|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 30, 2012 7:59:35 GMT -6
Still being determined…Guidelines- Each GM will run 3 (±1) sessions (may be exceeded with majority agreement)
- Legal sourcebooks shall be: PHB, DMG, PHB2, DMG2, Complete series
- Characters shall be built using a modified Standard Array: 18, 16, 15, 14, 13, 10
- Advancement shall be XP=(Next Level, per RAW)/(greater of [current level] or 6)
- Advancement for GMPCs: Full credit
- Advancement for Absentees: Half credit if seconded, no credit if not seconded
Optional- Each GM should end their run on a cliffhanger that is to be resolved by succeeding GM
GM Rotation:N8, Dan, ShLE, Rigil, ChrisIII Setting Settings:- Resurrection: RAW
- Pantheon(s): TBD
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Nov 4, 2012 11:44:31 GMT -6
Something that occurred to me while I was driving: we should probably establish a guideline that "any character-specific cliffhanger should not involve the character of the succeeding GM." Sure, it's mostly obvious, but still.
For example, let's say that GM #1 drops a sudden reveal that PC #2 is actually the Lost Heir of Generica (or Elfwood or Dwarfmount, etc.) This seriously complicates matters for GM #2 (who plays PC #2) if GM #2 is the next GM in the rotation...
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Dec 12, 2012 17:17:26 GMT -6
We've put off the discussion about advancement of GMs' characters, but we really need to settle it.
As it stands, everyone's going to be leveling in the middle of my run, but mine is going to be dragging behind—as is N8's, currently. It could be that GM characters get 0-XP, and accept that when the cycle completes, everyone will have had a turn at 0-XP, and should therefore be caught up—but whenever we have unequal numbers of sessions, there will be a bit of lag, there. It'll end up a bit weird.
GMs could get full credit, which is easiest, but that just "feels weird" to get XP when the character (potentially) isn't present—but then maybe that's just the reward for doing the screen-time.
Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Dec 12, 2012 18:05:59 GMT -6
Would we be able to work out a set amount of XP per session...and if the GM's character is there then it gets the XP, and if someone misses a week then they would lose out on that weeks XP allotment ....?
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Dec 12, 2012 18:32:42 GMT -6
I say full amount... hand wave it by saying they were doing other things or whatever... keep everyone the same is the easiest way to go about it and I have no issues with it
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Dec 12, 2012 19:15:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Dec 12, 2012 20:55:30 GMT -6
I say full amount... hand wave it by saying they were doing other things or whatever... keep everyone the same is the easiest way to go about it and I have no issues with it Here! Here!
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Dec 12, 2012 21:33:53 GMT -6
Well, we have a basic majority for "full XP for GMs"—what about absences? The usual (half if seconded, none if not)?
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Dec 12, 2012 22:22:45 GMT -6
I say full amount... hand wave it by saying they were doing other things or whatever... keep everyone the same is the easiest way to go about it and I have no issues with it Here! Here! Or is it Hear! Hear!? ( seriously, which one is it) @giger- I prefer to do the old standby ans just do half xp if you miss
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Dec 13, 2012 8:56:36 GMT -6
The usual (half if seconded, none if not)? That's fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Dec 13, 2012 9:25:44 GMT -6
Not that it's immediately pressing, but I was musing over the XP-cap idea, and had another (maybe simpler?) idea along that line: The number of sessions to next level be a minimum of 6, up to the number of current levels. FREX, up to Level 6, it's 1:6, but at Level seven, it's 1:7, and at Level 8, 1:8, etc.
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Dec 13, 2012 18:44:47 GMT -6
i like that idea...i like it a lot
|
|