Community

Leave them be.  We should stop changing the rules.

Aug 7, 2012 -- 8:26PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

The point I am trying to make is that LFR was never ever intended to be a pure Forgotten Realms content campaign based on what has been included as OK per the LFR campaign guide from the beginning of this open play campaign to date.   

At the risk of re-opening a huge can of worms that was already fiercely argued back when, the decision to include non-Realms material in the LFR campaign had less to do with the Realms and more to do with a desire by the intellectual property owner to ensure that the official organized play campaign for 4th edition D&D didn't prevent people from wanting to buy books or subscribe to D&D Insider. So it was less like 'we don't see LFR as a 'pure' Realms setting' and more like 'we want players and DMs to be able to buy books and use the material in them; if that means things happen in LFR that aren't strictly 'Realms-like', that's fine with us'. It was left to the campaign staff to figure out how stuff written for non-Realms settings fit into LFR.

This is challenging enough when the book is fairly generic -- after all, the 4E Realms does have a Shadowfell, so you'd think the Heroes of Shadow book would be fairly easy to integrate. However, 4E Realms does not have a Raven Queen, and not everything about Kelemvor (the closest Realms equivalent) maps easily to the Raven Queen even assuming changes in canon since the new edition. The degree of difficulty ramps by orders of magnitude when we start talking about integrating material from other settings that have features that the Realms has never had and, for flavor reasons, probably shouldn't have.

Fortunately, the campaign staff was able to keep the most campaign-defining stuff out of LFR (arcane defiling in Dark Sun, dragonmarks in Eberron), but the stuff let in was of such volume, and in some cases so odd within the context of the existing Realms (see all references to the long-running 'are warforged legal in LFR?' joke), that plenty of folks have seen fit to request even more stuff be added on the grounds of in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound; once you've allowed for the existence of the Sorcerer-King pact or dragonshards, why not allow arcane defiling, too?

At some point, though, you're no longer playing in the Forgotten Realms -- you're just playing in some hodge-podge campaign world that's called Living Forgotten Realms.

Many players may not care about this -- they may have the idea that they just want to roll dice and use cool powers, and anything that gets in the way of that hurts their fun. But the people who do care, care a lot.

--
Pauper

To not change the rules and leave them be is not a very valid argument because the rules of the game change every month in the form of errata, articles in dragon and dungeon magazine and any new book that comes out.

This game is ALWAYS changing... if you do not recognize that then I do not know what game you are playing but it is definitely not LFR. 

Pauper,

The point I am making while true that some campaign specific things are not legal in LFR, I would make the argument that most non Forgotten Realm campaign flavor is legal in LFR so you really do not have a Forgotten Realms world but a DnD generic world where pieces of other worlds/lands come together for the open play campaign.

It is has been that way from the beginning of this campaign... given the age of this campaign why keep something banned that is not overpowering, not unbalancing in relation to everything that is already legal in game?

In your last post, I am not sure what side you are arguing for.... my interpretation is that you agree with me that LFR has been so watered down with outside Forgotten Realm content.. you really are not playing in the Realms per se but playing in "some hodge-podge campaign world that's called Living Forgotten Realms."   

Aug 8, 2012 -- 9:34AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

To not change the rules and leave them be is not a very valid argument because the rules of the game change every month in the form of errata, articles in dragon and dungeon magazine and any new book that comes out.

To me, this argument works in favor not of adding new material, but throwing out material that should never have been in -- if you're going to change the rules, and if the reason some material was put in was to allow WotC to sell books, now that 4E-specific rulebooks are no longer on the sales schedule, and thus the reason to allow the non-FR material in the game isn't really a big deal anymore, we should be able to throw out all the stuff that makes LFR a 'watered-down generic D&D campaign'.

This would include:

- Eberron-specific material (warforged, artificers, kalashtar, paragon paths, epic destinies)
- Dark Sun-specific material (everything related to the Sorcerer-Kings, muls, animist shamans, paragon paths, epic destinies)
- Fortune Cards
- the race options from Heroes of the Feywild (you're telling me that Evermeet has retreated into the Feywild as a sign that the fey lords are slowly abandoning Faerun, but that creatures from the Feywild are therefore tripping over each other to get into the Realms and become adventurers?)
- The Disciple of Razaundra paragon path from Heroes of Shadow (since, in the Realms, the Silence of Lolth was all about her subsuming or otherwise defeating her rivals and former servants so as to make a play toward ultimate power, and Razaundra is described as a former servitor of Lolth, who logically should not have survived)

and probably plenty of other stuff I can't think of right now.

Point is, whether you want stuff to be added or stuff to be taken away, either one involves the campaign staff spending time that can more profitably be spent on things that are more important (finishing the meta-org document, polishing the v2.5 CCG, finishing playtesting and publication of the Epic campaign, etc.) For that reason alone, the most likely change to LFR is going to be...nothing.

--
Pauper

Removing existing options is not a good idea. If you suddenly ban warforged and artificers, it invalidates a bunch of characters, that will have to be rebuilt. 

Adding old options like Dark Sun themes would be fine, but I agree with Mommy_was_an_Orc's point, that those themes are a direction that was steered away from, and so could probably just be left alone.

Selectively adding new material, is creating some confusion. Like material from Book Vile Darkness and articles that expand upon it are not LFR legal, but half the people don't realize what those articles are, when they are just selecting feats, themes, powers, etc. in the character builder. I already have to contend with zounds of blatantly evil PC's. I wish the lid was tighter on that, but it isn't. When I'm looking at the table I'm running for and see a Revenant Warlock, Vryloka Blackguard, Changeling Vampire, Shade Hexblade, and a Dwarf Cleric of Moradin, guess who doesn't feel like they belong at the table? When I'm looking for plot hooks, only thing I can entice this party with is coin and treasure. Not really the sort of LFR I want to play or run, but sometimes that's what it just comes down to. Instead of the occasional dark hero, we now have the occasional good guy in a sea of amoral treasure hunters. I think the decision of what is allowed and not allowed should be based as much on the desired game play experience, as the flavor appropriate for the campaign.

Aug 8, 2012 -- 11:45AM, Mengu74 wrote:

Removing existing options is not a good idea. If you suddenly ban warforged and artificers, it invalidates a bunch of characters, that will have to be rebuilt.

How do you ban something that was never legal in the first place? Warforged aren't legal for LFR, right?

Aug 8, 2012 -- 11:00AM, Pauper wrote:

This would include:

- Eberron-specific material (warforged, artificers, kalashtar, paragon paths, epic destinies)
- Dark Sun-specific material (everything related to the Sorcerer-Kings, muls, animist shamans, paragon paths, epic destinies)
- Fortune Cards
- the race options from Heroes of the Feywild
- The Disciple of Razaundra paragon path from Heroes of Shadow

FWIW, as someone who IS NOT a realms-lore person...

Artificiers should not be limited to Eberron, not their 4e incarnation anyway.  The fey-races all seemed to be reasonable things to me.  Otherwise, I'm fine with that whole list, and would add Revenants (and HoS races, other than shade.. but see later), dragonshards, and the carp-shapeshifter race varients to it.  Except that I'd have liked to see a return of a card-system to play some of the excluded races (such as Shade, or Warforged)

But, not worth the effort right now.  See post #5 for what we should be asking for instead.

Maybe I see this differently than you all do...

Let us put this in its proper perspective....

we are talking about the unbanning of ten (10) character themes that for the most part are sub optimal choices from a character building perspective and will probably only be picked to satisfy character flavor.... 

we are also talking about a change that will not take a huge amount of effort to do, just a small edit within the campaign guidelines (Note:  An update to the campaign guidelines NEEDS to be done anyways)...

we are also talking about a change that does not warrant this amount of discussion because the impact is so miniscule.  If the topic was changing how character acquired magic items and loot, or character creation higher than level 1 or level 11, or another ruling change on magic item rarity.. then I agree those topics are way too broad to approach at this stage of the campaign and there are other higher priority items to be tackled but this issue does not fall under that description.

Personally, I am dumbfounded that I have invested so much time on this topic but also bewildered by the fact that other people actually are arguing the opposite point.  It is as if, people are arguing in a vacuum and not really considering the history of what has come before and not considering the impact of this change will have on the campaign. 

So now Arbieth is declaring it is bewildering that someone is actually arguing an opposite point, arguing in a vacuum and not really considering the history (of what LFR, D&D, RPGA) of what has come before.  Well, I do have an opposite viewpoint, I do think it is worth arguing, I do know something of the history of LFR (been writing director since it started), RPGA (I became a member in 1981) and D&D. Maybe I just have a different set of values...what I consider to be important than you do.  That does not mean one is right and the other is wrong. 

I like the suggested list by Pauper of things to be eliminated from LFR.  Citing RPGA HISTORY, shortly after Living City converted to 2ed, it was overwhelmed by inclusion of all manner of races and kits, trying to be all things are possible campaign, diluting the FR unique flavor.  The campaign leadership (not me, I was just a player and DM at that time), under the direction of Jean Rabe, RPGA Coordinator, eliminated a bunch of choices from the campaign.  It was painful, but it was done.  The golden years of LC were after that elimination (in the mid 1990s) so it was not detrimental to the campaign except for short term grumbling. I do not recall if Wayne Straiton had become the campaign director, or if it was still under the LC Consortium at that point in the campaign.

Keith

No offense Keith53 but we are not talking about the old days of LC or LG... we are talking about this campaign LFR and the decisions that included outside FR content being allowed into this campaign.

The point is that LFR has been watered downed continuously since it is inception 4 years ago and to argue against a request to un-ban 10 character themes appears extreme and unjustified.

Maybe you do not realize this, maybe you do... and if you do.. .then I have to ask where was your outrage back when the campaign allowed Warforged as a race, Sorcerer Pact Warlocks and all the other non FR content that was allowed?  Where are the posting/s of your disapproval when these non FR content were allowed?

To plant your flag of disapproval on this issue... all I can say is "Really????"  With all the other stuff that has gotten a pass and being 4 years into the campaign....

So yes it is bewildering indeed to understand why someone would argue against unbanning 10 character themes that are for the most part not overpowered and not unbalancing.       

I can see why this might bring back old hurts (of which I was not aware at all). 

But I have to agree with Aribeth here and say that the campaignworld is 'diluted' enough that I'm astonished over the amount over discussion this simple request (unban 10 harmless themes) has caused. 

I would applaud the directors of LFR if they would show the perspective to let bygones be bygones and allow players the possibility to further customize their characters with those themes. 

Aug 8, 2012 -- 4:31PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

Let us put this in its proper perspective....

we are talking about the unbanning of ten (10) character themes that for the most part are sub optimal choices from a character building perspective and will probably only be picked to satisfy character flavor.... 
 

To be clear about proper perspective ...

What you are requesting, in isolation, is reasonable. What you are requesting, as practice, is immense.

What we are talking about is opening a door to "if it's an easy fix, why not make it?" While this specific topic is near and dear to your heart, there are dozens of others who have their own "fixes" that they feel are "easy and necessary" to help LFR. And all of these dozens of changes add up.

Personally, I hope that "revisit past decisions on allowable content from other campaign settings" is so low on the priority list that it never sees the light of day. Not because I have an opinion one way or the other, for or against, but because I'm hoping "reviewing and approving adventure proposals" is receiving higher priority attention.  

Aug 9, 2012 -- 6:31AM, Uthrac wrote:

Aug 8, 2012 -- 4:31PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

Let us put this in its proper perspective....

we are talking about the unbanning of ten (10) character themes that for the most part are sub optimal choices from a character building perspective and will probably only be picked to satisfy character flavor.... 
 

To be clear about proper perspective ...

What you are requesting, in isolation, is reasonable. What you are requesting, as practice, is immense.

What we are talking about is opening a door to "if it's an easy fix, why not make it?" While this specific topic is near and dear to your heart, there are dozens of others who have their own "fixes" that they feel are "easy and necessary" to help LFR. And all of these dozens of changes add up.

+1.

Not to mention, it isn't just allowing DS themes. It is opening up the door to DS feats and paragon paths, some of which are very Dark Sun themed and/or powerful. And if those are allowed, why not Eberron-specific feats such as Dragonmarks.

MwaO,

You do realize the items that you mentioned in your post ARE allowed in LFR already.

I highly suggest you go back and review the campaign guide.

What is not allowed currently:

Dark Sun:  Character Themes (10), Arcane Defiling, Epic Destinies and Wild Talents

Eberron:  Dragonmarked rules, faiths and backgrounds

Everything else from those campaign settings ARE allowed in LFR... so again my point, why do we need Dark Sun character themes still banned?  If Eberron had character themes those would be legal in LFR.

Once again... the request is NOT a precedent setting request... other campaign setting content is already legal in LFR.... If the Global admins allow this request, it is not opening the door as you say for other content to be allowed in....Newsflash:  That door is already flung wide open and more than likely if a new campaign setting came out tomorrow, the majority of that content would be available in LFR.              

Uthrac,

Is the task of unbanning 10 character themes that immense?

The request is not asking for an entire review of a specific campaign setting to be included in LFR.  It is a focused request, centering on an item that for the most part has little impact to LFR and is not precedent setting.

Pragmatically speaking, if the original poster asked for my opinion on this... I would advise him to ask the group that he/she normally plays with if it was OK by them to take the theme and the group would be the judge, jury and executioner then move on.

Asking anything on these boards has demonstrated time and time again and this thread is no exception that there is alot of closed minded thinking in the community.

I personally have no stake in the decision of this request... I have two Epic characters on two dedicated parties that I foresee playing in the future... I have 4 paragon characters  that may or may not reach my goal of Level 21 based on if AGLA 2-4 or BALD 3-1 ever see the light of published.  I do not see a point in starting any character that does not have a legitimate chance in finishing the campaign, I have small doubts that the Epic campaign will finish at Level 30.  When Dave Kay was running the epic campaign he forecasted 3 mods a year... one release at DDXP, one release in the May/June timeframe and one release during the September timeframe... we are now approaching the September timeframe and the second mod of Epic year 2 isnt even released yet which pushes back the third mod and possibly the first mod of Epic year 3.         

Aug 9, 2012 -- 9:06AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

so again my point, why do we need Dark Sun character themes still banned? 

So again, my point, why do we need to spend resources revisiting whether banned content should still be banned? (The larger question.)

Aug 9, 2012 -- 9:06AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

Once again... the request is NOT a precedent setting request... other campaign setting content is already legal in LFR.... If the Global admins allow this request, it is not opening the door as you say for other content to be allowed in....

Book of Vile Darkness has been out for a while - why can't some of that stuff be allowed in? And the treasure system, certainly we can revisit that now that there are so many more rares to choose from? How difficult would it be to add a line to the CCG that says "at the end of any adventure, as part of Treasure X, you can choose a rare item of up to your level-2"? There are a whole bunch of Dungeon magazines with restricted content - certainly some articles contain themes and items that aren't broken - can't we unban those? ......

Aug 9, 2012 -- 9:27AM, Uthrac wrote:

So again, my point, why do we need to spend resources revisiting whether banned content should still be banned? (The larger question.)

To me, this is the point. 

Even if it does "only take a few minutes", with the campaign struggling to get adventures out, and struggling to get campaign documentation updated in any sort of timely fashion, I want any time that the campaign staff spends on LFR to be spent on activities which are going to broadly benefit the community.  And, frankly, themes in general, and a handful of themes at that, are going to be way down on the list, IMO.

Aug 9, 2012 -- 9:26AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

I have small doubts that the Epic campaign will finish at Level 30.  When Dave Kay was running the epic campaign he forecasted 3 mods a year... one release at DDXP, one release in the May/June timeframe and one release during the September timeframe... we are now approaching the September timeframe and the second mod of Epic year 2 isnt even released yet which pushes back the third mod and possibly the first mod of Epic year 3.

Well, you'll have to ask Dave about meeting his forecast.  

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm comitted to 3 EPIC adventures per year, with the finale in early 2014. We've got one released so far in 2012, and I have every expectation that the next two will be released by year's end.

Aug 9, 2012 -- 9:06AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

MwaO,

You do realize the items that you mentioned in your post ARE allowed in LFR already.       

No, they're not. Dark Sun Paragon Paths and Feats are allowed. But there are Dark Sun Paragon Paths and Feats that are theme specific and currently banned because they can't be qualified for - unbanning the themes makes them legal, even if they're quite Athas specific.

Such as Smoking Crown Initiates who are servants to the fire-spirits dwelling in the Smoking Crown - the largest volcano on known Athas. It currently can't be qualified for because no one in LFR can be an Elemental Priest.

Yeah with the campaing winding down and coming to an end within the next year or so there are other things they can focus on.

WotC did a great disservice to themselves when they killed off the regionality of the living campaign in my opinion. I am sure there are places where they did not have very many regional LG conventions that they could go to but I know that around here we had 4 or 5 each year we could travel easily to in and out of our region. Those were the people buying the product and playing the game and now I am one of the only ones I know from those regions still playing WotC's D&D. Most of them carried on LG with Pathfinder or have just moved to the Pathfinder campaign.  Just sad.

In my view the regionality of LG brought people together at these conventions and grew the game. Lets hope for something similar in the future. I would rather they work on that than allowing themes from another realm into the current realm and campaign.

Aug 9, 2012 -- 9:26AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

Is the task of unbanning 10 character themes that immense?

Yes.

Your belief that this is a simple matter of minutes to take care of assumes that everyone involved is fully conversant with the material and in complete agreement with you, which strikes me as an incredibly dubious assumption to make.

In reality, any sort of decision of this nature would require the globals participating in the decision to review the material, remember (or dig back up) the reasons for the original decision, reconsider whether that decision is still correct, communicate their viewpoint to the others, respond to any differing viewpoints, reach a consensus and communicate their decision to the playerbase.

Making a decision--any decision--in an organization run by committee involves some degree of effort.  Doing this as part of an entire new version of campaign guidelines decreases the effort per change (since you generally have one person with primary responsibility and the rest just signing off on the changes, and the effort is spread over multiple changes at once), but making changes outside that process requires a meaningful amount of effort.

Even leaving aside the fact that I disagree with you as to whether this change should be made, even the best case scenario has this as such an incredibly negligible benefit that I can't see it as worth discussing.

I have to wonder ... what theme (or themes) is the OP considering from Dark Sun, that he/she would bring this up for a debate?

I mean, there are dozens of themes available now from other sources ... are none of them enough for your character concept?  Also, themes are optional .. if none of those fit, nothing says you *have* to have a theme.... 

Fine... I have stated a viewpoint on this issue.

I will say we will agree to disagree upon how much effort it truly takes to make a small change such as this.

But if you all truly right about the effort it will take to do this, it concerns me that the effort of doing something that would be considered a Heraculean task would be impossible to do.

Maybe that is the underlying reason why the things that you all want have not been done. 

And why there are still many mods which haven't been released (such as BALD1-5)...

Aug 9, 2012 -- 4:57PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

But if you all truly right about the effort it will take to do this, it concerns me that the effort of doing something that would be considered a Heraculean task would be impossible to do.

Assuming what you mean is "It concerns me that making small changes to a document is a huge amount of work"... yeah.  But while it may be a shame, it has predictive power.  It's likely an explanation with why we're still using the draft meta-org document, and so on...

*shrug*  Committees are about stopping inappropriate work from getting done.  As such, they make it harder to do any work.  That's what they do.

Aug 9, 2012 -- 6:49AM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

+1.

Not to mention, it isn't just allowing DS themes. It is opening up the door to DS feats and paragon paths, some of which are very Dark Sun themed and/or powerful. And if those are allowed, why not Eberron-specific feats such as Dragonmarks.

??? Dark Sun feats and PP's are already allowed as long as they dont have anything to do with defiling. The ONLY reason DS themes are banned is because they were DS specific features at the time. They are not anymore and should be released into the rest of the pool.

As for Paupers list...

Exactly NONE of the things on that list are not present in FR canon. Even Warforged have a 1/2 dozen pre-4e analogs to compare too in the Realms. Dragonshards?!? Really? There are no magic gems in FR lore? 

Aug 9, 2012 -- 3:02PM, Undrhil wrote:

I have to wonder ... what theme (or themes) is the OP considering from Dark Sun, that he/she would bring this up for a debate?

I mean, there are dozens of themes available now from other sources ... are none of them enough for your character concept?  Also, themes are optional .. if none of those fit, nothing says you *have* to have a theme.... 

I'm a he  

And as you can see in my sig, I'm writing a Psion handbook. Since the best theme for Psions is Noble Adept, it got me thinking why it was banned in LFR and if that needs to stay that way. I didn't think so, so I posted my opinion. 

I've also been fooling around in the past with building an Ardent around the level 16 feature of the Resurgent Wilder paragon path. That has the Wilder theme as a prereq, so that build could also have seen the light of play. As is, I didn't bother too much with it since I only play LFR and don't want DMs telling me I can't play my character for reasons I consider to be outdated 

Aug 9, 2012 -- 6:28PM, Marshall wrote:

??? Dark Sun feats and PP's are already allowed as long as they dont have anything to do with defiling. The ONLY reason DS themes are banned is because they were DS specific features at the time.

I think you're making a presumption here -- that the campaign staff stated at the time that the themes being Dark Sun-specific was the main reason they were not being allowed into the campaign does not mean that this was the only reason for them to not be allowed.

As for Paupers list...

Exactly NONE of the things on that list are not present in FR canon. Even Warforged have a 1/2 dozen pre-4e analogs to compare too in the Realms. Dragonshards?!? Really? There are no magic gems in FR lore? 

I wait with bated breath to see where in Realmslore you can find a precedent for Fortune Cards.

--
Pauper

Aug 9, 2012 -- 4:57PM, -Aribeth- wrote:

But if you all truly right about the effort it will take to do this, it concerns me that the effort of doing something that would be considered a Herculean task would be impossible to do.

I spent almost 25 minutes just changing a document from the author using double space after periods to single space (because you have to replace one by one since it is used in stat blocks for spacing).

Campaign stuff takes time. All sorts of stuff. It just isn't easy running a campaign. It is great at times, but there are many distractions and many small and big things that compete for time.

Couple that with the specific issue: allowing Dark Sun flavored content into LFR. Whatever your perspective, there are going to be people that feel it is a bad idea. There might not be a right or wrong to that, but there is a vision for a campaign and that does carry an element of right/wrong to it. Even when a campaign has the goal of allowing as much material as possible, there are limits. You may disagree with them at times, and that's fine - the campaign is more than a few individuals. At times, it can even make sense to do something the majority of individuals don't like, because it takes the campaign in a better direction over time. Part of being an admin is making decisions, whether popular or unpopular.

On my end, I'm another voice against allowing the content. There is so much content already in LFR. As an Ashes of Athas admin, we limit tons of content. The only themes we allow are the Dark Sun themes. That won't change. We make that choice because this is a Dark Sun campaign. Every one of those themes was written fantastically to capture the basic types of characters on Athas. It has been, I think, really good for both campaigns to have these themes isolated to just one campaign.

Edit: One last thing. There are in some posts an undercurrent of 'at this stage in the campaign, you owe it to us'. I can't disagree enough. At this stage in a campaign the volunteers are pretty worn out. Those kinds of comments rob volunteers of energy. This is a great stage in a campaign for gamers to help. To become volunteers. To offer to write an adventure. To offer to playtest. To offer to edit. To offer to DM. To drum up support.

There is also the undercurrent of 'this is the end, just let us blow stuff up; give us all the toys'. I can't agree with that either. A campaign should not undo its vision at the end. If anything, it should hold as true as ever to that vision.

Finally, it is worth saying that LFR could very easily go on for a very long time. It could go as far as Gen Con 2014 (or whenever D&D Next releases, who knows!), or perhaps just change rules and continue as a D&D Next campaign. The end may not be near.

Aug 7, 2012 -- 8:36AM, Pauper wrote:

No need to ban thri-kreen -- they existed in the Realms before Dark Sun was even created. (See Wikipedia.)

I'd be fine with banning warforged, though.

They were called Gondsmen.

Aug 28, 2012 -- 1:53AM, ShakaUVM wrote:

Aug 7, 2012 -- 8:36AM, Pauper wrote:

I'd be fine with banning warforged, though.

They were called Gondsmen.

Two problems with this analysis:

1) Gondsmen weren't living constructs -- they were originally just another name for specialty priests of Gond (pre-3rd edition), and then became (as noted in the following link) 'steampunk robot sidekicks' of Gondian priests (in 3rd edition).

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

2) Gondsmen were pretty much isolated to Lantan, which was destroyed during the Spellplague, so even if you do equate Gondsmen with warforged, it's hard to describe how so many of them survive but so little of the rest of Lantan's technology did.

--
Pauper

In the end sentien gollems are a pretty standard trope of Fantasy. So while the mass production of warforged as took place in Eberron make no sense in the Forgotten Realms, the few warforged adventurers you might meet in LFR do not need to be all that much out of place. There are at least two FR societies that were famous for their gollem creation (Lantan and Raurym) and Spellplague has done some weird things. Off all the races, I personally find the warforged one of the easiest to add to any setting that contains magic. At least you do not have to ponder about the minimum necessary numbers required for a succesful population or the long history of their race Of course, whether you actually like the idea of sentient gollems/robots walking around in your game is a matter of personal taste and I know few players will actually think about the origins of their characters, but that is true regardless of whether they play a human, warforged or shadar-kai... 

Aug 28, 2012 -- 7:31AM, Pauper wrote:

Aug 28, 2012 -- 1:53AM, ShakaUVM wrote:

Aug 7, 2012 -- 8:36AM, Pauper wrote:

I'd be fine with banning warforged, though.

They were called Gondsmen.

2) Gondsmen were pretty much isolated to Lantan, which was destroyed during the Spellplague, so even if you do equate Gondsmen with warforged, it's hard to describe how so many of them survive but so little of the rest of Lantan's technology did.

--
Pauper

A Gondsman, unlike a steam engine, is an excellent swimmer? 

Aug 28, 2012 -- 8:14AM, Chaos_Kitten wrote:

A Gondsman, unlike a steam engine, is an excellent swimmer? 

Or, at least, was more capable of walking along the ocean floor until he/she/it reached the mainland.

Aug 28, 2012 -- 7:31AM, Pauper wrote:

2) Gondsmen were pretty much isolated to Lantan, which was destroyed during the Spellplague, so even if you do equate Gondsmen with warforged, it's hard to describe how so many of them survive but so little of the rest of Lantan's technology did.

My Gondsman (in LFR) survived the explosion, wandered around underneath the oceans for a long time, before finally emerging back on land in Baldur's Gate to resume his life as a living sewage pump.

He's 24th level now, and refuses to worship any deities other than Gond, due to the flavor text that says that if any Gondsman does so, they collapse into a lifeless heap.

Aug 28, 2012 -- 1:36PM, ShakaUVM wrote:

Aug 28, 2012 -- 7:31AM, Pauper wrote:

2) Gondsmen were pretty much isolated to Lantan, which was destroyed during the Spellplague, so even if you do equate Gondsmen with warforged, it's hard to describe how so many of them survive but so little of the rest of Lantan's technology did.

My Gondsman (in LFR) survived the explosion, wandered around underneath the oceans for a long time, before finally emerging back on land in Baldur's Gate to resume his life as a living sewage pump.

Yours did, and good for him.

I suspect he had a lot of company on that journey across the ocean floor, though.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to level up my pixie werewolf vampire.

--
Pauper

Aug 28, 2012 -- 2:28PM, Pauper wrote:

Yours did, and good for him.

If you're going to get all ruffled about it, there's plenty more things to express disbelief about in the campaign. Like the fact that there's apparently hundreds of Epic-level characters from each region all running around doing the exact same quest as each other.

Fact is, Warforged fit into FR just fine. As do pixies, werewolves, and vampires. They all appear in the canon, and so aren't worth getting ruffled over.

Aug 28, 2012 -- 7:31AM, Pauper wrote:

2) Gondsmen were pretty much isolated to Lantan, which was destroyed during the Spellplague, so even if you do equate Gondsmen with warforged, it's hard to describe how so many of them survive but so little of the rest of Lantan's technology did.

How do you define "many"? You could just as well assume that your character happened to just met every surving gondsmen. For most people who play at their FLGS joint that should come to less than a dozen.

Aug 6, 2012 -- 4:16PM, kilpatds wrote:

Like finalizing the meta-org document.
Updating the rules doc.
Releasing moar modules (especially those that have been delayed) 

I'm with Kilpatds. Regardless of how I feel about Dark Sun themes and the specific "Hey, You guys can refluff Themes however you want to fit your games" from WotC. Lets not clutter Sean Molley's Desk with something so complicated and time consuming as adding another bullet point and a whole sentence to the "Recent Campaign Rulings" section.

Aug 28, 2012 -- 2:58PM, ShakaUVM wrote:

Like the fact that there's apparently hundreds of Epic-level characters from each region all running around doing the exact same quest as each other.

I like to think there's just one group of epic characters, myself.

At some point an author was writing something like 'And I guess if they fail, another epic group comes along and fixes it?' and I really didn't like that theory. I want it to just be that one group. Even if the faces get a little fuzzy from time to time.

Aug 28, 2012 -- 7:33PM, Mirtek wrote:

Aug 28, 2012 -- 7:31AM, Pauper wrote:

2) Gondsmen were pretty much isolated to Lantan, which was destroyed during the Spellplague, so even if you do equate Gondsmen with warforged, it's hard to describe how so many of them survive but so little of the rest of Lantan's technology did.

How do you define "many"? You could just as well assume that your character happened to just met every surving gondsmen. For most people who play at their FLGS joint that should come to less than a dozen.

Would you assume that your pixie adventurer has met every other pixie adventuring on Faerun? That your shade assassin knows every other shade adventurer wandering the Realms?

Other races that don't necessarily fit the 'flavor' of the Realms were handled differently -- the award cert that allowed you to create a kenku was one of the best compromises between 'we want to allow this in LFR' and 'we don't really know how this fits in LFR'; people who wanted to play a kenku could find a way to do it without making them so common that people start to wonder how Vecna found his way to the Realms.

There's no real point in continuing the discussion -- it's devolved into a joke that's itself so old now as to only be funny to people who haven't encountered it. I just don't feel any sympathy for folks who have such a need to be special and unique snowflakes that they're willing to do active violence to a campaign setting to pull it off.

--
Pauper

Aug 29, 2012 -- 8:18AM, Pauper wrote:

the award cert that allowed you to create a kenku

At one point, the award cert that let you play an orc was going for $50+ on ebay. 

Aug 29, 2012 -- 8:13AM, Keithric wrote:

I like to think there's just one group of epic characters, myself.

I want it to just be that one group. Even if the faces get a little fuzzy from time to time.

Agree 100%.

Aug 29, 2012 -- 8:18AM, Pauper wrote:

Would you assume that your pixie adventurer has met every other pixie adventuring on Faerun? That your shade assassin knows every other shade adventurer wandering the Realms?

Since my character, despite haphazardly roaming Faerun from one end to another, seems to be always meeting companions from the same pool of app. a dozen different people, maybe these are really all adventurer there are.

You have to admit that walking into taverns in Chult, Neverwinter and the East Rift and basically always meeting the same old faces is kinda weird 

Aug 30, 2012 -- 3:09PM, Mirtek wrote:

You have to admit that walking into taverns in Chult, Neverwinter and the East Rift and basically always meeting the same old faces is kinda weird 

I'll grant you that one -- though I'll point out that convention play does a nice job of dispelling this weirdness.

--
Pauper

Aug 31, 2012 -- 7:38AM, Pauper wrote:

Aug 30, 2012 -- 3:09PM, Mirtek wrote:

You have to admit that walking into taverns in Chult, Neverwinter and the East Rift and basically always meeting the same old faces is kinda weird 

I'll grant you that one -- though I'll point out that convention play does a nice job of dispelling this weirdness.

Or 5 minutes of work from the players It is not that hard to explain why your old friends have come together to go on the next adventure

Sep 8, 2012 -- 3:53AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Aug 31, 2012 -- 7:38AM, Pauper wrote:

Aug 30, 2012 -- 3:09PM, Mirtek wrote:

You have to admit that walking into taverns in Chult, Neverwinter and the East Rift and basically always meeting the same old faces is kinda weird 

I'll grant you that one -- though I'll point out that convention play does a nice job of dispelling this weirdness.

Or 5 minutes of work from the players It is not that hard to explain why your old friends have come together to go on the next adventure

It likely isn't half as weird as it seems. Presumably, adventurers have lives off-camera. They know how to keep in touch with each other or at least tell each other where they're likely to be going next. If I were actually a PC and I met other PCs who seemed competent(and for which I got lots of treasure), I'd make sure to figure out a way to keep in touch and/or journey with them for a while.

When two adventurers who know each other are in the same tavern in Chult, the odds are really high that they knew this might happen in advance.

This is also a world with direct and common intervention of the various deities, and it's pretty rare for someone to not have a designated patron. Considering that the average level 1 adventurer is far beyond the average citizen (whom I would rate at minion strength), it makes sense that if something's about to go down, a patron would at the very least pull some invisible strings to get you where you need to go.

The upshot of all this is maybe your guy wanders into a tavern for a drink, unexpectedly runs into a bunch of his old adventuring buddies, finds out all of them are there for totally coincidental reasons, and immediately starts polishing up the armor and weapons. :D 

So, they are not unbanning Dark Sun themes, they are banning Eberron themes. I don't even know how to search for those in the compendium. Searched Eberron under themes, nothing came up. I don't remember what all magazine issues these themes come from.

I've been using Sentinel Marshal for my Monk, refluffed the theme as member of Flaming Fist, which seemed appropriate. I think this specific theme was discussed elsewhere on these boards too and seemed like it got a green light, I remember reading about it. The powers were perfect for what I wanted to do with my monk. I've leveled him up to 4. Moving up to something, immobilizing, marking, and shifting away has been my favorite trick. Now the theme is illegal.

I don't understand what the big deal is with refluffing as appropriate. These restrictions are becoming harder and harder to track. Month or so ago, one of my players was all excited about finding this theme for his infernal warlock, Infernal Prince. Told him it was a BoVD theme, and illegal. He says, "No it's not, I checked, the character builder said it's from Dragon Magazine." Not only is it difficult to track all this stuff, but it's also dificult to convince people that they are doing something wrong.

Sep 8, 2012 -- 5:59AM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

Sep 8, 2012 -- 3:53AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Aug 31, 2012 -- 7:38AM, Pauper wrote:

Aug 30, 2012 -- 3:09PM, Mirtek wrote:

You have to admit that walking into taverns in Chult, Neverwinter and the East Rift and basically always meeting the same old faces is kinda weird 

I'll grant you that one -- though I'll point out that convention play does a nice job of dispelling this weirdness.

Or 5 minutes of work from the players It is not that hard to explain why your old friends have come together to go on the next adventure

It likely isn't half as weird as it seems. Presumably, adventurers have lives off-camera. They know how to keep in touch with each other or at least tell each other where they're likely to be going next. If I were actually a PC and I met other PCs who seemed competent(and for which I got lots of treasure), I'd make sure to figure out a way to keep in touch and/or journey with them for a while.

When two adventurers who know each other are in the same tavern in Chult, the odds are really high that they knew this might happen in advance.

Heh.

"Hey.  You get my sending ritual?  Yeah, we should total get together.  I hear there's a dragon in some cave somewhere.  Hang on, let me Send to Ralph." 

Sep 9, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Mengu74 wrote:

Month or so ago, one of my players was all excited about finding this theme for his infernal warlock, Infernal Prince. Told him it was a BoVD theme, and illegal. He says, "No it's not, I checked, the character builder said it's from Dragon Magazine." Not only is it difficult to track all this stuff, but it's also dificult to convince people that they are doing something wrong.

It's the player's responsibility to do the work to ensure he or she has a legal LFR character. If a player is too lazy to do the proper research, then getting nerfed at the table should be the least of his concerns.

--
Pauper

Sep 9, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Mengu74 wrote:

So, they are not unbanning Dark Sun themes, they are banning Eberron themes. I don't even know how to search for those in the compendium. Searched Eberron under themes, nothing came up. I don't remember what all magazine issues these themes come from.

Huh, since when?

A shame. I regret loss of content for character creation, but I've already made that clear enough in this thread.

Sep 10, 2012 -- 7:09AM, Pauper wrote:

It's the player's responsibility to do the work to ensure he or she has a legal LFR character. If a player is too lazy to do the proper research, then getting nerfed at the table should be the least of his concerns.

Missing the fact that the article his theme came from was labeled as BoVD material can hardly be called laziness, as this information is only available if you download and read the article itself. There is no indication in the character builder or the compendium. There are hundreds of articles out there. It is incredibly tedious to download and check the individual article from which every magic item, theme, feat, etc. is coming from, when you're building/leveling up characters.

Sep 10, 2012 -- 8:03AM, svendj wrote:

Huh, since when?

Just saw it in the Recent Campaign Rulings section of www.livingforgottenrealms.com/

Not sure how long it's been there. I don't recall seeing it couple weeks ago when I went there to download the Waterdeep mods.

Sep 10, 2012 -- 8:20AM, Mengu74 wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 7:09AM, Pauper wrote:

It's the player's responsibility to do the work to ensure he or she has a legal LFR character. If a player is too lazy to do the proper research, then getting nerfed at the table should be the least of his concerns.

Missing the fact that the article his theme came from was labeled as BoVD material can hardly be called laziness, as this information is only available if you download and read the article itself. There is no indication in the character builder or the compendium. There are hundreds of articles out there. It is incredibly tedious to download and check the individual article from which every magic item, theme, feat, etc. is coming from, when you're building/leveling up characters.

Sep 10, 2012 -- 8:03AM, svendj wrote:

Huh, since when?

Just saw it in the Recent Campaign Rulings section of www.livingforgottenrealms.com/

Not sure how long it's been there. I don't recall seeing it couple weeks ago when I went there to download the Waterdeep mods.

The Character Builder is a tool not a rules source. The book, article and/or errata are rules sources and are the players responsibility to have access to to use when creating a character within the guidelines of the CCG.

Sep 9, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Mengu74 wrote:

So, they are not unbanning Dark Sun themes, they are banning Eberron themes.

There are no themes in the Eberron Campaign Setting book for 4E, as themes didn't exist until the Dark Sun Campaign Setting. When Eberron themes began being released in Dragon, since the logic for keeping Dark Sun themes out of LFR also applies to Eberron themes, a smart player should have read the writing on the wall and figured the Eberron themes would eventually be clarified as not LFR-legal.

I don't even know how to search for those in the compendium. Searched Eberron under themes, nothing came up. I don't remember what all magazine issues these themes come from.

If you're using the Character Builder (and thus have a DDI subscription), it's not too difficult:

- See a theme that looks cool in the CB, check the source reference.
- If there is no reference to the source in the CB, do a name search in the Compendium; every Compendium entry includes a source record.
- If the source is a Dragon article, search the Dragon archives on the WotC site for that Dragon issue and find the article that contains the theme. If the article is branded as Dark Sun or Eberron-specific content, it's not legal for LFR.

It's two or at most three steps; hardly onerous. I'd be a little more empathetic toward someone who doesn't have CB access, though in that case it's hard to imagine how they'd hear about most of the disallowed themes without already being aware that they're disallowed.

--
Pauper

Sep 10, 2012 -- 1:45PM, Pauper wrote:

There are no themes in the Eberron Campaign Setting book for 4E, as themes didn't exist until the Dark Sun Campaign Setting. When Eberron themes began being released in Dragon, since the logic for keeping Dark Sun themes out of LFR also applies to Eberron themes, a smart player should have read the writing on the wall and figured the Eberron themes would eventually be clarified as not LFR-legal.

Sorry, we're dumb players who don't know very much about Forgotten Realms or Eberron to begin with, and fluff stuff the way we like. In one group I'm playing we have cartoon/comic book characters, like Yosemite Sam, Mum-ra, Pooh, Hellboy, Storm, whatever... So not very FR fluffy. In my other group we pay a bit more attention to fluff, but we figure rules is not fluff. If we're allowed to use a rule, we'll make it work with our best understanding of how things work in Forgotten Realms (which we are by no means experts in).

Sep 10, 2012 -- 1:45PM, Pauper wrote:

It's two or at most three steps; hardly onerous. I'd be a little more empathetic toward someone who doesn't have CB access, though in that case it's hard to imagine how they'd hear about most of the disallowed themes without already being aware that they're disallowed.

The friend I was describing in question was using someone else's laptop to make his character, so, no, he wasn't clicking on every feat, every magic item, theme, etc to see what dragon article they were coming from.

For someone who lives and breathes this stuff, it may not be hard. But for the casual players who make up a larger majority of my play groups, it is very easy for them to miss disallowed content, and some of it is such routine stuff that I wouldn't notice it.

To give an example of another recent discussion, someone asked me if they could pick up Freedom Fighter for his Warlord. Strictly by the rules, I think they can pick it up, because DS paragon paths are not restricted material. Themes are, and by extention if a PP requires a DS theme, you might not be able to qualify, but being a Warlord qualifies you for Freedom Fighter. Should I make the assumption that some day they will ban this theme because it's "closely tied to" DS, and came out in a DS article? I mean how inappropriate is it for a character from let's say Calimshan to have the Escaped Slave theme anyway?

Sep 10, 2012 -- 2:56PM, Mengu74 wrote:

Should I make the assumption that some day they will ban this theme because it's "closely tied to" DS, and came out in a DS article?

If it came out in a DS article it is actually already banned.

 

Sep 10, 2012 -- 2:56PM, Mengu74 wrote:

I mean how inappropriate is it for a character from let's say Calimshan to have the Escaped Slave theme anyway?

Something I was saying from day one. However the campaign decided otherwise, time to move on.

Sep 10, 2012 -- 3:29PM, Mirtek wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 2:56PM, Mengu74 wrote:

Should I make the assumption that some day they will ban this theme because it's "closely tied to" DS, and came out in a DS article?

If it came out in a DS article it is actually already banned.

How do you get to that conclusion?

According to the campaign guide, only Dark Sun Themes, arcane defiling, wild talents, and epic destinies are disallowed. Nothing about paragon paths. And so if a Dragon article publishes a Dark Sun Paragon Path, my understanding is that it's allowed. But if a Dragon article publishes a Dark Sun theme, it is not allowed, because Dark Sun themes are not allowed per the LFRCG.

Sep 10, 2012 -- 9:43PM, Mengu74 wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 3:29PM, Mirtek wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 2:56PM, Mengu74 wrote:

Should I make the assumption that some day they will ban this theme because it's "closely tied to" DS, and came out in a DS article?

If it came out in a DS article it is actually already banned.

How do you get to that conclusion?

According to the campaign guide, only Dark Sun Themes, arcane defiling, wild talents, and epic destinies are disallowed. Nothing about paragon paths. And so if a Dragon article publishes a Dark Sun Paragon Path, my understanding is that it's allowed. But if a Dragon article publishes a Dark Sun theme, it is not allowed, because Dark Sun themes are not allowed per the LFRCG.

I think you're right. I was somehow still thinkg Paragon Paths

Sep 10, 2012 -- 2:56PM, Mengu74 wrote:

In one group I'm playing we have cartoon/comic book characters, like Yosemite Sam, Mum-ra, Pooh, Hellboy, Storm, whatever... So not very FR fluffy.

See, here's my problem. The decision was made to 'loosen up' the OP campaign to make it more accessible. That seems inherently like a good thing. But loosening it up to the point where people are playing Roger Rabbit and R2D2 in the campaign, and asking openly why other setting-specific details can't be used in the OP campaign is a serious turn-off to people who want to enjoy the OP campaign as its own unique, vibrant setting. It's not unlike a club deciding to open up to a larger audience, and the regulars show up to find that the newcomers have decided that painting crude lewd pictures on the walls is what they want to do to feel like the place is 'fun'.

Why worry about the old guard? Because the guys painting on the walls aren't the guys who are going to put in the time and sweat to keep the campaign going, and by demonstrating to the old guard that you don't really care about their concerns as long as the turnstile keeps moving means that -- well, you get what we have now: a forum that's a shadow of its former vibrancy and sense of community, conventions where players have to step up out of the crowd to fill empty DM slots, and isolated pockets of players who play by such wildly different 'house rules' that running into them in convention play makes you wonder if they're even playing the same game you are.

If you want to play LFR the way you want to play it, go right ahead. Just don't expect that the way you play it is the way it'll be played when you sit down at someone else's table. And if you don't find that as a problem in a supposedly global organized play campaign, then you are part of the problem.

--
Pauper

Sep 11, 2012 -- 8:12AM, Pauper wrote:

If you want to play LFR the way you want to play it, go right ahead.

I never can though. At any table I sit in, I must compromise with the other players. Sometimes I sit with a group where half the party plays blatantly evil characters, and the DM squirms in his seat to make the adventure work with the motivations of the group. Sometimes I sit with a group that's ready with a d20 in their hand waiting for the DM to say roll initiative. And sometimes I sit with a DM who starts the adventure by saying, this skill challenge is stupid, so, this bitch tells you she'll pay you gold to kill some goblins, you find some goblins, roll intiative. These are some extreme examples, and not the typical norm, but the best way for me to enjoy a game, is to not sweat this stuff too much, and follow a very simple rule. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. No amount of rules and regulations will change the way people play. Those who pay attention to fluff and general themes of the campaign, will continue to do so even with the most lax rule set. Those who don't care, will continue not to care.

The woes of organized play.

Sep 11, 2012 -- 3:31PM, Mengu74 wrote:

This skill challenge is stupid, so, this bitch tells you she'll pay you gold to kill some goblins, you find some goblins, roll intiative.

Are you sure that wasn't the read-aloud text?  

Sep 10, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Mithreinmaethor wrote:

The Character Builder is a tool not a rules source. The book, article and/or errata are rules sources and are the players responsibility to have access to to use when creating a character within the guidelines of the CCG.

Oh please, be honest here. The Character Builder is not just "a" rules source its THE PRIMARY RULES SOURCE. I've NEVER seen a DM ask to see the book/article the power/feat/ability came from. Its ALWAYS the character sheet that determines what happens at the table. 
Flowery language in a Draft doc that hasnt been updated in 18+ mos and 90% of players never read notwithstanding.
Even the newest ruling on the SentMarshal will likely be ignored. Heck, 99 times out of a 100 if a player asked me about that theme I'd say "Whatever" and go on without thinking about it.  Even most of the BoVD themes wont cause someone to bat an eye.

Without looking it up, which one of these is illegal?
Demon Spawn
Devils Pawn
Infernal Slave
Infernal Prince 

Sep 12, 2012 -- 2:01PM, Marshall wrote:

 Without looking it up, which one of these is illegal?
Demon Spawn
Devils Pawn
Infernal Slave
Infernal Prince 

I select choice E: Warforged.

 

Sep 12, 2012 -- 2:01PM, Marshall wrote:

Without looking it up, which one of these is illegal?
Demon Spawn
Devils Pawn
Infernal Slave
Infernal Prince 

I love games. 

I don't think Devil's Pawn or Infernal Prince are illegal. I would've guessed both of the other two were if you didn't specify "one". I'm going to go with Demon Spawn being illegal.

 And yeah, nice example.

Sep 12, 2012 -- 3:19PM, Keithric wrote:

Sep 12, 2012 -- 2:01PM, Marshall wrote:

Without looking it up, which one of these is illegal?
Demon Spawn
Devils Pawn
Infernal Slave
Infernal Prince 

I love games. 

I don't think Devil's Pawn or Infernal Prince are illegal. I would've guessed both of the other two were if you didn't specify "one". I'm going to go with Demon Spawn being illegal.

 And yeah, nice example.

Except it really isn't when you add one more bit of information that is obviously available in CB:
Demon Spawn: Heroes of Elemental Chaos
Devil's Pawn: Neverwinter Campaign Setting
Infernal Slave: Book of Vile Darkness
Infernal Prince: Dragon 406

The only one that should be open to question is Infernal Prince. At the bottom of the theme in CB, there's a link to the front page of Dragon 406. Where Infernal Prince has this text:

 

Nice

And yeah, I guessed demon spawn because I remembered it having an "attack random" aspect of PvP-ishness. Infernal Slave I thought was BoVD, but was willing to chalk up to "yet another tiefling" thing since I didn't remember anything about it.

I've _seen_ Infernal Princes in LFR before, and knew it was from Dragon. Good to know it's a second "BoVD"-ish one. 

Infernal Slave and Infernal Prince are both not legal in LFR.  One is directly from book of vile darkness (Infernal Slave) and the other is considered to be Book of Vile Darkness material as mentioned on the LFR website and is also not legal in LFR.    THe other two are legal in LFR. 

The character builder has never been a legal rules source and never will be.  If you base everything off of it, I can tell you several things that will end up being wrong because of it.

Infernis

P.S.  No I didnt look the information up.

Any content that warrants a ban for mechanical reasons (i.e. "some idiot wrote in an alignment restriction" or "it hurts your allies") is already covered by the rules which prohibit being evil or screwing your allies without their permission. At this point, there are just two things standing between those themes and legality:

First, those themes were originally banned out of fear of powercreep, and people are now hesitant to unban them because admitting you were wrong is a thing human beings hate doing.

Second, a handful of authoritarian controlfreaks who oppose loosening restrictions on principle are given too much weight by this community.

There was never any time when it was appropriate to ban Dark Sun Themes, and the same applies to the Book of Vile Darkness. So prove you're adults and won't be bullied by a minority, and unban this perfectly acceptable player content.

Sep 12, 2012 -- 6:30PM, erachima wrote:

Second, a handful of [great volunteers] who oppose loosening restrictions [out of priority concerns] are given too much weight by this community.

This, mostly. Now that I think about it, any DMs or players that refuse my character with an illegal theme because "it's in the LFR Campaign rules" can, quite frankly, suck it. I'll gladly follow rules that were were laid down out of power concerns (the item rules are a good example of this), but if I properly refluff my Escaped Slave/Sentinel Marshal/Infernal Prince theme I seriously don't see any reason to refuse them.

And no Pauper, purity of the setting doesn't count because you can refluff everything to fit a setting.

So essentially:

"LFR must ignore the minority I do not agree with and listen to my minory instead. Oh and if they don't agree that my minority is the superior minority they can suck it"  

(The majority being the "I don't really care either way" group that can't be bothered to read these boards All the minority opinions that swarm these boards are given too much weight by sheer vitue of being vocal where the majority is silent.)

I am fine with attempts at getting the rules changed and being passionate about wanting the absolute optimal mechanical choices available. While I personally do not see the need, I understand the desire to have the option. I personally would even agree that with refluffing most everything can be made to fit the story, but then I am not particularly attached to the protection of realmslore. 

However the tone is taking a rather desperate dip in the direction of "If I can't make my own rules me and my ball are going home!". I do not think that is warranted or productive. 

Oh and as long as a PC does not insist/act like they are evil, starts defiling or talking about the green age I am not very likely to go checking anyones theme, let alone refuse anyone (has to be a pretty darn horrible communication breakdown to reach that point). So I am unlikely to be sucking it, thankfully . I know, from a rules perspective that is likely horrible and does not help, but I think it is how a lot if not most DMs handle it.

Sep 13, 2012 -- 6:16AM, svendj wrote:

Sep 12, 2012 -- 6:30PM, erachima wrote:

Second, a handful of [great volunteers] who oppose loosening restrictions [out of priority concerns] are given too much weight by this community.

This, mostly. Now that I think about it, any DMs or players that refuse my character with an illegal theme because "it's in the LFR Campaign rules" can, quite frankly, suck it. I'll gladly follow rules that were were laid down out of power concerns (the item rules are a good example of this), but if I properly refluff my Escaped Slave/Sentinel Marshal/Infernal Prince theme I seriously don't see any reason to refuse them.

And no Pauper, purity of the setting doesn't count because you can refluff everything to fit a setting.

First of all, the volunteers in question, if in fact their opinions are being given "greater" weight by the _admins_ ... you can hardly fault the admins for listening to people that are 1) engaged in the campaign 2) helping and 3) know what they are talking about. You could argue #3 simply because different people will have different experiences but that is also true of your opinions.

As for svendj's comment about sucking it.

That attitude isn't going to help you play since you're already starting at a disadvantage with any GM or organizer who would question your character build. In other words you're already down a strike or two, adding to it with attitude isn't going to win you anything. If it was _me_, and you're lucky it isn't, I'd probably simply boot you from the table, game day or con I was running if you were to act that way. If you were to, instead, give me a good argument for why such an "illegal" build shouldn't be an issue ... I'd be willing to discuss it. But I would still be starting from the viewpoint of "you're not following the rules."

As others have noted, there's really only one incentive to follow the rules in LFR at the moment. And that is if the organizers of games actually enforce them ... or players actively avoid those that break the rules. If you find yourself amongst such a group, feel free to be antagonistic, but you might not get to play much.

Sep 13, 2012 -- 6:46AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

So essentially:

"LFR must ignore the minority I do not agree with and listen to my minory instead. Oh and if they don't agree that my minority is the superior minority they can suck it"  

(The majority being the "I don't really care either way" group that can't be bothered to read these boards All the minority opinions that swarm these boards are given too much weight by sheer vitue of being vocal where the majority is silent.)

I am fine with attempts at getting the rules changed and being passionate about wanting the absolute optimal mechanical choices available. While I personally do not see the need, I understand the desire to have the option. I personally would even agree that with refluffing most everything can be made to fit the story, but then I am not particularly attached to the protection of realmslore. 

However the tone is taking a rather desperate dip in the direction of "If I can't make my own rules me and my ball are going home!". I do not think that is warranted or productive. 

Aren't all decisions made by minorities, in this case the campaign staff? =) Ultimately all that the other minorities can do is make our voices heard. But many of us, when we speak, probably speak for a dozen or so other locals in our groups at the least. I don't think I would be passionately discussing anything here, if half my group disagreed with me.

I also don't think it's so much about "optimal" as it is about "choices". It's really one of my favorite aspects of 4e, with all the choices we have, I can build most any concept, and have it work within the existing rules frame.

And I hope I didn't come off with a "my way or the highway" attitude, that was not my intent, though it *was* my intent to sound passionate.

Sep 13, 2012 -- 6:16AM, svendj wrote:

This, mostly. Now that I think about it, any DMs or players that refuse my character with an illegal theme because "it's in the LFR Campaign rules" can, quite frankly, suck it

Well, in that case we would ask you to close the door behind you when you exit our gameday and please don't bother with signing up for next month on warhorn.

Sep 12, 2012 -- 6:30PM, erachima wrote:

First, those themes were originally banned out of fear of powercreep, and people are now hesitant to unban them because admitting you were wrong is a thing human beings hate doing.

Actually, if I remember correctly, they were banned because some of them were pretty specific to Dark Sun and it just made life easier to disallow all themes from the book than to pick the ones that were actually OK.

Second, a handful of authoritarian controlfreaks who oppose loosening restrictions on principle are given too much weight by this community.

You say authoritarian control freak, I say campaign administrator.  Same thing, I guess.  Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe.  In seriousness, the admins are analogous to the DM of a home game who gets to set the tone of the game he wishes to run - if the DM's decisions do not suit you, then you do not have to play his game.

Sep 12, 2012 -- 4:23PM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

Sep 12, 2012 -- 3:19PM, Keithric wrote:

Sep 12, 2012 -- 2:01PM, Marshall wrote:

Without looking it up, which one of these is illegal?
Demon Spawn
Devils Pawn
Infernal Slave
Infernal Prince 

I love games. 

I don't think Devil's Pawn or Infernal Prince are illegal. I would've guessed both of the other two were if you didn't specify "one". I'm going to go with Demon Spawn being illegal.

 And yeah, nice example.

Except it really isn't when you add one more bit of information that is obviously available in CB:
Demon Spawn: Heroes of Elemental Chaos
Devil's Pawn: Neverwinter Campaign Setting
Infernal Slave: Book of Vile Darkness
Infernal Prince: Dragon 406

The only one that should be open to question is Infernal Prince. At the bottom of the theme in CB, there's a link to the front page of Dragon 406. Where Infernal Prince has this text:

Agents of Evil: The Infernal Prince 

By Aeryn “Blackdirge” Rudel

You’re the spoiled, motherless son of a diabolical tyrant whose very name causes the heavens to shudder. What’s not to like? A diabolical new character theme inspired by The Book of Vile Darkness.

 

Uh huh, and none of that is available at the table or on the character sheet.(Is theme even listed on that awful OCB character sheet?) Thats why I said, "Dont look it up." Other than a few standouts, the differences between "Legal Theme A" and "Banned Theme B" isnt enough to clue in a DM that there's an issue or isnt there at all to start with. Thats the problem with arbitrary rules, they lead to arbitrary enforcement. Which diminshes the effect(and worth) of the rules around them.

Sep 13, 2012 -- 6:46AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

So essentially:

"LFR must ignore the minority I do not agree with and listen to my minory instead. Oh and if they don't agree that my minority is the superior minority they can suck it"  

(The majority being the "I don't really care either way" group that can't be bothered to read these boards All the minority opinions that swarm these boards are given too much weight by sheer vitue of being vocal where the majority is silent.)

No. Essentially, "rules are inherently negative and require a compelling justification to exist."

The only justifications being given for these rules to continue existing are "we should not change the rules because I dislike change" and "we should not change the rules because I like rules".

I am fine with attempts at getting the rules changed and being passionate about wanting the absolute optimal mechanical choices available. While I personally do not see the need, I understand the desire to have the option. I personally would even agree that with refluffing most everything can be made to fit the story, but then I am not particularly attached to the protection of realmslore.

This isn't an optimization issue --Dark Sun themes are generally the least optimal options available, and the only classes that they significantly benefit are themselves majorly suboptimal-- this is a freedom issue. Roleplaying games are about choice, about freedom, about creating something that's personally yours. Stripping players of choices unnecessarily is the most anti-roleplay thing that LFR's rules can do.

So yes, the inferior minority of players who believe their fun is endangered by other people being allowed to make the choices they want with their own characters CAN suck it.

However the tone is taking a rather desperate dip in the direction of "If I can't make my own rules me and my ball are going home!". I do not think that is warranted or productive.

You've got that backwards. The people who are arguing for the continued restriction of themes they dislike are the ones who have been demanding to be allowed to make their own rules, and we've unfortunately let them do precisely that.

Erachima, you're missing another justification for the rules continuing to exist, which is:

The hours of work campaign staff bring to the campaign are a limited resource, and are better spent bringing out adventure content than changing the existing rules.

I don't personally give a hoot whether Noble Adepts or Bugbears are allowed in LFR. Not from an optimization standpoint, and not from a narrative standpoint.

But I do care about seeing new adventures, and getting those back on pace should be the priority.

Perhaps they should have considered that before they went through the exhaustive effort of changing the rules to forbid them.

They didn't "change" the rules to forbid them. They created rules to forbid a specific Dark Sun game element, then they changed the rules to allow that same element when it didn't have a Dark Sun flavoring.

Imagine if suddenly WotC released a bunch of Forgotten Realms themed dragonmarks...

No, on second thought, don't imagine that. The idea of WotC releasing cool 4E content at this point might cause one's head to explode.

Sep 14, 2012 -- 7:38AM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

They didn't "change" the rules to forbid them.

They by definition did. There have been at least four separate occasions when they have had the opportunity to not ban themes, and in each case they have made the proactive decision to write new rules banning themes. They have proven they are quite willing to expend their precious free time and energy on this subject, so it's rank hypocrisy to claim that it'd be too much trouble to change the rules on themes NOW.

It's practically impossible to respond to that without firing back personal attacks in kind...so, whatever. Have a nice day.

Sep 12, 2012 -- 2:01PM, Marshall wrote:

Oh please, be honest here. The Character Builder is not just "a" rules source its THE PRIMARY RULES SOURCE.

The Character Builder is not a primary rules source - it says so right in the CCG. (See page 16, "Secondary Sources", in which it is specifically noted that these sources need to be confirmed against primary sources.) In fact, the CCG has this to say about the Character Builder:

"The following sources are “official” because they are produced by Wizards of the Coast, and we encourage LFR participants to use them. However, these sources include rules that aren't allowed in the campaign, so you need to confirm them with a primary source. For example, you can use the D&D Character Builder to create a character with a dragonmark, but the fact that dragomarks are in the Character Builder doesn't make dragonmarks legal in LFR. Always double-check a secondary source against a primary source to ensure that you’re following both the rules of D&D (in general) and the campaign rules (in particular)."

It is your responsibility as a player to bring a legal character to your LFR table. It is not the responsibility of the DM, Game Day organizer, or member of the campaign staff to prove to you that your character is not legal.

--
Pauper

The whole they did change the rules..they did not change the rules debate...*shrugs*
LFR is a campaign in which the administration takes the role of campaign-dm. As with every campaign the DM decides what goes and what does not. 

If as a player you do not agree with the DM you talk, communicate, argue your point. If that does not work it is time to take stock. If your disagreement is such that you just cannot accept the campaign rules, you walk. Or atleast I think that would be the adult response. Unfortunately internet fora tend to be a lot closer to kindergarden most of the time. With behaviour to match. Its a fact of life 

I already do not envy the administration their role most of the time, but being forced into the role of toddler-herder... ooofs. I can't but sit in amazement at their restraint. 

Sep 14, 2012 -- 11:31AM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

It's practically impossible to respond to that without firing back personal attacks

You can't defend it because your position is indefensible. It's ridiculous to claim that it's too much trouble to solve a problem you actively created.

Sep 14, 2012 -- 12:12PM, Pauper wrote:

The Character Builder is not a primary rules source

Repeating this over and over does nothing to change what happens at the table. You ask a player, how does that power work? He looks at his character sheet and reads it. That's what everyone goes by. If the character sheet says the target is dazed save ends and you owe the DM a KitKat bar, that's what happens. You don't question it, you don't argue it, you don't start googling to see if that can be right or not. You just do it, and move on.

I believe the point Marshall is so inartfully attempting to make is that we should minimize digressions from the core rules because pragmatically speaking, the only thing people pay attention to is that "legal" checkbox on the sheet, meaning that the theme rules end up being unfairly applied to only those who fastidiously attempt to follow the rules. Additional reasons would be that it places an undue burden on the players, DMs, and administration to try to keep track of which themes have been deemed "ungood", in order to lower the entry bar to the game, and so that there's a clear distinction between actual cheating and accidentally picking something from the wrong source.

Sep 14, 2012 -- 12:14PM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

The whole they did change the rules..they did not change the rules debate...*shrugs*
LFR is a campaign in which the administration takes the role of campaign-dm. As with every campaign the DM decides what goes and what does not.

If as a player you do not agree with the DM you talk, communicate, argue your point. If that does not work it is time to take stock. If your disagreement is such that you just cannot accept the campaign rules, you walk. Or atleast I think that would be the adult response. Unfortunately internet fora tend to be a lot closer to kindergarden most of the time. With behaviour to match. Its a fact of life 

I already do not envy the administration their role most of the time, but being forced into the role of toddler-herder... ooofs. I can't but sit in amazement at their restraint.

What other response do you expect to a ruling that gives no justification aside from "Because I Said So?" Treat people like toddlers and they'll behave like toddlers.

Sep 14, 2012 -- 12:54PM, erachima wrote:

Treat people like toddlers and they'll behave like toddlers.

I think someone needs a Time Out.

Sep 14, 2012 -- 12:20PM, erachima wrote:

You can't defend it because your position is indefensible. It's ridiculous to claim that it's too much trouble to solve a problem you actively created.

You have a gift for fiction. Perhaps a manuscript to WotC's book division is in order?

To be clear, when new themes were released, the campaign staff made decisions as to whether those themes were among those that were allowable in LFR or not, generally based on already existing campaign rules. (The Book of Vile Darkness themes, for instance, were easily 'banned' based on the decision not to allow BoVD content of any kind in LFR. Likewise, the Neverwinter themes were easily allowed since Neverwinter is actually in the Realms.) The 'ban' on Eberron themes in Dragon was not a new ban at all, but simply a clarification on the rule that content specific to other settings (such as dragonmarks and deities in Eberron's case) was not allowed in LFR, and one that the Dark Sun theme ruling was thus a precedent for.

To claim otherwise is to completely misunderstand and misrepresent what the campaign staff was doing when issuing these rulings.

And insults and petulance is far from the best way to try to make an alternate point.

--
Pauper

Erachima, my position is that the rules have already been created. If there's a magic time machine to uncreate them, fine. But since there isn't (or else some global just won $270m in the powerball), I'm only focused in the here and now.

In the here and now, I could care less about hobgoblin Noble Adepts, one way or the other.

I care about the release of more of the EPIC campaign mods, because they've been really enjoyable to date, and I can't wait to see what Mickey Tan does with them.

I don't think there's anything related to the campaign that's more important, at least to me, than the release of new content.

I recognize that someone who has their heart set on playing a hobgoblin Noble Adept with the Mark of Storm feat might disagree....but I just don't care. Call me heartless if you want.

Sep 14, 2012 -- 11:19AM, erachima wrote:

They have proven they are quite willing to expend their precious free time and energy on this subject, so it's rank hypocrisy to claim that it'd be too much trouble to change the rules on themes NOW.

Oh, I never said I was not a hypocrite… it would be hypocritical of me to try to claim that! That said, there were three good reasons to ban the Dark Sun themes when they came out.

1) There were no themes that were not in Dark Sun and so it seemed as if it might be a "Dark Sun thing," especially given the history that Athas was a tougher world where PCs tended to be tougher themselves.

2) It was thought that it might be nice to leave something unique for the AoA guys to actually have and use in their campaign, rather than saying we use everything and AoA is just a restrictive version of LFR.

3) From a flavor perspective some things didn't fit or re-flavor easily and rather than start a list that needs to be audited every time a new book or errata comes out it was easier to ban them. Living Forgotten Realms is supposed to be in the Realms after all and one of the big complaints we have had was about dilution of flavor. We have tried to walk an in-between line here by allowing some things that are easily re-flavored (e.g. Warforged to Gondsmen), while still banning groups that include things that are harder to stomach a re-flavor for; all of this with a goal of making the choices in as quick and clear a manner as possible (i.e. anything in a category, in this case themes, that has setting specific elements is out).  I also note you can point to examples of things that were let in (especially things that were let in when WOTC controlled the campaign and we did not that), but those choices were often made by others to sell specific books and not to protect the setting flavor. We went a different way and just because a choice was made before, does not mean you have to make the same choice again (especially if you now think it might have been made in error from the goals of the campaign). However, because we dislike taking away things you previously had (as opposed to just not giving it out in the first place), we let those previous options stand. It's not a perfect solution, but in practice it works more than it fails.

 Once more themes started to come out (eventually including the Ebberon themes), we let the FR or non-setting specific themes in. Reasons 1 became invalid, but reasons 2 and 3 still stand. I hope you continue to enjoy playing LFR and thank you for particpating in this valuable discussion.

Spoiler: Show

Including this paragraph to replicate a post in the blog, and an New Thread on the forums, this post has taken exactly as much effort as it would take to unrestrict the currently absurdly restricted content. It's entirely possible I'm forgetting some content, and fairly difficult for me to represent the act of selecting text, deleting it, saving the file, and then re-uploading it to the website, so lets pretend that's what these words are for.

This is September of 2012, if the Internet were a person, they would be allowed to purchase Alcohol; pretending that updating less than 100 words in 3 locations is difficult or time consuming is rude when your average 16 year old writes that much in his blog on the way to school.

And just to get it out of the way, any defense that someone else might not be reliable is frankly laughable when we regularly go 3 months without an update.

Stop making excuses for someone who cares less about this Campaign than a 16 year old does about his History Homework.

Time to end the discussion. A decision has been made. Reasons have been provided. People offered counter arguments which we acknowledge.

And Zathris, the problem with banning/unbanning items is not with making the announcement. It is with determining whether doing so clashes with the intent of the campaign and getting to an agreement between four people and sometimes WotC. If all we wanted to was to type up an individual answer, than yes, it would be at most 5 minutes work

I just want to take the time to thank all the globals, adventure authors, other volunteers, game day organizers, DMs, just plain helpful people for all they do that allow me to play and DM in this campaign.

I don't always get everything I want, but that is OK. I'm not the only person playing so I figure we all have to make "sacrifices" - if that's what we want to call them. 

Sep 15, 2012 -- 2:59AM, Madfox11 wrote:

And Zathris, the problem with banning/unbanning items is not with making the announcement. It is with determining whether doing so clashes with the intent of the campaign and getting to an agreement between four people and sometimes WotC. If all we wanted to was to type up an individual answer, than yes, it would be at most 5 minutes work

I will continue to remind people that "it takes too much time to update the docs" is not a valid excuse for as long as it continues to be used as one.

Just out of curiosity, if I were to, lets say, start posting games originally designed as MYRE adventures (minus all of the RPGA affiliated text) online, and scheduled multiple events at conventions to run these games for people's LFR Characters, but allowed various restricted content such as Dark Sun themes, Dragonmarks, and a broader selection of items; effectively as a side campaign, but nothing gained in my games could be brought back to official RPGA games ... would you guys have a problem with that?

Actually, it is not the RPGA references that are the problem, it are ALL the FR and many (if not all in 4e) of the D&D references. WotC will be the one that have a problem and they will act, especially if things get a bit too big, just ask some of the off-shoot campaigns of Living City that have been closed by WotC. Or Ashes of Athas for that matter...

Just trying to compile a quick list to check against, for Dragon themes that are illegal in LFR. Here is what I have so far:

Escaped Slave (Dra390) (Dark Sun)
Black-Hearted Knave (Dra406) (BoVD)
Infernal Prince (Dra406) (BoVD)
Sentinel Marshal (Dra407) (Eberron)

Is this it? Are there any others?

Sep 17, 2012 -- 2:33PM, Mengu74 wrote:

Just trying to compile a quick list to check against, for Dragon themes that are illegal in LFR. Here is what I have so far:

Escaped Slave (Dra390) (Dark Sun)
Black-Hearted Knave (Dra406) (BoVD)
Infernal Prince (Dra406) (BoVD)
Sentinel Marshal (Dra407) (Eberron)

Is this it? Are there any others?

Masked Lord is illegal without access.