|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Nov 16, 2012 22:32:46 GMT -6
Items that have yet to be hammered out - exact method of advancement/XP allotment
- how to handle the critical's (fumble or hits)
- **deferred for now** leadership feat <keep or toss>
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Nov 17, 2012 14:34:48 GMT -6
exact method of advancement/XP allotment I vote every other GM to keep the levels down for the last GMs in the order how to handle the critical's (fumble or hits) Same as we have been... cards **deferred for now** leadership feat <keep or toss> Ban it. How to break the action economy in 3 easy steps: 1. Get Cleric/Druid Cohort 2. Permaheal / buff you 3. Win!
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 17, 2012 17:03:15 GMT -6
Ban it. How to break the action economy in 3 easy steps: 1. Get Cleric/Druid Cohort 2. Permaheal / buff you 3. Win! I played a 13th level character with Leadership, plus a Bard/Druid cohort at 10th level, and a Healer/Combat Medic cohort at 10th level—the game was not broken because of it (if it was broken, it was because we were 13th-14th level). Argument not accepted as fact.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Nov 17, 2012 17:17:24 GMT -6
My XP vote is Pathfinder slow progression, which will admittedly increase the potential wealth the characters might have but will extend the time we spend at a level, which will allow newbie GMs to find their footing faster. I like the cards **deferred for now** leadership feat <keep or toss> Ban it. How to break the action economy in 3 easy steps: 1. Get Cleric/Druid Cohort 2. Permaheal / buff you 3. Win! I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here. Can you explain it more thoroughly? I don't see the problem with Leadership myself. So you pick up a cohort ... well, they're a minimum of two levels lower than you are and, depending on your actual Leadership score, can potentially be even lower. The cohort doesn't get an actual "share" of the loot (the player who controls them has to handle that themselves) and their presence doesn't affect the CR of the group. Plus, since most people don't care to player clerics, they're good for that. The Followers can potentially be an issue at times - I think, at max Leadership score, you can have up to 300 1st level NPC followers, which sounds cooler than it actually is because a mid-level Fighter or Barbarian can wade through them like they're butter. When I've used followers, they've always been non-combatants, back in the rear with the gear so to speak. And yes, I was originally planning on having Alain pick up the feat as he advances in levels and fame ... but if the group consensus is to ban it, then I will re-evaluate.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Nov 17, 2012 18:45:26 GMT -6
Items that have yet to be hammered out - exact method of advancement/XP allotment
Personally, I like the idea that we just level up at X many sessions(session number TBD). This helps with the XP distribution if you're GM-ing that day. So if you are present during the week (no matter if you are a PC or a GM, your character gets one credit towards the next level). That way everyone can level up at the same rate regardless if you are running the campaign or not. However if you miss a week you don't get the credit (just like not getting XP if you miss). This also helps in the case of leveling up after every other GM. If two GMs only run for 4 weeks and the next two run for 8 weeks that might slow down progression. But if we say that after every 4 sessions you level, then it doesn't really matter how long GM runs are. [/li][li]how to handle the critical's (fumble or hits)[/quote] Cards are fine with me [/li][li] **deferred for now** leadership feat <keep or toss> [/li][/ul][/quote] I know I have joked about Jocelyn taking Mookah as a cohort in the past but, honestly, I am not a fan of leadership. I find it rather overpowered when compared to the other feats. I guess I can see you taking it if you want to do it for RP reasons (like having a Bonnie to you Clyde instead of just hiring some NPC merc to do a job for you), but you would have to make a really good case for it to happen. I don't like it used to flesh out parities that are lacking in a certain areas. Because then it becomes the whole, well I don't want to play a cleric because I think they suck, we can just pick up one when someone gets Leadership. To me, that isn't playing within the spirit of the feat. We picked the classes we are for good or for ill, so we might as well stick with it. It looks like it will shape up to be two for and two against. ChrisIII is the tie breaker.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Nov 17, 2012 21:08:38 GMT -6
[Redacted]
Let's have a simple example. Take two 6th level fighters. Same gear. Same feats. Same everything.
All things equal, if the two fighters fought each other, then each one should win 50% of the time on average.
Now lets give one leadership. The other can have any other feat it wants, I guarantee the one with leadership will win 90%+ of the time. Why?
Let's take even a non-optimized example: a 4th level cleric for a cohort.
Now the Leadership fighter can have the cleric heal him for (on average): 5 (5 Cure Minor) 42 (5 Cure Light) 52 (4 Cure Mod) = 99 HP healing!
And that doesn't include the fact I still have a cleric who has on average 35 HP... and can 'assist' or attack on his own when he isn't healing... or just constantly flank....
An average 6th level fighter will have (assuming 16 CON) will have 58 HP. So the non leadership fighter has to AVERAGE an extra 3.31:1 damage ratio to just come back to equal with the leadership fighter....
So for every 1 point of damage leadership fighter does, the non leader has to do 3.31 points of damage... give me any 6th level or lower feat that can overcome that difference. Anyone you want. Any book.
And that is just taking the simple straight forward example, not even using it to its full strength. How about 6th Level Aria with Jareth as he is now? Or 6th Level Aria with Aria as she is now vs just 6th level Aria... good luck
For even more fun Let's take a 10th level PC, with a 8th Level cohort, who has a 6th level cohort, who has a 4th level cohort... Because there is no rule stating cohorts can't have leadership! So that means you get to have 4 characters to play for the price of one feat! It can all be done with leadership! Hell, you can even add another cohort onto a cohort every two levels you get... So a 20th level PC can essentially have an 18th, 16th, 14th, 12th, 10th, 8th, 6th, 4th.... Wheeeee!
Broken feat is BROKEN.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Nov 17, 2012 22:02:28 GMT -6
For even more fun Let's take a 10th level PC, with a 8th Level cohort, who has a 6th level cohort, who has a 4th level cohort... Because there is no rule stating cohorts can't have leadership! So that means you get to have 4 characters to play for the price of one feat! It can all be done with leadership! Hell, you can even add another cohort onto a cohort every two levels you get... So a 20th level PC can essentially have an 18th, 16th, 14th, 12th, 10th, 8th, 6th, 4th.... Wheeeee! Broken feat is BROKEN. Sorry, but you're wrong. WotC has stated flat-out that Cohorts CANNOT pick up the Leadership feat. It was in one of their FAQs somewhere because munchkins immediately wanted to do exactly that. [Redacted]
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 18, 2012 11:41:50 GMT -6
I've actually backtracked on my original "#-of-sessions" XP thing, for the simple reason that it would interfere with the basic rules that include XP expenditure for this-or-that. Also, the way XP should work is to take more time to level after each level-up—which doesn't happen, since XP awards scale with the party's CL such that they level in roughly the same amount of time at whatever level they are. Seems to me that the most-workable compromise is to use an arbitrary XP amount per session—stays the same (?), so leveling is retarded as you go up; able to be spent for whatever reason; more-easily modified for the difficulty or ease of the session's activity, etc.
Of course, I have no idea (without looking into it further) what that arbitrary amount should be—but the leveling scheme we use will be governed by it.
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Nov 18, 2012 12:08:47 GMT -6
so...here are my thoughts - as far as XP goes, i think we should go with the set amount per session with the GMPC getting the same amount, for example if we set the XP/session at 300...and i run 4 sessions, but rigil runs 8 sessions...going with the half XP for GMPC...my PC will be at 3k whereas Rigil's PC will be at 2400...and if the PC participates in the session, why shouldn't they get the full XP
- as far as criticals...if it ain't broke, don't fix it...we've been using the cards for a while and all seem to like them so far, so why change...although the plot cards could make things interesting for both the GM and the PC's
- as far as the Leadership feat...I say we keep it in, I don't really see anyone in this group using it in any other manner than what it was originally conceived as...
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Nov 18, 2012 12:25:34 GMT -6
I've actually backtracked on my original "#-of-sessions" XP thing, for the simple reason that it would interfere with the basic rules that include XP expenditure for this-or-that. Really good thoughts, that essentially eliminates "every other GM level" and "level after every X sessions" [Redacted]
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Nov 18, 2012 14:19:07 GMT -6
[Redacted]
Regarding the arbitrary XP per session, we run into other issues wherein the higher level you get, the higher this arbitrary number needs to be. So I have a suggestion that might resolve it:
Ignore XP entirely. Stick with me for a minute. We've got five GMs with a set rotation, right? Why not have the PCs level at the end of a rotation period? That way, each GM gets an opportunity to run an adventure using the current level. So, Rotation 1 has all PCs at 1st level, then once its complete, everyone levels up to 2nd level, and we progress through Rotation 2. That might end up being the best way to handle it since it'll let all GMs see how things function as Challenge Rating increases.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 18, 2012 14:25:55 GMT -6
That way, each GM gets an opportunity to run an adventure using the current level. I think 3×[#GMs] is going to be too long to be at 1st (FREX) level, plus we could end up with new GMs before it's over, so it could end up being inconsistent. That said, exclusively regarding the quoted line, I might be willing to suffer it, because that makes sense. In that light, I'm wondering if we don't need multiple parties, to stretch that out a bit…
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Nov 18, 2012 14:40:39 GMT -6
How would it be any different to do the "level after the end of the rotation" than "have multiple characters at the same level?" Its pretty much the same thing really. In either instance, you're playing a character at the low levels for an extended period of time. Of course, if we really want to see "broken," we should use the D&D XP rules exactly as written. "What? You left the village three weeks ago at 1st level and now you're already 15th level? WTF?!" LOL
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 18, 2012 15:04:08 GMT -6
Its pretty much the same thing really. In retrospect…
|
|
|
Post by Magman on Nov 19, 2012 20:48:15 GMT -6
[Redacted] Oh Whats up everyone I like what you are trying to do with rotating GM's
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Nov 21, 2012 17:08:50 GMT -6
Who the hell are you, Magman59, and why are you posting on ... our ... oh, right. I remember you now.
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Nov 21, 2012 21:58:21 GMT -6
Who the hell are you, Magman59, and why are you posting on ... our ... oh, right. I remember you now. I'm glad someone know who this new person is...I'm still a little lost on who it is...some help with this?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 22, 2012 0:39:58 GMT -6
Just for closure's sake: There's really only one way to settle the Leadership Feat question, and that is a practical field-test—for which N8 is perfectly qualified. I think N8 should plan on taking the Leadership Feat upon reaching 6th Level, and see if he can break the game (obviously, if it does, we'll have to "fix" it afterward). Maybe worth it, maybe not. It'll be a really long time before we get there, anyways. And on that "really long time" note: I'm thinking that if we're going to stick with the Level-Up-at-GM-cycle idea, I think we should reduce the #-of-sessions target to 2. Also, given the short nature of each GM's run, either way, I was thinking that we shouldn't just be planning to have a cliffhanger ending to the run, but actually plan on not finishing—FREX, in my LotR case, I shouldn't plan to actually reach "Mordor," but allow the next GM to pick up where I left off. It's only a slight deviation from where we were already headed, and I may have been the only one thinking otherwise (naturally, out of habit). Of course, this means that we may be escorting some halflings through several GMs, but that's not so much a bad thing—it'd be funny if that mission never actually ended
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Nov 22, 2012 15:27:14 GMT -6
There's really only one way to settle the Leadership Feat question, and that is a practical field-test—for which N8 is perfectly qualified. I have really no plans on taking it as of 6th level... For a couple reasons, one is that it makes no sense for a CHA dumped barbarian to have a 'follower' really... We voted, it was 3-2 in favor of using it, I can accept it and move on... Rigil wants to take it, so he can have it.... Without restarting an argument, Leadership can be used in a non-gamebreaking way and I am sure Rigil will make sure it is used in a very conservative fashion... I also know that Rigil is naturally inclined towards very deep and detailed stories... writing is something he loves and is talented at... so that means that you other 3 folks are going to have to step up their feedback and story writing game or Alain will naturally become the focus of the story I'm thinking that if we're going to stick with the Level-Up-at-GM-cycle idea, I think we should reduce the #-of-sessions target to 2. I like the idea of a flat rate XP system. As an example: maybe we gain 20% XP towards the next level per session, that would mean we level up once per 5 sessions regardless. Also, given the short nature of each GM's run, either way, I was thinking that we shouldn't just be planning to have a cliffhanger ending to the run, but actually plan on not finishingI was planning on running like "adventurettes" start and essentially finish the 'mini-plot' inside of my own run while also starting (or continuing when my turn comes back up) the overarching story or Kingsport v Nefaria... The problem I see with not expecting to finish is it will really force the new GMs to write and run an adventure for several weeks with only 1 week prep time. We won't be able to have a skeleton story prepared if we are dumped into the middle of the previous GM's story...
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Nov 22, 2012 15:51:54 GMT -6
Also, given the short nature of each GM's run, either way, I was thinking that we shouldn't just be planning to have a cliffhanger ending to the run, but actually plan on not finishingI'm actually not all that enthusiastic about that. Its an interesting idea, but I'd rather have each rotation have a beginning, middle and end. WxMAN makes a good point as well - doing this would make things pretty difficult for the new GMs at first. Rigil wants to take it, so he can have it.... Without restarting an argument, Leadership can be used in a non-gamebreaking way and I am sure Rigil will make sure it is used in a very conservative fashion... Heh. I actually sort of rebooted my concept there, wherein the character is charismatic and all, but he's pathologically afraid of actually leading people now. No worries. I guess I can get on board with that. Let's see ... that would be 95 sessions until level 20?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 22, 2012 16:07:19 GMT -6
Heh. I actually sort of rebooted my concept there, wherein the character is charismatic and all, but he's pathologically afraid of actually leading people now. No worries. If you did take Leadership, at least N8 would have the benefit of first-hand knowledge of how it plays out, even if you didn't intentionally try to break the game with it. WRT XP: Through several versions of the mechanic, I think we're all in agreement on a few particulars: slower-than-normal progression, at regular intervals, without the need to do any CR/CL calculation. That said, we should get on the same page about how long that regular interval should be—are we all thinking 10 is too long? If so, how long? Then we can decide on specific percentages/XP amounts/etc.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Nov 22, 2012 16:30:46 GMT -6
Heh. I actually sort of rebooted my concept there, wherein the character is charismatic and all, but he's pathologically afraid of actually leading people now. No worries. Interesting, would his desired path then be to learn to lead again? Still desire to clear his family's name? If you did take Leadership, at least N8 would have the benefit of first-hand knowledge of how it plays out, even if you didn't intentionally try to break the game with it. I already have seen it, Malinza/Mazrim being the example. Are we all thinking 10 is too long? If so, how long? I'm thinking if we average 3 runs per GM, 5 puts us at: Nate: 1st level Daniel: 1st/ 2nd level Shelley: 2nd level Rigil: 2nd / 3rd level Chris: 3rd level Sounds about right. My thought was to keep it slow enough that the 'back end' of the rotation didn't have to deal with a huge power discrepancy from the 'front end' of the rotation. Yet to keep it not too slow where we stay too low for too long since it seems the lowest levels are disliked by some of the group...
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Nov 22, 2012 16:36:06 GMT -6
Heh. I actually sort of rebooted my concept there, wherein the character is charismatic and all, but he's pathologically afraid of actually leading people now. No worries. Interesting, would his desired path then be to learn to lead again? Still desire to clear his family's name? Well, that depends on how the story plays out. At first, I envision him having all sorts of unresolved "daddy issues" but, for the most part, yeah, he would ultimately want to clear the family name ... providing he finds out that his dad wasn't a POS or something.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 22, 2012 19:42:41 GMT -6
I'm thinking if we average 3 runs per GM, 5 puts us at: 5 is the current unmodified (?) average—if we're actually slowing it down, it'd have to be more than that, obviously, though even just 6 might seem longer; plus, if it's consistent/regular.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 26, 2012 10:56:00 GMT -6
Back to the Advancement discussion:
Let's use the n% of Level per Session as a target. If we want to, "on average," level twice per Cycle (once in the middle, once at the end), then n=13, or just short of 1/6; this will be slower than usual, but not excessively so. If we shoot for 2/Cycle, we won't have every GM running the same Level once through, but it should generally work out to within ±1 level of each other, so that won't be so bad. I'd be willing to round it up to 1/6, for ease-of-use.
I have an additional thought in this regard: use the lesser of n% or [2]000 XP (exact # TBD), which will result in leveling slowing down after the cap kicks in.
Furthermore, it should be said that it isn't imperative that we have a decision on this right away—it won't stop the game; we can always figure out XP after-the-fact.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Nov 26, 2012 11:24:45 GMT -6
Now you're speaking my language!
This uses the assumption of the average run time per GM to be ~2.5 sessions, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 26, 2012 11:28:19 GMT -6
This uses the assumption of the average run time per GM to be ~2.5 sessions, yes? My baseline is 3×, but essentially, yes
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Nov 26, 2012 11:41:24 GMT -6
So that means 15 sessions per cycle, leveling up once in the middle and once at the end... means we should be leveling every ~7.5 sessions and get ~13.33% of a given levels XP every session...
Sounds good to me... My current plan is running three sessions, but since I don't know how quick/slow y'all will go through my run... it may be 4, hopefully not 2...
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Nov 28, 2012 11:55:21 GMT -6
Now that I have 'penned' the first adventure, a few notes regarding Friday's game.... just so everyone has a better idea what to expect 1. Being as this is my first adventure it is note heavy. Way too note heavy. I have 8 pages of notes for Friday. This is because when I am nervous I tend to over prepare as a 'safety net' for myself and may start overly relying on my notes too much if rattled. This should slowly go away with time but for now all I can do is recognize it, warn y'all, and take it as it comes... 2. Due to the note heavy design and inexperience, pacing is expected to be a huge issue. I *think* I know how long Friday should take but there is a reasonably good chance I will be wrong. If it lasts longer than expected there may be very little fighting (depending on how the PCs act - if you start a fight with the first person you see it may be a very fighty night indeed). If it lasts shorter than I expected I am reasonably prepared with adventure 2 mostly fleshed out but it may feel a bit off compared to the typical dramatic structure (introduction, rising action, climax, falling action, conclusion)... 3. I tried my best to avoid a 'railroad' but it is what it is, and making railroads are easier than open world for a first timer who isn't used to improvising. I would generally describe this as some a bunch of hubs connected by railroads. Similar to how to Dishonored is designed: you have to go from mission 1 to mission 2, but once you are on location how you do mission 2 is up to you. I definitely am trying to avoid the 'puzzle game' trap where the is one and only ONE solution to a problem, even if other viable options are brought forth. ie, "What do you mean I have to unscrew the screws on the case to get to the jewels? I have a fracking hammer and the case is glass! BS!" 4. I wrote this with varying degrees of success and failure in mind. An easy quest can be failed and a hard mission can have success (where failure does not mean death, it means not accomplishing your objectives). Until I get a better handle on improvisation skills it may be a little rough, but I wanted you guys to know both success and failure on any mission is accounted for so just because things seem 'easy' it doesn't mean you can't fail and just because things seem 'hard' it doesn't mean there isn't ways to succeed. It is my goal to never block a valid solution just b/c I wasn't expecting it (we'll see how long this lasts ). 5. Most checks (appraise, spot, etc) are not "pass or fail". The value you get changes the outcome both good and bad. ie not 'succeeding' on a spot check may have you see nothing, or (if close enough to succeeding but still below the DC) may see something wrong such as you 'see' 3 guards with daggers sheathed on their hips when in actuality it is 3 guards with cell phone holders on their hip (why medieval guards would have cell phones is beyond me) 6. Most checks are not in increments of 5. Because it is so much more fun when you don't know if 15 is good enough or if 16 was needed 7. While some NPCs are 'named', due to the round robin nature of this game, just because an NPC is 'named' on the spot doesn't mean they aren't useful or won't reoccur. I have NPCs without names that do in fact reoccur but will only become named once you ask their name (and even then who says they are telling the truth). The same works vice versa. If you have a particular fondness/hatred/interest in any particular character I will try and develop them more thoroughly in subsequent runs or if you don't care about a named character they may just fade into the background 8. Your choices/successes/failures have consequences and change not only your missions but also the relative ease/difficulty of those missions as well as who lives and who dies. How well this will be expressed while I am running has yet to be seen but I am taking it into consideration (maybe not as well real time) but surely pre and post running I will be accounting for it... NPCs are not static and will change, level, etc with you (though this will be a longer term thing likely not well seen on my first run)... 9. I will be wrong. A lot. If you feel something is being misread/forgot let me know immediately. I may not be able to/willing to retcon something major but how it works while I run will be established before the next session so things are consistent... My thoughts are to avoid essentially stopping the game for 30 minutes to get the 'correct' ruling and instead hear the quick argument, look up the rule and make a snap judgement. In general I believe in favoring the player on a snap judgement. That decision is how the rule will work for the rest of the night, but will then be discussed later via the boards/PMs to determine the 'correct' ruling for how it works while we run. If you find we rule against your interpretation of a feat/skill/spell/whatever you'll be allowed to change it before the next session (at least when I am running, won't speak for all other GMs). 10. I will not be asking "how did it go" after the session. You are free to give me your impressions directly after the fact, but I don't think much valuable feedback can be given so soon after the end of the session and in mixed company. It takes time to 'digest' the idiosyncrasies of a session; what was good, what was bad, what could be done different, etc and the WHY for each of those. You typically cannot get that into words immediately and with many folks around. Furthermore since we are all not complete assholes, we tend to favor a more positive response to a given session when asked face to face. Not that we are all a bunch of lying liars that lie, but we are friends and don't wish to hurt another friend's feelings. As such, I would much prefer a PM or the like sometime before Wed if possible after each week after I run giving me your thoughts, suggestions, whatever. Also, while positive feedback is great and encouraging it also won't help me grow as a GM if I do not know what I did poorly. I expect constructive criticism and will try my bestest to remember it isn't personal and you all just wish to help improve my running 11. I hate you Daniel and P h i l (take THAT auto correct) for calling my bluff and making me run . That is all.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Nov 28, 2012 12:25:48 GMT -6
tl;dr=I'm gonna run like everyone else does ;D - Relax. Don't try too hard. It's like getting an immunization shot in the butt—if you clinch up, you can't pull the needle back out [/personal experience]
- Remember: skydiving. Once you're out the door, you will fall back on reflex. No exceptions
- The Players will break the story. Get used to the idea
- When we break something, don't try to shoe-horn it—ask for help; don't be afraid to say, "I'm not prepared for you to go that way"
- The GM's story tools are The Carrot, The Stick, and The Monkey-Wrench; don't get them mixed up
- Ideal: Let the Players write more of the story than you do, and be prepared to surrender your own intentions
Side note: I'm planning to use the "GM For a Minute" thread for "constructive criticism"—we need to get better about talking about what we like/dislike, so the GM(s) can do a better job of meeting those expectations
|
|