|
3 years ago ::
Aug 24, 2010 - 6:27AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
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.
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 24, 2010 - 6:29AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2004
|
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...
John du Bois
Living Forgotten Realms Writing Director, Netheril story area
Follow me on The Twitter: @JohnduBois
Follow my presence on The Intertubes: johncdubois.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 24, 2010 - 6:45AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 24, 2010 - 10:56AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2001
|
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.
Check out my free online comic! Familiar Ground Fantasy Humor, Familiar Point of View
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 24, 2010 - 4:32PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jan 26, 2005
|
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?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2010 - 2:16PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2007
|
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
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2010 - 2:34PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Oct 20, 2007
|
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. 
Joe Fitzgerald | joerpga[at]yahoo[dot]com[dot]au
LFR Global Administrator
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2010 - 7:27PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2010 - 8:23PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Oct 20, 2007
|
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. 
Joe Fitzgerald | joerpga[at]yahoo[dot]com[dot]au
LFR Global Administrator
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2010 - 9:25PM
#30
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
