|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 25, 2012 13:30:58 GMT -6
Maybe GM-PC gains 1/2 XP while appropriate GM is running? So if I run and hand out 1500 xp for my adventure, my PC gains 750. Then when you run and all of our PCs gain 1200, I get the full amount but your PC gets 600. And so on?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 25, 2012 13:48:27 GMT -6
My thoughts - Use the #-of-sessions model for XP
- GMPC gets half-credit (like an absent player with a designated "second")—or full credit for an exceptional performance, as agreed upon by the group
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 25, 2012 13:52:24 GMT -6
Explain the "Use the #-of-sessions model for XP", please.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 25, 2012 13:58:34 GMT -6
Explain the "Use the #-of-sessions model for XP", please. Additionally, I'd like to do an "XP" experiment: nevermind the points, and just agree on a number of sessions before the next level (based on the usual, for which we can refer to past campaigns' logs); absent players just fall behind on their number of sessions, and it'd be ideal to time GM swaps at the Level breakpoints.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Oct 26, 2012 12:01:58 GMT -6
Thoughts about using just the PHB to simplify what the new GMs can expect as far as tricksy spells, feats and the like?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 26, 2012 12:16:08 GMT -6
Logical. I'm okay with that.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 26, 2012 12:25:51 GMT -6
Not in love with using PHB-only, but I would be okay with starting that way—and if the need for others never comes up, so much the better.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Oct 26, 2012 12:47:37 GMT -6
Any particular reason for not loving PHB-only?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 26, 2012 12:49:08 GMT -6
I can tell you right away: Shield Ward feat.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Oct 26, 2012 12:50:02 GMT -6
He's an elf with a bow?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 26, 2012 12:57:16 GMT -6
Any particular reason for not loving PHB-only? Just a bit too vanilla—I like having options. I'd prefer to use the Completes. I can see why you'd want to limit it, though.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 26, 2012 13:15:15 GMT -6
I was talking from my perspective as a probable sword and board fighter...
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 26, 2012 13:31:39 GMT -6
BTW—I've already figured out what my first run is going to be: Four halflings ask for help to get them behind enemy lines to destroy an evil artifact that The Overlord is trying to get back.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 26, 2012 15:21:02 GMT -6
I think I'd, at least, like to use PHB2/DMG2. Might be good to cherry-pick through the Completes—limit us to an important one or two (specifically Warrior & Adventurer, in my case). Of course, we might want to just limit the PCs/Players to this-or-that, since, if some of us are using modules or pre-written adventure stuff, they will probably be making use of some non-PHB/DMG stuff. And with PHB2, Rigil gets his Knight class
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 28, 2012 13:13:20 GMT -6
So, we've got some stuff to nail down; the sooner, the better, so whoever's going first has more time to get ready. GMing - Finalize legal sourcebooks
- Determine rotation—or first-in-line, at least
- Settle on an official length of run (and how flexible it will be)
- Lay down basic rules for GMPC usage
- Lay down the "can't do" and "must do" rules
- Settle on XP system
- Lay down rules for additions/revisions to the campaign bible
- Lay down rules for campaign NPC usage, and changes
- Others?
Setting - Bible started; waiting for other contributions
- Settle on overall tone—so far, I've set a "less serious" tone, but we need to be in agreement on that
- Settle on theme—trying to steer away from the BDH thing, for N8's sake
- Settle on the primary characters—I'm thinking we should keep the number of characters in the bible limited, for now, but I expect we'll be adding new stuff as we go along
- Relating to the above, I'm thinking we might try to make The Overlord less of a campaign focus, and more of a recurring foil(?)
- I'm thinking we keep the map more "abstract"
- Others?
Player Characters - Settle on starting position, disposition—party stuff
- Finalize intended characters
- Starting level and stat generation is settled, now (via the polls)
- Backgrounds—need them?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 28, 2012 16:06:12 GMT -6
My recommendations (responses in Green) - Finalize legal sourcebooks - Core Books plus limited (case-by-case basis) for Complete books & PHB2. Must get group approval
- Determine rotation—or first-in-line, at least - Hmmm... Not sure here
- Settle on an official length of run (and how flexible it will be) - Minimum 2 sessions as GM, maximum of 6. GMs should run an actual adventure (modules are excellent choices here), not just a couple of encounters.
- Lay down basic rules for GMPC usage - Not sure what you mean here. They're simply an NPC at this point ...
- Lay down the "can't do" and "must do" rules - Again, unsure what you mean.
- Settle on XP system - Honestly, I don't like core D&D XP rules. Think I recommend Pathfinder's "Slow Progression" (which I'm thinking about implementing for the Crimson City game as well.
- Lay down rules for additions/revisions to the campaign bible - Majority rules?
- Lay down rules for campaign NPC usage, and changes - Majority approval for major change?
- Bible started; waiting for other contributions - I've been focusing on Crimson City, but I'll look again.
- Settle on overall tone—so far, I've set a "less serious" tone, but we need to be in agreement on that - Varying, but I'd like to avoid both ends of the spectrum so no grimdark and no Three Stooges
- Settle on theme—trying to steer away from the BDH thing, for N8's sake - Adventuring for adventuring's sake? Out to make money?
- Settle on the primary characters—I'm thinking we should keep the number of characters in the bible limited, for now, but I expect we'll be adding new stuff as we go along - What do you mean Primary Characters? PCs or NPCs?
- Relating to the above, I'm thinking we might try to make The Overlord less of a campaign focus, and more of a recurring foil(?) - I'd be totally okay with that. Like the PCs frankly aren't important enough (until maybe they hit the teens in levels) to even bother him
- I'm thinking we keep the map more "abstract" - Or maybe not even bother with a map at all. "Where is this?" "It's over there. You spend X number of days/weeks traveling and reach it."
- Settle on starting position, disposition—party stuff - Need more information. What are you looking for here?
- Finalize intended characters - Me & LabRat have very solid character concepts already.
- Backgrounds—need them? - Can't hurt, even if they're just really just a couple of sentences.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 28, 2012 16:12:15 GMT -6
Didn't necessarily expect "answers" right away, just "discussion" We had discussed the all-gypsy/minstrel party thing. We had discussed the "guild" thing (itinerant or based out of [town]). There was the "curse" thing. Don't know if other party mechanics were brought up. Need to know how new characters will be brought in.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 29, 2012 13:40:38 GMT -6
So, we've got some stuff to nail down; the sooner, the better, so whoever's going first has more time to get ready. So, in discussion of my own points: GMing: - Rotation: Does anyone want to go first? As I've said, I have an idea for my first offering, but it'll need some development
- I could support a case-by-case approach to sourcebooks, and 2-6 limits on run-length
- This is a mature, reasonable group, so I don't expect any GMPC or can't-do/must-do issues; this all amounts to "abuses of power." It would be better to have some codified preventative measures, but their absence won't prevent us moving forward. Right now, the only "must-do" we've discussed is the cliffhanger ending, but "must" is a bit strong, in this case—and we discussed being able to do the pulp-standard retcon of cliffhanger scenes (maybe we should set some limits on that, or just see how it develops—again, I don't see us having problems)
- The XP system we use here is probably also going to be used across-the-board in other D&D games (specifically, Crimson City). There are some good reasons to stick to "normal" XP, though in my own case, I may just arbitrate the per-session amount. I'm not in love with slowing down progression "too much," but I am in favor of slowing it down "by level" (that is, later levels take longer to reach, in progression)
Setting - In my "silly tone," I've taken a bit of a Meaningful Name approach—if we stick to that, the PCs probably, ideally, should reflect that, as well
- To clarify my suggestion: in many runs, the official antagonist would not be The Overlord, but he would be a background character, that would be meddling, harassing, or otherwise trying to prevent PCs from success—I guess what I mean to do is keep anyone from thinking that, by virtue of his existence, he should be required to be the BBEG of their particular story
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Oct 29, 2012 14:36:37 GMT -6
My answers in Orange! - Finalize legal sourcebooks - PHB, PHB2, Complete Series (with approval)... I was looking to limit the craziness of spells, etc
- Determine rotation—or first-in-line, at least - If we plan on doing an every-other GM rotation it means the old guard will have to run slightly more than the new guys since there is one less person.... I'd be willing to run first, though am currently without ideas (for this specific campaign) since my brain has decided GM'ing falls under the realm of public speaking and it is better to freak out than actually focus on fixing the issue...
- Settle on an official length of run (and how flexible it will be) - 2-3 sessions
- Lay down basic rules for GMPC usage - They guard the gypsy tent
- Lay down the "can't do" and "must do" rules - Must not suck, must be awesome
- Settle on XP system Slow XP alternate Rigil's proposing for Crimson City, we need to keep our characters relatively low level for awhile so the new GMs can adjust or a "everyone levels ever other GM rule"
- Lay down rules for additions/revisions to the campaign bible - Added to after each GM running by that GM.
- Lay down rules for campaign NPC usage, and changes GM "owner" permission on NPC except for a stable of "for all" NPCs
- Others?
Setting - Bible started; waiting for other contributions
- Settle on overall tone—so far, I've set a "less serious" tone, but we need to be in agreement on that - Less serious is fine with me so long as we don't go too far into the realm of just parody. Expecting some weirdness as the new GMs try their hand at things and a lighter tone is a little more friendly to the amount of retconning will likely be going on.
- Settle on theme—trying to steer away from the BDH thing, for N8's sake - I appreciate the thought but a very basic story (ie, BDH v BBEG) is fine for a new story with a rotating cast of GMs, for simplicities sake
- Settle on the primary characters—I'm thinking we should keep the number of characters in the bible limited, for now, but I expect we'll be adding new stuff as we go along - Again, I suggest a list of general NPCs for all GMs to use along with generic character traits for each NPC in that pool. Then a separate "owned" category for each GM specific NPC
- Relating to the above, I'm thinking we might try to make The Overlord less of a campaign focus, and more of a recurring foil(?) - Never have your party meet your BBEG. They will kill him before his first monologue.
- I'm thinking we keep the map more "abstract" - I agree
- Others?
Player Characters - Settle on starting position, disposition—party stuff - Everyone are happy friends who work for traveling gypsies!
- Finalize intended characters - Maybe.... maybe
- Starting level and stat generation is settled, now (via the polls)
- Backgrounds—need them? - Basic motivations are fine, just enough to give the GMs something to work with. No deep in-depth character study needed unless the player desires it.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 29, 2012 14:50:04 GMT -6
GM "owner" permission on NPC except for a stable of "for all" NPCs GM "ownership" is going to be some extra bookkeeping—sure we want that? OTOH, it's going to happen "unofficially" anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 29, 2012 14:57:42 GMT -6
If we plan on doing an every-other GM rotation it means the old guard will have to run slightly more than the new guys since there is one less person.... After 5×2-6 weeks of running, there may be—or probably will be—more experienced GMs in the group, at which point, I expect they'll be tacked onto the end of the rotation. If not, the first one has 5×2-6 weeks before his turn will come up again, so I think it'll be okay (Or 4×, if ChrisIII decides to opt out)
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 29, 2012 15:01:06 GMT -6
He can't opt out unless he leaves the group due to potential job. Everybody fights, nobody quits.
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Oct 29, 2012 15:08:31 GMT -6
...if you don't do your job, i'll shoot you myself
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Oct 29, 2012 15:10:27 GMT -6
the only reason that i would "opt out" would be if i became employed and no longer have friday nights available...
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Oct 29, 2012 15:23:22 GMT -6
My answers are in Pink (it would have been teal but I didn't want to blind you all)! - Finalize legal sourcebooks - PHB, PHB2, Complete Series (with approval)it. I know this might limit the players but it will certainly help the new GMs
- Determine rotation—or first-in-line, at least - I say that one of the new GM's need to go first. And I also say that we are all hesitant to go first. Let's split up the numbers of a D12, roll and see who goes first.
- Settle on an official length of run (and how flexible it will be) - I would say 3-6 depending on content. For me it would make sense for the new GMs to run a bit longer because they aren't going to be as efficient.
- Lay down basic rules for GMPC usage - I figured they would be relegated to NPCs. So they are going to do what NPcs do.
- Lay down the "can't do" and "must do" rules - I am kind of confused by what you mean. I can't think of a *must* rule in previous campaigns so I don't know what to base this off of. Are you talking about common themes?
- Settle on XP system I am fine with slow burn XP a la Rigil's newly founded Crimson City XP adjustment system
- Lay down rules for additions/revisions to the campaign bible - Added to after each GM running by that GM. Yes, I like what N8 says
- Lay down rules for campaign NPC usage, and changes GM "owner" permission on NPC except for a stable of "for all" NPCs That works for me
- Settle on overall tone—so far, I've set a "less serious" tone, but we need to be in agreement on that - I like a good dose of campy-ness as would befit a setting of Generica. I just don't want to go overboard
- Settle on theme—trying to steer away from the BDH thing, for N8's sake - I am fine either way we go. My character is set up to be a good character but she doesn't have to be a BDH
- Settle on the primary characters—I'm thinking we should keep the number of characters in the bible limited, for now, but I expect we'll be adding new stuff as we go along - Again, I suggest a list of general NPCs for all GMs to use along with generic character traits for each NPC in that pool. Then a separate "owned" category for each GM specific NPC I second what N8 said
- Relating to the above, I'm thinking we might try to make The Overlord less of a campaign focus, and more of a recurring foil(?) - Sure, sound good to me. That way there will always be a goatee stroker but it does give you wiggle room if you pick a mod which has a different minor villian
- I'm thinking we keep the map more "abstract" - I agree
- Others?
Player Characters - Settle on starting position, disposition—party stuff - I like the gypsy idea. That way we can know each other and my character could easily take up an apprentice with one of the elder gypsy magic users.
- Finalize intended characters - Mine is done, just waiting on the stat array decision and I can have a real character sheet
- Starting level and stat generation is settled, now (via the polls)
- Backgrounds—need them? - I just copied Rigil and did like a four sentence blurb. I can expand if necessary.
[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Oct 29, 2012 21:07:56 GMT -6
Confirming?
Modified array is: 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10... correct?
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 29, 2012 21:23:04 GMT -6
If we used the one I used in tCC, then its 18, 16, 15, 14, 13, 10.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 29, 2012 21:29:03 GMT -6
I'd be willing to run first, though am currently without ideas (for this specific campaign) since my brain has decided GM'ing falls under the realm of public speaking and it is better to freak out than actually focus on fixing the issue... My recommendation is to track down a 1st level adventure module you like and run it. This will allow you to ease into the GM role while getting a feel for how many adventure modules are set up. Since it's already created, you're less likely to overpower the bad guys on the first go around (which we're all guilty of from time to time.)
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Oct 30, 2012 0:01:10 GMT -6
so, is the modified array a go, or not?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 30, 2012 8:19:31 GMT -6
so, is the modified array a go, or not? Go Regarding GMPCs, and Must-Do/Must-Not: Since some of you still don't quite grasp what I'm on about, these are both current-GM abuse-prevention measures. For example, as GM, I would be within my power to give my GMPC (at the time), a Vorpal Holy Avenger for free, arbitrarily take away something the previous GM gave someone else, or kill off an auxiliary character I don't happen to like, etc. As I said, I don't think any of us would do any of that, out of common courtesy and a sense of general fairness, but better to have some boundaries established before there is an incident than after. Regarding the bible: My thinking was that at the end of a GM's run, we "ratify" additions to the bible—maybe on-the-fly, if something is particularly cool and everyone wants to keep it. No need to be particularly anal about it, but we don't want the bible to get filled up with every miscellaneous detail. We could say, for the sake of the "ownership" question, that anything in the bible is considered "public domain," so if you don't want to share something, don't add it? Regarding character stuff: Not sure about the "gypsy" thing. I'm cool with the party having a wagon or some other "portable base," but I don't think we need to subject noob GMs to a large group of hangers-on. Then there's the "social" angle to consider—if the gypsies are not well though of, it could be weird if someone wants to run a module with a lot of "royal interaction," for example. Side note, regarding "portable base"—would it be too much to actually start with a magnificent mansion, with the caveat that it can never be sold? Or the tower. Or the cottage Just spit-balling
|
|