Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LivingFR] Re: 1/2 exp gold mechanic.

Expand Messages
  • TomBollis
    ... The problems in the past with playing up were low level characters making it harder for the partly to succeed at the APL and the lower level character
    Message 1 of 33 , May 9, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      jhorred wrote:
      I know you were talking about the overall picture. I think that there should be a mechanic to discourage people from playing too far off the level of the mod.  At the same time, I know with your group the lower level character was effective and contributed significantly to the party's success in combat.  I've been in the very same situation a few times myself.  However, rules like that often are written for either the bulk of the population or the lowest common denominator.  It's hard to write a general rule to cover the masses while being able to handle the special cases.  I'd rather not have characters joining the table way off APL, at least at a con.  I can see why people would want the flexibility for their home groups as you can better organize a table to cover a lower level character. 

      Jeff
      The problems in the past with playing up were low level
      characters making it harder for the partly to succeed
      at the APL and the lower level character gaining too
      much treasure for his level after the adventure; with
      playing down was the high level player dominating the
      adventure and making it too easy for the party to
      succeed, or bumping the APL too much for the lower
      levels to contribute. There was an attempt to keep
      character wealth appropriate to the character level
      (which did not work re playing down) and to discourage
      a spread of levels at a table that hindered success
      for the party as a whole and detracted from the fun
      of the players of high or low level characters.

      In 4e, treasure is supposed to have less impact on
      character playability, the reward is supposed to be
      more appropriate to the risk, a mix of levels in a
      party is supposed to meet opposition of appropriate
      difficulty, with better survivability for low levels
      and more contribution by them.

      I don't see a reason for slowing the advancement
      of a lower level character trying to catch up with
      the others, at the cost of fewer low level play
      opportunities due to quicker xp gain. If the
      treasure is in proportion to the xp, when he gets
      to level x he will have similar wealth to someone
      who advanced more slowly.

      Adventures of different natures for Heroic, Paragon,
      and Epic tiers will help limit the level spread at
      a table. As I see it the best mechanic for limiting
      spread and keeping the characters in appropriately
      challenging situations is to but a hard limit on
      the spread allowed at a table, such as 5 or 6
      levels, and to require that the resulting average
      level fit the tier for which the adventure is
      designed.

      It seems that there will be about a 5 level range
      where encounters can be easily adjusted with the
      same general opposition, before the nature of
      the opposition needs to be changed. Thus, intros
      with one set of encounters scalable up a few
      levels, heroic adventures with APL 1-5 and APL
      6-10 sets of encounters, paragon with 11-15 and
      16-20 sets, and epic with 21-26 and 26-30 sets
      would seem to be appropriate.

      Let players muster within a limit spread of
      levels and play adventures suited for the
      resulting APL only and there should be no need
      for a mechanic of half xp or half gp for
      playing high or playing low. The rate of
      highest character advancement early in the
      campaign will be limited by the tiers of
      adventures that are available, with higher
      tier adventures not released until the admins
      think there are enough suitable characters
      for them. For example, with a 6 level spread,
      5 level 11s and 1 level 5 would average level
      10, and could play a heroic adventure at the
      high end of the level 6-10 encounters, a
      reasonable challenge to all, but one they
      should all be able to contribute to and
      survive with teamwork; or 5 level 5s and 1
      level 11 would average level 6, and could
      play a heroic adventure at the low end of the
      level 6-10 encounters, a reasonable challenge
      to all, and one that they all should be able
      to contribute to and survive working as a
      team.

      There should be no need for playing only at
      even APLs, nor of bumping the level by 1
      for 6 player tables.

      It may turn out that the encounters won't
      be as balanced for mixed level parties as
      has been indicated, but we should go into
      4e assuming it will work as indicated and
      that adventures will be written and edited
      accordingly.

      Tom Bollis
    • LCQuincy TOM
      Hi guys...I closed this thread a while back...please move on... Tom Group Owner/Moderator ... http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
      Message 33 of 33 , May 9, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi guys...I closed this thread a while back...please
        move on...

        Tom'
        Group Owner/Moderator
        --- jhorred <jhorred@...> wrote:

        > I know you were talking about the overall picture. I
        > think that there should be a mechanic to discourage
        > people from playing too far off the level of the
        > mod. At the same time, I know with your group the
        > lower level character was effective and contributed
        > significantly to the party's success in combat.
        > I've been in the very same situation a few times
        > myself. However, rules like that often are written
        > for either the bulk of the population or the lowest
        > common denominator. It's hard to write a general
        > rule to cover the masses while being able to handle
        > the special cases. I'd rather not have characters
        > joining the table way off APL, at least at a con. I
        > can see why people would want the flexibility for
        > their home groups as you can better organize a table
        > to cover a lower level character.
        >
        > Jeff
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message ----
        > From: steve <tuscaloosasteve@...>
        > To: LivingFR@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2008 3:13:46 PM
        > Subject: [LivingFR] Re: 1/2 exp gold mechanic.
        >
        >
        > --- In LivingFR@yahoogroup s.com, jhorred
        > <jhorred@... > wrote:
        > >
        > > It seems that this guys problem is not really just
        > his problem, but
        > potentially a huge problem for the group. Have you
        > condsidered
        > focusing on his character's issue for a short bit to
        > get him caught
        > up instead of playing for the rest of the group?
        > I'm sure that if
        > the group puts their mind to it, they can arrange it
        > so that the APL
        > played gives the Tank full XP while others take
        > half. You could
        > possibly rotate through the group having one or two
        > players play a
        > lower level character so that the APL is more
        > appropriate to the
        > character that needs caught up. Depending on how
        > the character
        > levels work out, might be the only one at the table
        > getting full XP
        > but at least he'll be getting closer to his higher
        > level companions.
        > >
        > > You can complain about the rules or you can work
        > out a solution
        > within the rules. I find that the most often the
        > most effective use
        > of time is working out a solution to the rules.
        > >
        > > Jeff
        >
        > Dear Jeff,
        >
        > Well we have split him off to the level 10 table and
        > gone with 5 man
        > tables or a cohort or bringing in out of towners. It
        > wasn't fair to
        > have him tanking for us at a loss. We miss him at
        > the tables :) He's
        > caught up now for the APL 12s... but we're playing a
        > lot at 14 now
        > ROFL!
        >
        > Life goes on. This isn't about fixing one person's
        > problem, it was
        > using one person's/team' s problem to illustrate a
        > weakness in the
        > campaign rules from LG. If the table is fine with an
        > understrength
        > (technically) PC then they should be allowed to play
        > and get rewards.
        > In the end it just speeds retirement with less play
        > sessions for that
        > PC. I personally get a rush playing up and
        > contributing. I've also
        > seen a guy with a new level 1 sit down at an APL 10
        > table and
        > contribute, with a rogue :). Trust me we were glad
        > to have him at the
        > table since the rest of us had the search skill of
        > the average pot-
        > smoking goblin...
        >
        > -S
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        > Be a better friend, newshound, and
        > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
        http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.