living' and it seems silly to me to re-arrange things toward that end but stop part way.  

Am I wrong to want to give the community more input into how we re-build this?

-Pain

p.s.  I'm neither for all-combat or no-combat mods.   I'm for allowing authors to build really interesting and cool stories by eliminating both the restrictions on combat AND skill challenges.    Even moreso, I want the community to have voice into our direction rather than mandations of a few.

I think the community has had and continues to have a huge influence on the campaign to date. I would imagine the dramatically increased presence of the Globals (myself, skerrit, madfox11 and soccerref73) on the both the LFR community forums and here might be evidence of greater engagement and consultation.

Provided everyone is understanding of the fact that we can't implement every idea (and we don't get unduly flamed for doing so), I can't see why that won't continue.

i would really like to see the difficulty of encounters addressed.  this does not need to be a lowest common denominator enterprise, do the modules "need" to be so easy?  i realize that there are some that are too hard out there, but nearly all of the 40 or so i've played have been too easy.

and in the too hard camp, the only ones i can think of that might have fit that bill was one in akunul with some harpy in a grainery or a mill or something and one i played recently with lava dragons that had minions attacking the lava dragons to trigger some insane aoe damage effect.  the second one was in fact insane btw, wildly beyond almost any parties hope to survive, and it was great that way.  the fact that we managed to pull it off mattered, there was a sense of accomplishment at the end.  making an effective character mattered.

Aug 25, 2010 -- 9:25PM, jsaint wrote:

i would really like to see the difficulty of encounters addressed.  this does not need to be a lowest common denominator enterprise, do the modules "need" to be so easy?  i realize that there are some that are too hard out there, but nearly all of the 40 or so i've played have been too easy.

Ask your DM to boost the challenge. Sorry, but for each player complaining things are too easy, there are two saying it is perfect and one that says it is too hard. In my experience increasing the challenge is a lot easier, and less obvious, then downgrading things, especially since you usually see how things are going on late in the fight.

Mind you, looking at MM3 and beyond monsters certainly have gained more power, so I would suspect the general level of difficulty is going to raise. Considering the reactions to D&D Encounters, I suspect to get a flood of complaints about things being too hard though. Dice, DM and players just have too big an influence on how the experience goes...

Aug 25, 2010 -- 2:34PM, Surgebuster wrote:

 Even in the Madhouse, there were combat elements, even if there was no true combat.

In any case, combat represents approximately 75% of the game content (per a WotC representative) and there truly is an expectation of combat in an adventure by players. I can't see a skill challenge-only adventure being sanctioned, especially as they still seem to be misunderstood by many DMs. There is still plenty of room for originality in the guidelines.

Oh and the Madhouse was one of my favourite LG adventures. Britt and I got into a pretty lengthy discussion about what a good DM could do with it - it's a crying shame he's too busy travelling the globe earning millions to still be involved in organised play.

Actually, Mr. Frey is closer than you might think. He's moving to Boston next month and is currently helping me with ideas for the Epic Plotline.

...oh and uh, yeah, combats are important. I'd never write a module without at least two per round. I've definitely learned a lot about skill challenges though. Authors feel the need to fill space with them. I find, if you can't find a good place for one, don't use one. Sometimes, however, they can be really great.

I would avoid playing any module with less than two combats per round. I care about story first and foremost, but combats are a close second (D&D is a strategic board game to me). I know that many players feel the same way (whether or not they choose to admit it).

Aug 25, 2010 -- 9:25PM, jsaint wrote:

... one i played recently with lava dragons that had minions attacking the lava dragons to trigger some insane aoe damage effect.  the second one was in fact insane btw, wildly beyond almost any parties hope to survive, and it was great that way.

I'm not sure if I'd call When Dragons Die insane, but the tactics in the first combat you reference did leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Spoiler: Show

Aug 25, 2010 -- 9:25PM, jsaint wrote:

i would really like to see the difficulty of encounters addressed.  this does not need to be a lowest common denominator enterprise, do the modules "need" to be so easy?

I say yes, they need to be easy. If LFR is meant for convention than the difficulty should be aimed at 4-6 random strangers who don't know each other's powers or tactics and might even lack some roles altogether.

I also deny that LFR is too easy. I found most mods just right and in the extremes I found more mods too difficult than too easy. I dread the MM3 damage expressions and will avoid them as long as I can.

Aug 25, 2010 -- 9:25PM, jsaint wrote:

making an effective character mattered.

And that should not be what the mods are aimed for, because the TPKs of the normal chars will be sooo much fun to the players without these effective chars.

I think I'm going to get banned for slow-motion spamming if I keep posting this every so often, but:

Please do not turn LFR into an arms race. If a certain subset of players needs to feel more manly, there are ways they can work with their DM to do that. Or, all else failing, they can not play LFR.

+1

It's important to take a step back when judging the challenge of LFR mods. The majority of people who post on these boards are sophisticated D&D players who have experience making effective characters (even, dare I say, broken ones). A significant portion of LFR players are either novices or do not have the free-time necessary to fine-tune their characters. The mods as-is are significantly more challenging for them.

Perfect example: There are three FLGS in my area that have LFR. One has mostly experienced players who universally find the mods easy. Another has a large population of novice players, and we hear TPK stories coming out of there frequently. A third is a mix. Boosting the challenge of mods across the board would have different effects on all three of these groups.

My group has combatted the problem by allowing the DM to scale a 4-person table up to 5 or 6 if the players desire a greater challenge. Perhaps a more standardized sanctioning of this practice or widespread adoption of the "glory tier" would be effective.

why are the people who want harder mods in the wrong?  or put differently, why do we cater to the people who want easier games instead of catering to those who want harder games?

rather than artificially increasing the challenge of module that was easy (and nearly all of them are way too easy), why not make them much harder, even unfairly harder, and instead artificially soften them for the crowd that doesnt want a challenge.

in short, why is what i want less important than what other people want.

and getting back to my original point, there are some things in the game that are 100% totally broken.  indisputably so.  so if wotc is unwilling to solve saving throw penalty stacking for example, why dont we.  this is a problem that is real, not a hypothetical build that is based off some obscure interpretation of RAW.  it is absolutely legal to break the system in half with saving throw penalties.

if it is legal for us to dissallow content from dungeon magazine, and we do, and it is legal for us to disallow dragonmark feats, and we do, why can't we solve this obvious and critical game balance issue!

Aug 26, 2010 -- 2:55PM, jsaint wrote:

rather than artificially increasing the challenge of module that was easy (and nearly all of them are way too easy), why not make them much harder, even unfairly harder, and instead artificially soften them for the crowd that doesnt want a challenge.

in short, why is what i want less important than what other people want.

Because, as Madfox11 already explained, it is much easier for a DM to scale the challenge of an encounter up, rather than down. Why? Because the way the game is designed makes the line between difficult and lethal very fine and once you overstep the mark, it is very hard to do anything but have the monsters wave the white flag to avoid a TPK. 

I hate to always bring this back to the DM and it may sound like common sense (but you know the adage about it not being that common) but if the adventure is properly prepared, the tactical challenge is often far greater. Maybe all your DMs are already prepped but in my experience, DMs often think they don't need to prep and that doing it on the fly is good enough - in many cases this makes adventures too easy because, you know, the whole preparation thing.

Yes, there are instances where adventures (especially the earlier ones) don't provide an adequate challenge but to quote Pieter again, for each player complaining things are too easy, there are two saying it is perfect and one that says it is too hard. As Global Admins, we do have a wider view of how the player base views the challenge and in all honesty, the heavily invested people that inhabit these boards aren't always the best gauge of the greater community.   

 

Aug 26, 2010 -- 2:55PM, jsaint wrote:

in short, why is what i want less important than what other people want.

If what you want proves to be a minority viewpoint, or if delivering what you want seriously damages the enjoyment of a large number of other players, that's what makes it less important.

I am wondering if we can remove the requirement to use Dungeon Tiles.

I know some LG authors who have decided not to write for LFR because
they are being forced to utilize Dungeon Tiles for all of their encounters.

Well, anyhow: I agree with Mirtek and Joshua Randall.

LFR should remain at a standard level of difficulty. And really that's not "easy"- PCs are still going to get hit and bloodied with regularity, and even killed, but at least the battles won't take so long and there will be less missing of attacks. I have to say it's annoying when you break into a new tier (let's say 7-10th, - you just hit 7th.. and the rest of the group decides to play it on high, and you find out you are missing with a 17 against a monsters weakest defense.)

The battles aren't the be-all of the experience!

For people that want things harder, they should play glory tier.

PS: I had not even realized that writers were forced to use dungeon tiles. I mean, as a DM I'm certainly not forced to use them.

Aug 27, 2010 -- 1:31AM, Dodecahedron wrote:

I am wondering if we can remove the requirement to use Dungeon Tiles.

I know some LG authors who have decided not to write for LFR because
they are being forced to utilize Dungeon Tiles for all of their encounters.

If you saw some of the maps I had to edit and rewrite during the LG days, you would understand why authors now use Dungeon Tiles. I'm talking combat maps with no gridlines, maps with rivers with no way to tell which is which, and the like.

Aug 27, 2010 -- 1:31AM, Dodecahedron wrote:

I am wondering if we can remove the requirement to use Dungeon Tiles.

I know some LG authors who have decided not to write for LFR because
they are being forced to utilize Dungeon Tiles for all of their encounters.

As an organizer and DM of LFR, I prefer the map tiles. It provides something that has a high quality look and when I am running in an open public location (i.e. Game Store or mixed convention) they catch the eye of people going by.  I have successfully turned some of those 'curious' people into 4e players due to this.

Surgebuster/Skerrit--

Admittedly, I've been trying to be patient as I've waited for a public posting of what the new agreement between the new LFR and WotC will be.   I have been asking about this ever since this needed process was started and I'm really hopeful for a positive outcome.

I am hoping for something like this:

1)  The Admins clearly explain the full agreement between WotC and the LFR volunteer staff for the community.

THEN

2)  The community and Admins can have open and frank discussions about what kind of new LFR we want to build and how we want to build it.

Is that correct or incorrect?  What would be more correct?   What is the new timeline for this (you last hinted it would be after GenCon)?

I would prefer transparency and open discussion in how decisions are being made...it'll allow more people to truly get involved and, in the end, bolster the feel for this "living" campaign.

I would like to have a discussion before we say that dungeon tiles are mandatory or not, or that we need to have a 2 combat minimum or whether to allow X powers from Dragon magazine.   I believe that all these things should be open for discussion or at least have a reason for mandations.

I'm not asking for answers on any of the above, but some thoughts on how you see the process happening.

Thanks.

-Pain

Aug 27, 2010 -- 9:22AM, Painlord wrote:

I am hoping for something like this:

1)  The Admins clearly explain the full agreement between WotC and the LFR volunteer staff for the community.

THEN

2)  The community and Admins can have open and frank discussions about what kind of new LFR we want to build and how we want to build it.

Is that correct or incorrect?  What would be more correct?   What is the new timeline for this (you last hinted it would be after GenCon)?

    It is somewhat correct. Our Writers Guidelines and Admin Document will cover some of what you want for number one, though I am not sure it will be as extensive as many posters desire (covering absolutely every contingency on what can and cannot be done). That said it will cover most of it. Each of the documents will go up for public discussion just like the CCG did (and as the next version of it will), and give you a chance to comment. As for generic discussions about the type of LFR we want to build, that ship sailed back in January when we brought our proposal to WOTC, so while there is some room for discussion, many of the general things (the story areas, the number of adventures, what the positions do, etc...) have already been decided. Remember that we are trying to get many monthes ahead of schedule for release dates of adventures and new initiatives, so we are beginning work on Q1 releases and DDXP things now, meaning that a lot of choices had to already be made . As for a timeline, I think you have already started the discussions, so you are doing it now. As for these particular documents that seem to be asking for, they will likely start to appear for public discussion in a month or two, depending on how fast we can get Q3 and Q4 things moving out the door (and how soon we get new product, like the Essentials books, which is a factor not under our control).

Aug 27, 2010 -- 11:51AM, Skerrit wrote:

Each of the documents will go up for public discussion just like the CCG did (and as the next version of it will), and give you a chance to comment. As for generic discussions about the type of LFR we want to build, that ship sailed back in January when we brought our proposal to WOTC, so while there is some room for discussion, many of the general things (the story areas, the number of adventures, what the positions do, etc...) have already been decided.

Thank you.

Excellent.  Then I'll go back to my near-silent vigil and await the release. 

I understand that the proposal on some items has been decided (story areas, # adventures, positions...), but still wonder what is covered in the 'etc.', but I suppose we'll see that when the document is out.  

Thanks again to all the Admins responding in this thread.

-Pain

Aug 26, 2010 -- 6:48PM, kenobi65 wrote:

Aug 26, 2010 -- 2:55PM, jsaint wrote:

in short, why is what i want less important than what other people want.

If what you want proves to be a minority viewpoint, or if delivering what you want seriously damages the enjoyment of a large number of other players, that's what makes it less important.

Annother reason is that if it's too easy for the particular players the only thing that happens until the DM notices it is that they have a too easy fight for some time.

However until (especially an inexperienced) DM notices that it's too tough for the players, there can be one or more dead PCs.

When LFR gets rebooted, will there be a mechanism that recognizes the accomplishments and skills of the better players?

Currently, as I perceive this campaign to be, a novice player can achieve the same accolades / story awards as the veteran / more skilled player.

I do not see a point in upping the challenge to a particular party if all parties are rewarded the same thing.  In a sense why work harder for the same reward.  We as people do not usually do that in real life, why have that kind of environment in the game.

LFR is great for what it is, a vehicle that brings people together and have some commonality as to the stories the players have played. 

LFR is horrible for those players that are looking for a sense of accomplishment.

Aug 27, 2010 -- 5:29PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

When LFR gets rebooted, will there be a mechanism that recognizes the accomplishments and skills of the better players?

Currently, as I perceive this campaign to be, a novice player can achieve the same accolades / story awards as the veteran / more skilled player.

I do not see a point in upping the challenge to a particular party if all parties are rewarded the same thing.  In a sense why work harder for the same reward.  We as people do not usually do that in real life, why have that kind of environment in the game.

LFR is great for what it is, a vehicle that brings people together and have some commonality as to the stories the players have played. 

LFR is horrible for those players that are looking for a sense of accomplishment.

I think post 22 here answers that

Since I am a short bus kid.... please elaborate why post 22 answers my question.

Thanks

Aug 27, 2010 -- 5:29PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

Currently, as I perceive this campaign to be, a novice player can achieve the same accolades / story awards as the veteran / more skilled player.

I do not see a point in upping the challenge to a particular party if all parties are rewarded the same thing.  In a sense why work harder for the same reward.  We as people do not usually do that in real life, why have that kind of environment in the game.

I get comments all the time about how my characters or I do at the table. I'm extremely team-oriented in play, willing to play a face(and roleplay diplomacy or lie through my teeth without funny voices), know what I'm doing tactically, and I play off-the-wall characters who are not in general cheesed out either with powers or items(but not suboptimal after I get through with them)

As an example, at GenCon, I was playing my Bard 14 at a random SPEC P2 table with all other characters being 16th. I turned two sure misses into hits with an interrupt, caused all kinds of misses with Mantle of Unity, left myself in the kill zone while getting another player's character out of it(not that the power would have worked on me anyway, but how many times do you see a random player willing to take the hit for someone they just met?) - by the end of the mod, they were singing the praises of how they loved bards. Also at GenCon, I ran into a DM of mine at another convention, mentioned how he had DM'd my bard at the convention, and he replied that my character had inspired him to think seriously about making a bard character.

Did at any time did I dominate a table with an alpha strike? No. Did one of my powers change the table in a completely obvious, table-dominating manner? No. But the other players and DM clearly wanted to let me know that they appreciated that I was at their table. That's something the novice player isn't going to get except in a 'you weren't as bad as we thought you might have been...'

That gives me more than enough sense of accomplishment. 

Kudos to Mommy on the tremendous post.

Aribeth, I understand your sentiment, but it might be worth taking a step back and re-reading your first post. D&D isn't about having the most skills (whatever that means) or getting more recognition or any of that. It's intended to be a fun, team-oriented game. It doesn't matter if you win. It doesn't matter if you're "better" than anyone else. It matters that you have a good time and that everyone else at the table does too.

If you're looking for a game where players strive for individual accolades, D&D isn't it.

LFR is focused on creating fun for the players; yes, every player regardless of skill level potentially can have the same amount of fun and that is the way it should be.  This is a game, not a competition.

WotC D&D Organized Play does offer some team competition (the D&D Championship games) where the teams can show who is better (at tactical play).  The RPGA used to offer (decades ago) a system of D&D adventures where the point was to show which player was better at role playing (which we sometimes call "classics").  Neither of those two approaches are anywhere as popular as a Living campaign format.  The market spoke; competition was not the winner.

D&D as a game system was always designed for a team of PCs working together against the baddies to achieve some goal; that uniqueness for "board games" drew me to D&D.  There are plenty of games where individual players are pitted against other individual players.

To some extent, even in LFR, there is some difference in outcomes if a given team does not perform well; obviously they may not acquire all the xp, gp and treasure if they fail to complete the adventure.  Although that outcome is infrequent, it does happen.  Perhaps you think that only the supreme players/teams should be successful in completing the adventure, but experience has taught me that most D&D players do not relish that degree of challenge and will not consider it fun to repeatedly "lose" by failing to complete the adventure. 

Keith

Aug 27, 2010 -- 5:29PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

When LFR gets rebooted, will there be a mechanism that recognizes the accomplishments and skills of the better players? -snip-

Such a mechanism would require someone deciding who those better players are. Be it DM, Author, Admin, this will always lead to the situation where someone feels hard done by.
I can hear it already; "I did not get the badge of awesomeness, the DM screwed me! My PC obviously did the most damage/had the highest intimidate/was the most quirky/stuck to his alignment/yada yada yada...". 
There is simply no such thing as "the better players". Sure, there are players I personally would consider good, better, best and worse or worst. But that is just my opinion, using my personal preferences. No doubt you and everyone else do the same using again a personal set of preferences to weigh others accomplishments. There is no agreement on what those factors should be and thus it is impossible to determine "the better players".
To be honest the whole concept sounds fairly arrogant and elitist to me. Finding your own sense of accomplishment as mommy so eloquently describes seem to be more worthwhile then getting some sort of artificial acknowledgement from the living campaign.

Aug 30, 2010 -- 4:19AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

There is simply no such thing as "the better players".

The best player is the one who does not ask for recognition that he or she is the best player.

One just has to look at the outcry of players who felt cheated because they couldn't go to conventions and get the exclusive race creation cards like Orc, Gnome, Shadar-Kai, etc.  And that wasn't even tied to someone arbitrarily deciding "who the best player is."  That's a recipe for disaster.

On difficulty: I think the key here is having good information on scaling the encounter that DMs can use. For example, when I prep with my other judges for D&D Encounters, we come up with 2-3 changes they can use to scale the encounter difficulty. This is actually fairly similar to what is found in the Glory Tier sections of the Specials, but with the changes being far less drastic. For example, we might suggest in a mod that to increase difficulty you add a fog that adds a penalty to ranged attacks, plus replenish fallen minions as needed. To reduce difficulty we might remove some difficult terrain on an access point, and reduce the damage dice by one type on some of the creatures (d8 to d6).

The reason this is important is because DME rules don't actually allow these types of changes. Either we need to change DME rules to be a bit more permissive or we need to make more suggestions. The benefit of changing DME rules is that you give control to the DMs (but you might end up with some sad tables under unfair DMs). The benefit of writing it into mods is that you can hopefully leverage the author's perspective to come up with reasonable suggestions (but they often will not be playtested). It is ideal to use factors that can easily dissipate if the tables turn. For example, stopping the refresh of minions once the battle becomes challenging.

On Dungeon Tiles: We have covered this many times. You don't have to use dungeon tiles as DMs. Most pro DMs will use a battlemap. The dungeon tiles are an option and help standardize terrain and also promote WotC product. That is good.

On recognition: If there is good story, that should provide all the recognition you need, because the PCs will feel like heroes. If you need personal recognition of how amazing your PC is, then this is likely the wrong campaign. You should be in either a more player-driven campaign or a smaller campaign where you can "prove" yourself against a smaller pool of players. Or, play things like delves where you can easily see your capabilities rewarded. In most living campaigns it does not mater if you destroyed an encounter with incredible cheese, barely made it to the end, or never reached that encounter because you were having too much fun RPing and the slot ended. What maters is that you had fun.

On number of combats: I've played in living campaigns like Shadowrun, Spycraft, and Legend of the Five Rings where there can be no combats. L5R particularly had roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of all adventures without any combat at all. This was great because often the setting really worked well with RP challenges and time spent on things like cultural niceties (pouring tea, discussing clan topics, searching for clues, maneuvering politically). However, it does not really work well for LFR. While it can be ok periodically, even the few I saw in LG would leave players dissatisfied. D&D just really is a game where combat is expected. Two per mod seems right.

The only exception I can really make is the Fey series that Eric Menge wrote. Those mods to me are really good examples (in LG) of how you can have the possibility of combat but the rest is so imaginative and engaging that players skipping combat don't miss it. It is a very rare author that can pull that off!

Aug 26, 2010 -- 3:40AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Aug 25, 2010 -- 9:25PM, jsaint wrote:

i would really like to see the difficulty of encounters addressed.  this does not need to be a lowest common denominator enterprise, do the modules "need" to be so easy?  i realize that there are some that are too hard out there, but nearly all of the 40 or so i've played have been too easy.

Ask your DM to boost the challenge. Sorry, but for each player complaining things are too easy, there are two saying it is perfect and one that says it is too hard. In my experience increasing the challenge is a lot easier, and less obvious, then downgrading things, especially since you usually see how things are going on late in the fight.

I guess I'm surprised that people think it's easier for the DM to make a combat more challenging than it is to make it easier.  I would think it'd be the opposite.  I don't have tons of DMing experience, but it seems that it'd be much easier for the DM to tweak a combat to make it less challenging.  The easiest thing is for the monsters to use less optimized tactics - not moving into flanks, provoking when they shouldn't, honoring marks even though the defender is impossible to hit, not using certain powers as soon as they recharge, "forgetting" to use that annoying immediate interrupt, not attacking PCs when they're down, not including the entire party in area attacks, saving an action point for the next round even though the PCs are perfectly positioned now, not having all 3 of the Flameskulls act on the same initiative (especially if all the PCs are still in the "PCs start here penalty box"), etc. 

I can think of a ton of ways to make an encounter easier.  But to make an encounter harder, to me, sounds like a much more difficult task for the DM.  What do you do?  Just increase the damage dice the monsters use?  Make up some extra powers for the monsters?  Throw in extra monsters?  An experienced DM could probably properly ramp up the difficulty of an encounter without making it too hard.  But it seems like it would take much more DM skill. 

The other nice thing about adjusting things to make an encounter easier is that it's simple to ramp up the difficulty again.  For example, in my very first LFR DMing experience, I almost had a TPK in the first fight I ran (EAST 1-1).  Something like 4 out of 5 of the PCs were down and dying.  Nervous that the fight was too hard for the party, I pulled a punch or two.  To my surprise, the one round I eased up on them was enough time for them to heal some party members up and then they proceeded to easily slaughter all the monsters (turns out that none of them had used any action points or daily powers earlier, which is why the fight was so difficult).  At that point I stopped pulling my punches again, but by then it was too late for the monsters. 

It just seems much easier and more natural to figure out how to reduce the difficulty of an encounter than increase it.  (Also, I think DMs are generally more inclined to adjust encounter difficulty to avoid a TPK than to avoid TMS - total monster slaughter.)  Or are we just worried that it will take the DM too long to figure out that the encounter is too hard (i.e. near-TPK) before toning it down?

Aug 30, 2010 -- 1:17PM, lorika wrote:

Aug 26, 2010 -- 3:40AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Ask your DM to boost the challenge. Sorry, but for each player complaining things are too easy, there are two saying it is perfect and one that says it is too hard. In my experience increasing the challenge is a lot easier, and less obvious, then downgrading things, especially since you usually see how things are going on late in the fight.

I guess I'm surprised that people think it's easier for the DM to make a combat more challenging than it is to make it easier.  I would think it'd be the opposite.  I don't have tons of DMing experience, but it seems that it'd be much easier for the DM to tweak a combat to make it less challenging.  The easiest thing is for the monsters to use less optimized tactics - not moving into flanks, provoking when they shouldn't, honoring marks even though the defender is impossible to hit, not using certain powers as soon as they recharge, "forgetting" to use that annoying immediate interrupt, not attacking PCs when they're down, not including the entire party in area attacks, saving an action point for the next round even though the PCs are perfectly positioned now, not having all 3 of the Flameskulls act on the same initiative (especially if all the PCs are still in the "PCs start here penalty box"), etc. 

I can think of a ton of ways to make an encounter easier.  But to make an encounter harder, to me, sounds like a much more difficult task for the DM.  What do you do?  Just increase the damage dice the monsters use?  Make up some extra powers for the monsters?  Throw in extra monsters?  An experienced DM could probably properly ramp up the difficulty of an encounter without making it too hard.  But it seems like it would take much more DM skill. 

The other nice thing about adjusting things to make an encounter easier is that it's simple to ramp up the difficulty again.  For example, in my very first LFR DMing experience, I almost had a TPK in the first fight I ran (EAST 1-1).  Something like 4 out of 5 of the PCs were down and dying.  Nervous that the fight was too hard for the party, I pulled a punch or two.  To my surprise, the one round I eased up on them was enough time for them to heal some party members up and then they proceeded to easily slaughter all the monsters (turns out that none of them had used any action points or daily powers earlier, which is why the fight was so difficult).  At that point I stopped pulling my punches again, but by then it was too late for the monsters. 

It just seems much easier and more natural to figure out how to reduce the difficulty of an encounter than increase it.  (Also, I think DMs are generally more inclined to adjust encounter difficulty to avoid a TPK than to avoid TMS - total monster slaughter.)  Or are we just worried that it will take the DM too long to figure out that the encounter is too hard (i.e. near-TPK) before toning it down?

There's a lot here that I have to agree with and I think have GM'd a good deal.

Madfox, really? I bet you don't get surprised at tables as much as you think you do. I can usually tell in the first couple of -actions- how easy or hard a fight or even a mod is going to be for players. Those that are very optimized ... well, trust me, you can tell that they are going to own a fight or fights. Those that aren't ... clearly aren't to going to. Even those that are in the middle of that charop/newbie road telegraph quite nicely their capabilities and tactical sense.

Yes, occassionally I still end up with a fight where the PCs surprisingly either fail to kill everything when it looked like they would, or end up winning when it looked like their gooses were cooked (it ain't called random damage for nothing), but for the most part there aren't that many surprises. And I'm not trying to toot some imaginary horn here.

Using a few of the examples from above: Bumping up the challenge level in the middle of a fight by putting in fog, or increasing the number of monsters, or adding a monster partway through the battle, etc. are not things that many people can easily just pull out of their^H^H^H^H^H thin air. Even putting in such tactics into the mod will get forgotten in the heat of the moment.

However, every GM can lower defenses a few points or reduce hit points without having to think about things. It's easy. It says AC 30? Let's make that a 28. Likewise, if the encounter already has fog, environmental affects that advantage the enemy, etc ... it is very easy to make those disappear at the drop of a hat. A wind comes along, a rock falls on some of the bad guys, etc.

I think that the -real- trick, in both cases, is making it believable and not feel like you're either punishing the players or giving them too easy a time of it. Even if you can make the monsters easier to hit, making it believable is sometimes a stretch.

Aug 30, 2010 -- 4:19AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

Sure, there are players I personally would consider good, better, best and worse or worst.

You are a much better person than me because you are leading me to believe that it would not bother you that those players that you consider as the worst players have the same rewards, levels, loot as your characters.  It also leads me to believe that it would not bother you if those characters were dragged, given, slacked, challenge downgraded basically had a much easier time to achieve what your characters have achieved.

It would bother me at work and it bothers me here... if that is arrogant, then so be it.

On another note... with these revelations, I have greatly reduced the time I invest in LFR and even though it will not effect the big cons like Gen Con, DDXP, Origins etc.. I see it affecting the local game days and conventions.... maybe it is coincidence or maybe it is an indication that there other players that feel like me.

Aug 30, 2010 -- 5:11PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

You are a much better person than me because you are leading me to believe that it would not bother you that those players that you consider as the worst players have the same rewards, levels, loot as your characters.  It also leads me to believe that it would not bother you if those characters were dragged, given, slacked, challenge downgraded basically had a much easier time to achieve what your characters have achieved.

It would bother me at work and it bothers me here... if that is arrogant, then so be it.

Consider the question the other way...Why does it bother you that so-called "worst" players get the same rewards and levels as your characters do?  I mean, it's not really hurting you. It seems like what you're looking for is to everyone you play with to immediately recognize how great you are at D&D. I'm not sure what that does for you. It sure doesn't do anything for the people you're playing with.

And I agree. I would be upset if that happened at work. That's why I make sure to separate my work from my fantasy role-playing game hobby.

Aug 30, 2010 -- 1:17PM, lorika wrote:

Or are we just worried that it will take the DM too long to figure out that the encounter is too hard (i.e. near-TPK) before toning it down?

Considering the complaints on the more difficult adventures on these boards and other locations: yes, that is exactly the worry.

As for upgrading difficulty, that is usually not that hard. The easiest and often most effective method for me is changing tactics. It does not work well with the optimized well-organized groups, but in that case you can add hit points, bringing in reinforcement (works especially well with minions), modifying intiative modifiers up, increasing damage output and make recharge a bit easier. Sure, not entirely within DME rules, and not something I do very often, but as long as those at the table give permission (and most do), you are not getting complaints. Mind you, I have had players also do things such as Keithran mentioned, setting some personal challenge levels, like: not using dailies unless they make sense due to the situation, not using healing words, etc.

@Tiaranmal: On the extreme sides of the equation you usually know how things are going early on. In fact, more often than not I can point out these tables the moment they sit down and describe their characters. It is the majority of the middle were I get surprised occassional, especially since for them dice tend to have a huge impact on the game. Nobody wants a TPK, but many players who want a challenge want to walk that edge just before a TPK/deaths and the line between those two points is thin

Aug 31, 2010 -- 1:59AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Aug 30, 2010 -- 1:17PM, lorika wrote:

Or are we just worried that it will take the DM too long to figure out that the encounter is too hard (i.e. near-TPK) before toning it down?

Considering the complaints on the more difficult adventures on these boards and other locations: yes, that is exactly the worry.

As for upgrading difficulty, that is usually not that hard. The easiest and often most effective method for me is changing tactics. It does not work well with the optimized well-organized groups, but in that case you can add hit points, bringing in reinforcement (works especially well with minions), modifying intiative modifiers up, increasing damage output and make recharge a bit easier. Sure, not entirely within DME rules, and not something I do very often, but as long as those at the table give permission (and most do), you are not getting complaints. Mind you, I have had players also do things such as Keithran mentioned, setting some personal challenge levels, like: not using dailies unless they make sense due to the situation, not using healing words, etc.

@Tiaranmal: On the extreme sides of the equation you usually know how things are going early on. In fact, more often than not I can point out these tables the moment they sit down and describe their characters. It is the majority of the middle were I get surprised occassional, especially since for them dice tend to have a huge impact on the game. Nobody wants a TPK, but many players who want a challenge want to walk that edge just before a TPK/deaths and the line between those two points is thin

It just seems a lot easier to me to change tactics in a way that reduces difficulty instead of increases it.  For example, if an effective party stuns the BBEG it's not like the DM can just pretend that the guy is not stunned.  Or if the controller locks a guy down in the corner it's not like the DM can just ignore the fact that he's immobilized and have the guy walk up and attack a striker (unless the DM starts using severe DME to give the guy a teleport power or something - which the players will likely call shennanigans on).  Many players looking for a challenge are not interested in the DM "cheating" to ignore/circumvent their cool powers.  And if we're worried about the DM not being able to properly judge table challenge, adding reinforcements sounds like a bad idea.  Maybe the DM thinks the table is having an easy time of it so they add some extra guys, but now the players struggle because they already used their cool tricks on the first wave and it turns into a grind (or a TPK).  And the DM can't do much at that point to lessen the difficulty again.  Especially since 4e has the "bloodied" condition, the DM can't just have the monster die whenever it's convenient (Player: "I do 10 damage."  DM: "Ok, it's dead."  Players: "Wha??????  But it wasn't even bloodied!").  Players have to suspend their disbelief a lot in D&D.  It seems easier to justify reducing the challenge by using worse tactics, like: "It's an ooze.  It just mindlessly attacks the closest thing." 

If combats in LFR need to be on the easier side because that is what the majority of the players want/need, that's fine.  I'm one of the players that enjoy more of a challenge, but if I am in the minority I can accept that the needs of others outweigh my own (and I'll figure out a way to make the game fun/challenging for me).    I just don't buy the argument that the challenge level should be set low because it's easier for the DM to increase the challenge than decrease it.  It might be helpful if future adventures had more tips for "DME" to make each encounter more or less challenging.  I haven't seen "Glory Tier" in action, but perhaps it successfully fills that need.

Aug 30, 2010 -- 7:28PM, battles14 wrote:

Aug 30, 2010 -- 5:11PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

You are a much better person than me because you are leading me to believe that it would not bother you that those players that you consider as the worst players have the same rewards, levels, loot as your characters.  It also leads me to believe that it would not bother you if those characters were dragged, given, slacked, challenge downgraded basically had a much easier time to achieve what your characters have achieved.

It would bother me at work and it bothers me here... if that is arrogant, then so be it.

Consider the question the other way...Why does it bother you that so-called "worst" players get the same rewards and levels as your characters do?  I mean, it's not really hurting you. It seems like what you're looking for is to everyone you play with to immediately recognize how great you are at D&D. I'm not sure what that does for you. It sure doesn't do anything for the people you're playing with.

And I agree. I would be upset if that happened at work. That's why I make sure to separate my work from my fantasy role-playing game hobby.

It invalidates the accomplishment and reduces the reward to no value since anyone can get it.  Why invest any effort into playing the game when you will be rewarded irregardless of how well or how poorly you do in the game?

That is not the right environment for the leadership to encourage in my opinion.  Its a welfare gaming system of sorts and it seems many people here on these forums are ok with that.

Aug 30, 2010 -- 5:11PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

Aug 30, 2010 -- 4:19AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

Sure, there are players I personally would consider good, better, best and worse or worst.

You are a much better person than me because you are leading me to believe that it would not bother you that those players that you consider as the worst players have the same rewards, levels, loot as your characters.  It also leads me to believe that it would not bother you if those characters were dragged, given, slacked, challenge downgraded basically had a much easier time to achieve what your characters have achieved.

It would bother me at work and it bothers me here... if that is arrogant, then so be it.

It's a game.  And a non-competetive one at that.  So who cares?  And yeah, at work is a different story where rewards are real and tangible.  This is a game with fake rewards.  I'd be pissed at a crappy co-worker getting a promotion over me.  I could care less if Bob the crappy rogue gets xp from a mod.

And people wonder why many perceive the RPGA to be a bunch of elitist snobs.

Aug 31, 2010 -- 5:51AM, Dragon9 wrote:

It's a game.  And a non-competetive one at that.  So who cares?  And yeah, at work is a different story where rewards are real and tangible.  This is a game with fake rewards.  I'd be pissed at a crappy co-worker getting a promotion over me.  I could care less if Bob the crappy rogue gets xp from a mod.

And people wonder why many perceive the RPGA to be a bunch of elitist snobs.

But what if Bob who plays the crappy rogue is also the crappy co-worker?

Aug 31, 2010 -- 5:31AM, lorika wrote:

And if we're worried about the DM not being able to properly judge table challenge, adding reinforcements sounds like a bad idea.  Maybe the DM thinks the table is having an easy time of it so they add some extra guys, but now the players struggle because they already used their cool tricks on the first wave and it turns into a grind (or a TPK).  And the DM can't do much at that point to lessen the difficulty again.  Especially since 4e has the "bloodied" condition, the DM can't just have the monster die whenever it's convenient (Player: "I do 10 damage."  DM: "Ok, it's dead."  Players: "Wha??????  But it wasn't even bloodied!").  Players have to suspend their disbelief a lot in D&D.  It seems easier to justify reducing the challenge by using worse tactics, like: "It's an ooze.  It just mindlessly attacks the closest thing." 

There are a couple of issues:
The DMs who don't adjust at all, regardless of what the table is doing. They're out there - the harder the base challenge of the mod, the more likely they TPK tables.

Reinforcements. These are actually pretty easy to modulate - there's a reason the reinforcement wasn't with the main group - they're not the enemies expecting to get into combat(even if they're tougher than a minion) - when they go bloodied, that's an obvious surrender point for them, even if the combat is going well for the monsters. Or they don't die when hit(because they're not a minion), but as soon as their turn shows up, they run away. Not every monster has to fight to the death.

I would like to see one or two no or one combat mods. Just warn people playing that they might not like it if they have to play combats. It might be interesting to have such mods in one specific story area - a story area about political intrigue, structured similar to the QUES1-1 mod. Players who don't want to play the mods don't have to play them.

Now if only someone known for doing things like that was in charge of a story area...

Aug 31, 2010 -- 5:44AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

Aug 30, 2010 -- 7:28PM, battles14 wrote:

Aug 30, 2010 -- 5:11PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

You are a much better person than me because you are leading me to believe that it would not bother you that those players that you consider as the worst players have the same rewards, levels, loot as your characters.  It also leads me to believe that it would not bother you if those characters were dragged, given, slacked, challenge downgraded basically had a much easier time to achieve what your characters have achieved.

It would bother me at work and it bothers me here... if that is arrogant, then so be it.

Consider the question the other way...Why does it bother you that so-called "worst" players get the same rewards and levels as your characters do?  I mean, it's not really hurting you. It seems like what you're looking for is to everyone you play with to immediately recognize how great you are at D&D. I'm not sure what that does for you. It sure doesn't do anything for the people you're playing with.

And I agree. I would be upset if that happened at work. That's why I make sure to separate my work from my fantasy role-playing game hobby.

It invalidates the accomplishment and reduces the reward to no value since anyone can get it.  Why invest any effort into playing the game when you will be rewarded irregardless of how well or how poorly you do in the game?

That is not the right environment for the leadership to encourage in my opinion.  Its a welfare gaming system of sorts and it seems many people here on these forums are ok with that.

I don't think of it as welfare gaming - I think of it as a team game. So my 19th-level artificer only does around 20 damage per attack, because I didn't spend any feats or item slots on my damage. Does that make me "worse" than your rogue who's hitting for 200? What if that same artificer is handing out 40 temporary hit points to two different people three times a combat and has most of the party at least at +3 to attack and +10 to damage for most of the fight? What qualifies the worse or better player or character? In 4th edition more so than 3.5 (can't really speak to editions before that), the entire group needs to contribute to succeed or fail at the mission. So yes, the entire group should receive the rewards for that effort.

Aug 31, 2010 -- 6:53AM, JohnduBois wrote:

Aug 31, 2010 -- 5:44AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

Aug 30, 2010 -- 7:28PM, battles14 wrote:

Aug 30, 2010 -- 5:11PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

You are a much better person than me because you are leading me to believe that it would not bother you that those players that you consider as the worst players have the same rewards, levels, loot as your characters.  It also leads me to believe that it would not bother you if those characters were dragged, given, slacked, challenge downgraded basically had a much easier time to achieve what your characters have achieved.

It would bother me at work and it bothers me here... if that is arrogant, then so be it.

Consider the question the other way...Why does it bother you that so-called "worst" players get the same rewards and levels as your characters do?  I mean, it's not really hurting you. It seems like what you're looking for is to everyone you play with to immediately recognize how great you are at D&D. I'm not sure what that does for you. It sure doesn't do anything for the people you're playing with.

And I agree. I would be upset if that happened at work. That's why I make sure to separate my work from my fantasy role-playing game hobby.

It invalidates the accomplishment and reduces the reward to no value since anyone can get it.  Why invest any effort into playing the game when you will be rewarded irregardless of how well or how poorly you do in the game?

That is not the right environment for the leadership to encourage in my opinion.  Its a welfare gaming system of sorts and it seems many people here on these forums are ok with that.

I don't think of it as welfare gaming - I think of it as a team game. So my 19th-level artificer only does around 20 damage per attack, because I didn't spend any feats or item slots on my damage. Does that make me "worse" than your rogue who's hitting for 200? What if that same artificer is handing out 40 temporary hit points to two different people three times a combat and has most of the party at least at +3 to attack and +10 to damage for most of the fight? What qualifies the worse or better player or character? In 4th edition more so than 3.5 (can't really speak to editions before that), the entire group needs to contribute to succeed or fail at the mission. So yes, the entire group should receive the rewards for that effort.

Apples and Rocks.... very bad analogy.

We are not talking about proficient players playing their role in the party and the differences of damage output.

We are talking about players who can play the game and the players who plainly suck getting the same rewards, accomplishments and loot.  By the way, that is the definition of welfare gaming, everyone getting the same rewards irregardless of how well or how poorly one plays.

John, if you have never seen a bad player at a table, then I would consider yourself lucky or you play in a tight group of players.  I happen to roll solo at conventions and happen to see many plainly non skilled players.

I also disagree with you that the entire group has to contribute to succeed in LFR, it is my opinion that two optimized characters with three corpses can be successful scaling for 5 in most LFR mods.  It would be a challenge but very do-able.  Three optimized characters can carry three knuckleheads with any LFR mod.

Aug 31, 2010 -- 7:16AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

We are talking about players who can play the game and the players who plainly suck getting the same rewards, accomplishments and loot.  By the way, that is the definition of welfare gaming, everyone getting the same rewards irregardless of how well or how poorly one plays.

There are, of course, plenty of non-tangible rewards and/or punishments (mainly social) based on the level of player skill.  

If a player is truly terrible, people will simply stop playing with them.  Or maybe the cleric will choose to heal the injured "good player" instead of the injured "bad player."  Or the warlord will give all the fun bonuses/extra attacks to a better player.  Or other players might give them dirty looks or make mean comments about how terrible they are.  (Not that I'm encouraging bullying or an anti-teamwork atmosphere.  I'm just saying it does happen.)

On the other hand, really great players will get socially rewarded, as Mommy_was_an_Orc so eloquently explained.  Players will actively seek out tables that an awesome player/DM is at (based on their own individual definition of an "awesome player").  Players will say things like "Wow - that's an awesome character!  It's a really cool concept and it's also very effective!"  Or "Hey, your character didn't use anything cheesy and it's still awesome!"  Or "I had a ton of fun playing with you.  Can I join your next table?"

I'd personally much rather have the players around me tell me that I'm a good player and/or that I have fun/interesting/effective characters than have a piece of paper (that, by the way, anyone would be able to print off the internet) "proving" that I'm a good player. 

My comments are no where near about proving if you are or are not a good player.

You are either a good player or not

This is about the LFR Welfare System.

I can be a slacker and hook up with some good players and not even bother reading the rules or my powers and I can still get full rewards, EXP and loot delivered on a silver platter.

Apparently, this kind of behavior is ok and condoned by some who have posted on this thread.

Have fun with your game.

For clarity - Aribeth, are you suggesting that at a table of 6 players who play a difficult module, if one of them sucks, that person should get less treasure?

Or are you saying that in the hypothetical case where there are two tables. One has lots of optimized people at the highest level available and crushes the module. The other has lower level people who are more built towards roleplay and less tactically adept. They scrape by, barely managing to succeed.

You'd like the second table to get less treasure/xp, even if both played high tier?

What happens at a convention or game day if half a table of the "elite" and half a table of the "sucky" get together?

Aug 31, 2010 -- 8:15AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

My comments are no where near about proving if you are or are not a good player.

But based on your initial post, that sounds exactly like what you are talking about:

Aug 27, 2010 -- 5:29PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

When LFR gets rebooted, will there be a mechanism that recognizes the accomplishments and skills of the better players?

Currently, as I perceive this campaign to be, a novice player can achieve the same accolades / story awards as the veteran / more skilled player.

I do not see a point in upping the challenge to a particular party if all parties are rewarded the same thing.  In a sense why work harder for the same reward.  We as people do not usually do that in real life, why have that kind of environment in the game.

LFR is great for what it is, a vehicle that brings people together and have some commonality as to the stories the players have played. 

LFR is horrible for those players that are looking for a sense of accomplishment.

(Emphasis added by me.)

In LFR, as in any human social activity, there is already an inherent social rewards system built in to recognize accomplishments.  Personally I can feel a sense of accomplishment without some official system in place to pat me on the head and tell me I'm a good girl.  In psychology they call that intrinsic motivation/reward.  (And, honestly, even if they did attempt to implement some sort of "better player" rewards system in LFR, it would likely end up feeling cheesy and hollow.) 

If you're looking for tangible rewards (like gold/treasure) for being a better player - well, the admins have already said they're not going to do that.

Aug 31, 2010 -- 8:15AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

I can be a slacker and hook up with some good players and not even bother reading the rules or my powers and I can still get full rewards, EXP and loot delivered on a silver platter.

    Well we are changing both the xp & gp systems for LFR, though I'm not entirely sure it will address your desire of rewarding super-awesome players and punish those who suck. That said, I think we are going to see more meaningful Story Awards in the future and that might in some ways address some of your issues. I will note that players looking to be carried are likely to quickly find it hard to find people willing to play with them. They don't need for us to put a REJECT stamp on their forehead so everyone knows they don't pull their own weight.

I don't care about if the other players are poor performers (or whatever your criteria is), as long as the rewards are the same for everyone it's fine with me... it really doesn't matter.  I think having rewards for the "best" player is a really bad idea... which will lead to problems at the table.  I can honestly say that if it came to a good or bad player reward system, I would for sure not play it... that's the old boys club... not for me.

Things I am not too thrilled with is the recent changes to LFR... that's what keeps me from running/playing LFR right now.  To me, there is [strike]little[/strike]no reason to go that route versus running my own games.  Why bother to invest time to level my character up when I can just make a level 11 wizard (want to see some upset players?  Invite a brand new player to play an 11th level character at a table full of seasoned players).  I think that is the single largest reason why I stopped running LFR.

The story awards are meaningless.  Some of the MYRE adventures I have played have done well with their own rewards and tying things together... those are meaningful.  But really, how many trinkets can I have from house Jalt?  My greatest hope for the reboot is that those story awards will indeed mean something... and encourage players to start at level 1.

Reward cards are a joke, and go away at the end of the year anyhow.  Those would have worked a lot better if they kept them as player rewards and handed a FEW out.  But allowing zillions of cards kind of broke the idea of them, and trivialized many adventures.  I for one am glad to see them go... and don't bring them back.

Regarding tiles:  It would be really nice if the adventures limit themselves to the new "essentials" tile sets that are coming out.  Those are supposed to always be in print, and thus everyone can get them.  I don't have the original tile set, so there are some adventures out there that I couldn't run without using a battle mat.  I don't mind using a battle mat, but as others have said, the tiles do add some fun to the encounter.  Whenever I can, I proxy in poster maps for encounters.

A guide to overarching plotlines for DMs would be another thing I would like to see.  It would be cool to read just a paragraph or two about what the plan was for the story line.  Right now, it's guesswork as to where to take stories or which adventures to run next.  You could even have a player blurb about the area and what the general story is about. 

Aug 31, 2010 -- 9:03AM, Keithric wrote:

For clarity - Aribeth, are you suggesting that at a table of 6 players who play a difficult module, if one of them sucks, that person should get less treasure?

Or are you saying that in the hypothetical case where there are two tables. One has lots of optimized people at the highest level available and crushes the module. The other has lower level people who are more built towards roleplay and less tactically adept. They scrape by, barely managing to succeed.

You'd like the second table to get less treasure/xp, even if both played high tier?

What happens at a convention or game day if half a table of the "elite" and half a table of the "sucky" get together?

Keithric,

To be clear, I AM NOT suggesting any solution at the moment.

I am identifying an issue in LFR that bothers me and wondered if the Leadership sees the issue as well and if they are going to address said issue.

If you are asking me what the Leadership should do in relation to this issue that is another topic of conversation.

And what makes the best player best?  There are many ways to play the game... so is a poorly optimized character that is memorable and role-played well bad?  Is a player who knows the PH perfectly but didn't invest in 2 or 3 or keep track of the errata bad?  Is a player who has four kids and so plays rarely enough to struggle remembering their powers bad?

Aug 31, 2010 -- 9:08AM, Skerrit wrote:

Aug 31, 2010 -- 8:15AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

I can be a slacker and hook up with some good players and not even bother reading the rules or my powers and I can still get full rewards, EXP and loot delivered on a silver platter.

    Well we are changing both the xp & gp systems for LFR, though I'm not entirely sure it will address your desire of rewarding super-awesome players and punish those who suck. That said, I think we are going to see more meaningful Story Awards in the future and that might in some ways address some of your issues. I will note that players looking to be carried are likely to quickly find it hard to find people willing to play with them. They don't need for us to put a REJECT stamp on their forehead so everyone knows they don't pull their own weight.

Good to hear Skerrit... I look forward to seeing what the leadership team has in store.

On another note:  Having players ignore other players because of skill cause another issue of elitism?  Something the RPGA has been accused of being repeatedly?

Question:  Is that what you other people do to those kinds of players (Refuse to play with them)?

If true... WOW, another revelation

Aug 31, 2010 -- 5:44AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

Its a welfare gaming system of sorts and it seems many people here on these forums are ok with that.

Yeah, what's wrong with that?

Aug 31, 2010 -- 8:15AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

I can be a slacker and hook up with some good players and not even bother reading the rules or my powers and I can still get full rewards, EXP and loot delivered on a silver platter.

You can also be a slacker and hook up with some other slackers and not even bother reading the rules or my powers and I can still get full rewards, EXP and loot delivered on a silver platter because the DM sees how bad you are and just makes the combats easier with full loot and XP. So what?

I only refuse to play with jerks.  If you aren't good at D&D at 11th level, I'll still play with you, and even help you if you ask... but part of that help is going to be the suggestion that next time they might want to try a lower level table until they get used to the character they are playing.  Hell, I won't make a level 11 wizard because I have no idea how to play one efficiently.  11th level rogue, I am all over it.... because I have played up to that point with one and know how to be effective with one.

Now, I have had sidelong looks and comments at how I play my rogue character before... that's not something I appreciate.  I play my rogue the way I want to and don't need input from someone else.  That's the kind of elite-isms I have run into before with LFR (and even in LG), and that's the kind of crap that really has no business being there.  So what if my rogue goes unconscious two times in a combat and burns through all his surges...  he still did buckets of damage before falling... and kept the attention of something that would have melted someone else's butt.  If someone wants assistance with what to do... let them ASK for help (or ask if they need some assistance).  Being helpful can sometimes come off as being an elite jerk. 

Aug 31, 2010 -- 8:15AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

I do not see a point in upping the challenge to a particular party if all parties are rewarded the same thing.  In a sense why work harder for the same reward.  We as people do not usually do that in real life, why have that kind of environment in the game.

FYI - this happens ALL THE TIME in the real world.  There are people that get promoted over you even though you worked harder.  There are people that have the same amount of money as you because they stole it or because they conned it out of friendly people or because their rich daddy died or because they randomly won the lottery.  In education students may work on a group project where one student is the brilliant one and does most of the work and everyone still gets the same grade.  You may have an innovative idea, but maybe your coworker steals it from you and tells your boss, getting all the credit.  etc. etc.  Sure it sucks, but that's life.  And, at the end of the day, at least you can feel good about yourself (pride, sense of accomplishment, etc.) that you actually earned what you got and did not have to ride the coattails of others. 

Aug 31, 2010 -- 8:15AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

I can be a slacker and hook up with some good players and not even bother reading the rules or my powers and I can still get full rewards, EXP and loot delivered on a silver platter.

I don't understand why anyone would ever want to do that.  I have played a lot of LFR in a lot of different situations and I have never seen anyone who is a bad player because they're a "slacker" and are just trying to "slide by."  If someone wanted to do that, they could just write up a brand new 30th level LFR character with tons of cool equipment and tell everyone how awesome they are. 

This isn't a competition.  It's not a race.  No one is getting a free ticket to GenCon next year because their LFR character is the highest level and best equipped.  No is getting paid to play D&D.  (And if someone is - please let the rest of us know!)  It's a game.  People play LFR because it's an enjoyable way to pass some time with friends and/or strangers.  If I have fun during a gaming session, I consider that a win.  It doesn't bother me that Bob sitting next to me, who isn't as skilled of a player, also had fun.  It doesn't bother me that he gets rewards too.  Everyone had fun?  Great.  Then the game was a success. 

There are multiple reasons someone could be considered a "bad player" (whatever that means):
(1) They could be a new player.  Great!  More people interested in the game.  Sure, they might be a little slower or not understand the rules as well.  I would try to teach them the basics of 4e, help them with tactics, and attempt to make them a better player.
(2) They could be mentally challenged.  It's good that they've found a hobby they love.  I don't think we should actively punish them just because their tactics/roleplaying/rules comprehension/etc. isn't phenominal.
(3) They could be a father with 4 kids and a full time job who doesn't have time to memorize all the rules, but who enjoys a little D&D in his few spare moments. 
(4) They could be an antisocial jerk who delights in watching others suffer and purposefully tries to ruin the success of the party (killing an NPC that needs to be kept alive, opening a door to trigger two fights at once, refusing to help the party when they need it, etc.).  That's the type of player I have no problem refusing to play with.  The normal social mechanisms will generally weed out these kinds of players.
(5) etc.

If I play at a table with a bunch of weaker players, I can still feel good about myself that I successfully completed the adventure even with the "handicap" of having weaker players at the table.  I mean, obviously my character must have been extremely effective if I was able to fully compensate for multiple "corpses" at my table - as you call them.  Someone can walk away from a weak table and think to themselves "Wow.  I was at a table of total knuckleheads, but I singlehandedly pulled us through.  I must be awesome."  If you need a feeling of accomplishment, you can achieve it by recognizing that you were able to succeed even without the "headstart" of being at a completely optimized table of Uber-Players. 

Aug 31, 2010 -- 7:16AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

We are talking about players who can play the game and the players who plainly suck getting the same rewards, accomplishments and loot.  By the way, that is the definition of welfare gaming, everyone getting the same rewards irregardless of how well or how poorly one plays.

Is there an RPG (either in and of itself or in its organized play program) that works differently?

What are some ways you could reward proficiency without it seeming like an elitist construct that favors those with a lot of time to play?

Aug 31, 2010 -- 5:44AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

It invalidates the accomplishment and reduces the reward to no value since anyone can get it.  Why invest any effort into playing the game when you will be rewarded irregardless of how well or how poorly you do in the game?

I don't really get the concern myself.

1. This is a group (team) game, not a solo game.  You succeed by how well your group does overall.

2. The group is expected to win combats.  The DM is not your adversary.  In fact, the DM will even ramp up or lower the challenge to suitably challenge you.

This bears repeating.  It's no accident that adventurers always end up fighting monsters that are always around their level.  You don't fight Balrogs at first level.  The DM is always tailoring the combat encounters to your group.

For example, in home games when I DM and come close to TPK'ing a group (which has happened once) I blame myself, not the group.

The PCs still find plenty of ways to succeed or fail on their own however.  In one game the PCs decided to enlist a large group of evil dwarves to save a town from giants.  Oops... one crazy (and awesome) fight later and the town was overun and razed by the dwarves.  Once they realized what they helped cause, the PCs tried to rescue as many people as they could... and in their haste ended up rescuing 4 evil clerics and 21 courtesans.

As the topic rages I see a lot of disagreement on what constitutes better players, coming back to the same point. There is no consensus and there wont be..

As an illustration I personally get quite annoyed at the mention of people with optimized characters carrying knuckleheads. I find some of the most optimized and tactically sound players also some of the worst. Nothing quite matches the level of annoying of a player failing to read the table and DM and forcing everyone else to play by how THEY think things should go.
Your 300 damage nova may be optimized and awesome in a vacuum, but if your action has just spoiled the fun for even one of the other players at the table you are not a great player, you are not even good. Optimization is not the end all measure of good D&D players.

Yes, sure. I have misread tables and people at one time or another and overly dominated a table or two. I may have even thought I was doing great at the time. One lives, one learns. To me it is, as many have said and many will say again, a social game. If everyone at the table (DM included) has a good time, its a good table. 

As long as there is no one-size-fits-all definition of D&D skill if can only be measured by yourself and for yourself. For me that is enough. I am not, as someone claimed, a better person. I admit to feeling some annoyance if i hear how someone breezed through an encounter while I know how much "help" they got. But its a small annoyance and its easy to get past (these days ). I however do not suffer the delusion that my classification of skill should in any way fit others let alone become a measuring stick.  There are a thousand and more ways to play this game. I like it that way, I like it a LOT that way. 

Aug 30, 2010 -- 12:48PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

On difficulty: I think the key here is having good information on scaling the encounter that DMs can use.

I'm a believer that DME needs a complete overhaul, as the instructions given in modules are so incomplete at this point as to be misleading.

Beyond that, from day one, I can't say I understand the need for DME to adjust combat difficulty.

You don't need DME in order to tone a module down.  DMs have been softballing adventures since the dawn of gaming.  Unless you're going to put hard limits on precisely how easy a DM is allowed to run a module (and that's an exercise in futility), you don't need anything beyond "If you feel the players aren't having fun, you're allowed to tone down the combats."

You don't need DME to make an adventure more difficult with the players' consent.  I was doing that ten years and two campaigns ago, without any DME.  ("Hey, do you mind if I make some changes to make this module more fun?" "Go ahead, we trust you.")

The only thing you need DME for is situations when the DM wants to make the combats harder, but the players don't want him to.  I'm a little perplexed as to why this is something we would want to encourage.

Aug 31, 2010 -- 2:13PM, bgibbons wrote:

Beyond that, from day one, I can't say I understand the need for DME to adjust combat difficulty.

There are a ton of DMs that believe the module must be run as written. D&D Encounters is proof of this. Intro program designed to bring in players and tons of DMs TPKd their tables week after week. Similarly, a lot of the adventure reviews on these forums, or even personal messages where people share experiences with my adventures, all suggest that DMs need more information on how to run encounters.

I see a couple of options. You can try to edit and playtest really well (meaning it takes longer to publish every adventure) and have adventures run as-is. You can add minor DME to cover big issues and give some freedom. You can add sections that explain the desired challenge and provide options. You can change DME to include more latitude and overall direction.

I react negatively to the term "softball", to be honest. Softballing really means that you take an adequate challenge and make it easy. "Well, this might have been a tough adventure but I decided to lower defenses on all the monsters so it wouldn't be too hard." I really see this very rarely - almost not worth considering. What I see most often is "wow, I am going to indisputably murder your PCs with what I have... I am going to make a change(s) to make this a fight you might actually win."

For example, in CORE1-14" Show

That was not a softball, but I did reduce the difficulty. The question is really how best to ensure the table gets a fun run of the appropriate challenge (defeat can be fun, so that should be possible).

Aug 31, 2010 -- 7:16AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

We are talking about players who can play the game and the players who plainly suck getting the same rewards, accomplishments and loot.  By the way, that is the definition of welfare gaming, everyone getting the same rewards irregardless of how well or how poorly one plays.

An RPG is a game of cooperative storytelling.  Not how ub3r l33T Ur t0oN R0xX0rs and neither is it about the phat lewtz or pwning n00bs.  Despite the lame comparisons from some people, D&D is not WoW.  You shouldn't play it like it is.

Aug 31, 2010 -- 9:08AM, Skerrit wrote:

Aug 31, 2010 -- 8:15AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

I can be a slacker and hook up with some good players and not even bother reading the rules or my powers and I can still get full rewards, EXP and loot delivered on a silver platter.

    Well we are changing both the xp & gp systems for LFR, though I'm not entirely sure it will address your desire of rewarding super-awesome players and punish those who suck. That said, I think we are going to see more meaningful Story Awards in the future and that might in some ways address some of your issues. I will note that players looking to be carried are likely to quickly find it hard to find people willing to play with them. They don't need for us to put a REJECT stamp on their forehead so everyone knows they don't pull their own weight.

I am excited to hear that there are pending changes for XP and GP.
I hope that these changes do not invalidate all of the old adventures.

Also, note that at conventions and game days we generally do not
get to choose our tablemates. The marshall musters all of the tables.
Therefore, I would be unhappy if I received limited rewards because
I was mustered with less experienced players, when the entire team
succeeded in the mission. This is a team game that we are playing.
Sometimes the experts need to help out the novices with the game.

I would also be uncomfortable as a judge, if some poor quiet player
had to be docked "roleplaying experience", just because they were
out-shouted by all of the other more extroverted players at the table.

I wanted to point out that giving "better/more skilled players" greater rewards than "worse/less skilled players" will only widen the gap between the two groups.  Let's say, for example, that there is a group of 1st level characters playing together.  Half of the players are brand new to the game and aren't extremely familiar with the rules and the other half are veterans who know the game inside and out and have highly optimized characters.  (Sorry Imaginaryfriend...  I agree with you that optimized characters do not necessarily equal the best players, but it really is the easiest example to use.)  At the end of the adventure, the "better" players are given better awards and the "worse" players are given worse awards.  So now the "more skilled" players have even more of an advantage over the "less skilled" players.  But the "more skilled" players don't need a head start or an extra boost over other players - they're already ahead of the curve just because they are "more skilled."

If we have a system where "better" players are rewarded more (with items or favorable story awards or whatever), then those better players will continue to get more and more powerful while the "worse" players will fall further and further behind.  Pretty soon we'll have a situation where it will be very difficult for those "better" players to be at the same table as those "worse" players because their power level will be so different.  Then there will definitely be players refusing to play with certain other "inferior" players.  We'll end up with two different LFRs: the "Elite LFR" and the "Knucklehead LFR" (even more so than exists today).  I'm pretty sure that's not the admin's goal for the future of LFR. 

Man, we're still talking about this?  I'm glad to see that the original suggestion has been thoroughly trounced.

If we're going to improve LFR, how about this:

there's got to be a way to adjust LFR games so they actually do fit in that 4 hour time slot.  It's as though we're punished for advancing to paragon tier with more grinding.

Sep 4, 2010 -- 11:33AM, Sans_Serif wrote:

If we're going to improve LFR, how about this:

there's got to be a way to adjust LFR games so they actually do fit in that 4 hour time slot.  It's as though we're punished for advancing to paragon tier with more grinding.

Yeah, that's been one of my biggest problems with paragon. There's just no way to get it done on time without calling the fights early.

I played CORE 2-8 during a home game last week. We started at 2:30, and weren't done with the first fight until 6. I left early. I heard that the rest of the mod took until 10. Now, I was told that's not typical, but there's a risk that we're going to turn paragon and epic until a "have vs. have-nots" situation. As in, those who have lots of extra time to play LFR, and those who don't.

Sep 3, 2010 -- 10:00PM, battles14 wrote:

Man, we're still talking about this?  I'm glad to see that the original suggestion has been thoroughly trounced.

you are glad to see that the original suggestion of fixing the most egregious game balance problems has been trounced?!?

Sep 5, 2010 -- 11:29PM, jsaint wrote:

you are glad to see that the original suggestion of fixing the most egregious game balance problems has been trounced?!?

Your original suggestion is basically to pick and choose which D&D rules we follow in LFR, and even though I do think that some things cause game problems, you know I can't agree with that. Not only does it create a game that's distinct from D&D, but it's going to be impossible to get everyone to agree with what stays and what goes.

Sep 5, 2010 -- 11:29PM, jsaint wrote:

you are glad to see that the original suggestion of fixing the most egregious game balance problems has been trounced?!?

In short: you have a particular view of what works and doesn't work in 4E (which is perfectly cool).  What's become clear as this thread has developed is that a lot of other posters don't share your view on what "needs to be fixed". 

It's great if you and your group share a particular play style, and a similar desire for strong challenge.  Some of your posts, however, come across as though you feel that that your way is the "one true way", and that differing styles of play (or differing views on the rules) have less validity.

Sep 4, 2010 -- 11:33AM, Sans_Serif wrote:

If we're going to improve LFR, how about this:

there's got to be a way to adjust LFR games so they actually do fit in that 4 hour time slot.  It's as though we're punished for advancing to paragon tier with more grinding.

While there are definitely hard to finish adventures out there, both your DM and you as a player have a lot of influence on this. For example, when I run a LFR game, I tend to predraw the battlemaps, select miniatures and put them into seperate plastic backs and even select status effects cardboard tents. Similarly, I look at the adventure and try to estimate the timeline, and to help facilitate I note down when encounters start and end while running the game to reinforce to myself the fact that I am running on a schedule. It is a trick I learned while running playtests, and realizing I had an easier time to keep things within time while running those even though we spend more time discussing encounters than we usually do.

Sep 10, 2010 -- 1:50PM, Madfox11 wrote:

Sep 4, 2010 -- 11:33AM, Sans_Serif wrote:

If we're going to improve LFR, how about this:

there's got to be a way to adjust LFR games so they actually do fit in that 4 hour time slot.  It's as though we're punished for advancing to paragon tier with more grinding.

While there are definitely hard to finish adventures out there, both your DM and you as a player have a lot of influence on this. For example, when I run a LFR game, I tend to predraw the battlemaps, select miniatures and put them into seperate plastic backs and even select status effects cardboard tents. Similarly, I look at the adventure and try to estimate the timeline, and to help facilitate I note down when encounters start and end while running the game to reinforce to myself the fact that I am running on a schedule. It is a trick I learned while running playtests, and realizing I had an easier time to keep things within time while running those even though we spend more time discussing encounters than we usually do.

In addition to pre-drawing maps, I also pre-roll initiative and jot down a few tactical notes on the stat sheet (i.e. what powers a monster will probably start with).  I occasionally call fights when the outcome is obvious - or have the monsters surrender/run away after a certian point. 

There are a lot of things a DM can do to speed up mods, it's probably a whole other thread.

Allen.

oh sure.  I pre-draw maps, get minis out, take the highlighter to the mod to point out stuff.  I call fights.

Even then, LFR breaks down at paragon.

Players do not alpha-strike, powergame, min-max, or optimize merely because this or that rules option allows them to do so.

Players do these things BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.

In any given playerbase, you will ALWAYS have a significant percentage that engage in these activities to some degree.

You cannot prevent it. You cannot stop it. It will always happen.

Players will find a way. Whether it's action points or whatever, they'll find a way to do what they want to do. Change the rules and they'll just find a different way.

Asking LFR to adjust this or that game option because you personally think it's unbalanced is therefore more or less pointless. Even if you set aside the fact that LFR CANNOT make such changes unless it's directly impacting the organized play structure, you end up balancing and re-balancing rules continuously for the life of the campaign.

And it'd be ultimately pointless. Every table is different. What is balanced for one group of players is totally unbalanced for another. You cannot sit there and keep trying to stamp out corner cases and extremist builds. It's a waste of time.

Instead, this is why you have a live DM running the table. Instead of a robot or something.

It is the DM's job to do the final balancing for the individual tables. Only they can see what a given table needs, and adjust on the fly accordingly.



-karma

One change I'd really really love to see is not allowing background aside from Forgotten Realms and general. I am so tired of seeing people with Scales of War's "Auspicious Birth" or "Born Under a Bad Sign" as their chosen Background effect. This would make the regions more attractive again, though the large numbers of heroes from Impiltur and Thay would still continue.

Personally, I'd like to see the Realms Regions background redone to better match the new story zones. LFR has already become a flavorless blend of everything in the WotC product release kitchen sink why not try and restore at least some of the Realms actual flavor back to the sink? 

Sep 12, 2010 -- 1:09PM, wyrdlyng wrote:

One change I'd really really love to see is not allowing background aside from Forgotten Realms and general. I am so tired of seeing people with Scales of War's "Auspicious Birth" or "Born Under a Bad Sign" as their chosen Background effect. This would make the regions more attractive again, though the large numbers of heroes from Impiltur and Thay would still continue.

Personally, I'd like to see the Realms Regions background redone to better match the new story zones. LFR has already become a flavorless blend of everything in the WotC product release kitchen sink why not try and restore at least some of the Realms actual flavor back to the sink? 

Can you give some specific examples of what you mean by redoing to Realms backgrounds to better fit the story areas?

Sep 12, 2010 -- 1:09PM, wyrdlyng wrote:

One change I'd really really love to see is not allowing background aside from Forgotten Realms and general. I am so tired of seeing people with Scales of War's "Auspicious Birth" or "Born Under a Bad Sign" as their chosen Background effect. This would make the regions more attractive again, though the large numbers of heroes from Impiltur and Thay would still continue.

Except that the SoW backgrouds are general and can apply to any setting (which is fitting since the SoW AP was written to be able to be dropped into any campaign).

@Dragon9
But the SoW aren't "general" they're from an issue of Dragon magazine, not the PHBs like the others are. And they're not in balance with the actual general backgrounds from the PHBs. And the fact that just about every non-Con character I've seen since the backgrounds were allowed has it as their background benefit speaks volumes.

@JohnduBois
Each of the new story regions is supposed to have an overall theme relating to their adventures (Cormyr/Dalelands/etc. focused on dealing with Netheril for an example), so why not new backgrounds which tie into those themes and give characters from those story regions a stronger hook to playing the mods from their homelands? 

Sep 13, 2010 -- 3:52PM, wyrdlyng wrote:

@Dragon9And they're not in balance with the actual general backgrounds from the PHBs

But only slightly. Essentially they give the equivalent of one feat (toughness) to most people (except for the most extreme cases possible, but even they cap at +20 hp from the background) while the other feats almost give the equivalent of another feat (skill focus).

Starting with 18 in your "background stat" and getting 8 increases vs. 12 starting con and 2 increases the background gives 12 hp which is 75% of toughness and only slightly better than a +2 to a skill which is 66% of skill focus (and even if you do the extreme of 20 starting stat, 10 increases vs. 8 starting con, it's only +20).

I see a lot of characters who prefer to reroll a skill or getting a skill bonus and an extra language or being able to add a skill to their class list that happens to key off one of their class attributes over getting a free toughness feat from that other backgrounds

In most LFR games I've been involved in people already have high enough skill ratings in their strong fields to not care about a small bump. And with DCs being low enough for most skill challenges it usually isn't an issue even in their weak areas. But an extra 8-10 hit points, which also bumps up your bloodied and surge values, for free is generally more helpful in the Heroic tiers.

In Paragon and higher the benefit diminishes but, at least in our area, we've only got a handful of folks with a character just passing into the Paragon tier anyway. Hell it wasn't until recently that I got to play without having to drive 3+ hours to a convention.

And I haven't seen too many front line defenders who don't take Auspicious Birth and Toughness for good measure.  

I suspect with the skill challenge DCs being raised again, that those skill bonuses will become much more valuable.

Sep 13, 2010 -- 3:52PM, wyrdlyng wrote:

Each of the new story regions is supposed to have an overall theme relating to their adventures (Cormyr/Dalelands/etc. focused on dealing with Netheril for an example), so why not new backgrounds which tie into those themes and give characters from those story regions a stronger hook to playing the mods from their homelands? 

What makes the current FR regional background less than suitable for that task? I'm not saying that I think it's a bad idea; I just don't see a reason to make, say, a new Netheril background unless there's a reason that the current Netheril background doesn't work.

Sep 12, 2010 -- 1:09PM, wyrdlyng wrote:

One change I'd really really love to see is not allowing background aside from Forgotten Realms and general. I am so tired of seeing people with Scales of War's "Auspicious Birth" or "Born Under a Bad Sign" as their chosen Background effect. This would make the regions more attractive again, though the large numbers of heroes from Impiltur and Thay would still continue.

Personally, I'd like to see the Realms Regions background redone to better match the new story zones. LFR has already become a flavorless blend of everything in the WotC product release kitchen sink why not try and restore at least some of the Realms actual flavor back to the sink? 

I vote AGAINST this guy...

I actually prefer the multiple backgrounds.. only 1 benifit system. And honestly.. lfr is still trying to promote ALL the 4e products WotC sells.

Sep 13, 2010 -- 3:52PM, wyrdlyng wrote:

@Dragon9
But the SoW aren't "general" they're from an issue of Dragon magazine, not the PHBs like the others are.

Their location of publication (outside of a setting book like the FRPG, DSCG or the EPG) is irrelevaqnt to whether they are general or not.  They aren't setting specific.  They are general.  Just because they don't give the same language or skill bonus benefit as the recent backgrounds dosen't mean they aren't general.

And they're not in balance with the actual general backgrounds from the PHBs.

Highly debateable, but regardless, they were made on the model of backgrounds from the FRPG.  It was after that they started to change how backgrounds were done.  The problem is that people are cherry picking to build their PC to an optimized state.  That's not a fault of the background itself if the player picks them to fit their build as opposed to pickign them to fit their background.

And the fact that just about every non-Con character I've seen since the backgrounds were allowed has it as their background benefit speaks volumes.

You're falling into the "Everyone I know" fallacy.  I can just as easily tell you that I have never seen anyone with the "Auspicious Birth" or "Born Under A Bad Sign" background benefit (Or Thay), therefore no one takes them and there's no issue with it.

Aug 31, 2010 -- 9:08AM, Skerrit wrote:

That said, I think we are going to see more meaningful Story Awards in  the future and that might in some ways address some of your issues.

In regard to meaningful Story Awards... Don't accept mods that don't have story awards.  Every module should have Story Awards!  I want my heroes to make a difference in the game world, thus the appeal of playing in an "Living" campaign.  If a module isn't of enough import in the world to merit a story award, do not publish/offer it!  I love the Forgotten Realms setting (particularly Aglarond) but all this mess with WotC is like the death of a thousand cuts.  Grief!

Thank you for listening.

Aug 26, 2010 -- 2:55PM, jsaint wrote:

in short, why is what i want less important than what other people want.

Um, because
1) LFR has to respond to public opinion taken as an aggregate, and
2) there are more of us than there are of you
perhaps?

Aug 28, 2010 -- 9:27PM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

(not that the power would have worked on me anyway, but how many times do you see a random player willing to take the hit for someone they just met?)

You done good and should be complemented.  WELL DONE.

In a similar vein, I've noticed that if my StarLock becomes the party's face then I become the unofficial small-l leader.  I try to involve the rest of the group - Gondolin may be a social whiz but BRJN is certainly not - so they get a chance to participate, too.

At PentaCon, the core of our group (Ravens Bluff campaign, MINI2-1 through MINI2-3) was actually the dwarven battlerager.  When he actually went down, everybody at the table looked at ME (?!) with the "what do we do now?" look.  Hey, I'm a ranged Striker; I tear up bad guys from a safe distance.  We needed (and had) a Rogue and a Warlord; I advised them to do what their characters do best: grab the McGuffin and hide; heal up our downed man.  The dwarf was healed before the Rogue could act, so the crisis was averted.  Everybody looked/acted reassured that we will come to each other's aid; I found THAT the most gratifying outcome. 

(And two encounters later, it was ME who needed all the help he could get...)

Sep 1, 2010 -- 2:17AM, Dodecahedron wrote:

Also, note that at conventions and game days we generally do not get to choose our tablemates. The marshall musters all of the tables.  Therefore, I would be unhappy if I received limited rewards because I was mustered with less experienced players, when the entire team succeeded in the mission. This is a team game that we are playing.  Sometimes the experts need to help out the novices with the game.

When I played ADCP 2-1H I was added to a pre-existing group of players.  They probably thought I was a crazy loon after charging into melee wearing leather armor and burning through almost all my healing surges in the first fight.  (I did learn some caution after that.)  Despite probably being the weakest player at table, I enjoyed getting to vote on 'best player' (with a gift certificate as prize) - the Warlord, IMHO - and later suggested to LFR that however the module results are reported, some group ought to get a 'You Won the Race' rewards card.  Even if it wasn't us, it would be cool.  As is, I can claim to be among the most beat-up characters to finish the race; that IS a reward of a sort.