Aringal's page

The politics are heavy from time to time, true, but they are necessary to paint the drastic differences in idealogies between the Old and New World. As to the end of the serious I did some research online a few weeks ago and found that Chainfire is the first in the Chainfire Trilogy, which coincedentally will end the series accorsing to TOR. So two more books to go; the next comes out in June.

I'm not referring to the computer games labeled D&D but the table top version. And modules are nice on occasion but they are a cop out if exclusively used on the part of the DM as no two groups are the same and each needs the personal touch of their DM. As to 2nd ed notbeing about role-playing I point out that the PHB was sufficient to run the game with as many options as one could use to be happy for years (unless you're rolling a new character every time you sit down). Additionally, in 2nd ed you had kits (prestige classes to any not familiar with the term) available at 1st level but they siomply stated what you had to take to become that character, while very few actually listed any benefits of a world-shattering nature. In 3.5 I have to essentially waste levels just to meet prerequisites to play the part I desire to play from the get-go; granted the behavior of my character would set the stage for such a transition, but I'd still just be a figther/mage until able to take say the blade singer PRC.
I'm sorry you don't think D&D was ever about telling a story. Certainly it began as a mere optional rules supplement for wargaming before it became just the paper and pencil version, but even that version didn't last long. Why do you think everyone wants to visit cities and towns--frequently more often than dungeons? Because they are interested in the world around them. You don't find that very much anymore, or at least I don't. I find more and more players only want to know how much XP and treausre they get and if they meet the prerequisites for that uber PRC they want to take. After all, don't you personally feel the need to have in character goals while playing? Don't you feel it is more dramatic and exciting to have your character try to end things via parley rather than combat if at all possible?

Understand that like everyone else I was merely putting my two cents in; agree or disagree with me--we all have that right. The setting isn't my cup of tea, obviously it is for you and I was merely remarking on the topic.

What's the party ECL? And what is the ECL as a group for the NPCs? Need to know this to answer your question.

Hmmmmmmmm. I read the first one in the series, and liked some things about it, but disliked some things, too. I thought the villains were kind of two-dimensional, almost to the point of being parodies. There were some cool, imaginative scenes and ideas, though.

The first book was a bit rough around the edges in places, I agree. But as someone who is eagerly awaiting the next book in the series I can tell you that much like Raymond E. Feist his inexperience at being a writer is visibly washed away with every book until you reach a point about the 3rd or 4th book into the series where he is as masterful a tale spinner as Homer or (if you prefer a more recent name) Tolkein. The villains do develop into believable, despicable characters that you love to hate while the heroes make you smile and cheer. The series has taken on a different slant than the first book; one of the coo lthings about the series is that each books leads into the next and with the exception of two books each book immediately after the last so it's almost like reading tyhe heroe's journal. Give the series another try.

This is close to what happened in our campaign recently. How would you handle the xp distribution?

The party was in a city not doing too much when they heard people saying the city was being attacked. The city's protectors went to defeat the foe. The players were suppose to see that the city had powerful people to call upon, maybe try to get to know them or one day join them. The city's people were all 15+ level the threat was CR 20+. The PCs are level 10 or less. The PCs ran outside to fight, using spells from a distance and missile weapons. One guy even ran next to a 20th level fighter to aid another. He was not really threatened. The enemy knew the 20th level guy had a vorpal blade having seen it in action (he had to take out the guy with 4 attacks first.) The 20th level guy fell and the PC retreated. The spell caster could not penetrate the SR. Another of the city's protectors picks up the sword and beheads the enemy. The players feel entitled to at least some of the xp if "only" 10,000 xp.

If a mindflayer is swooping over the village to terrorize its people and an 1st level guard with a bow somehow strike him with a 20 causing damage, the dragon wipes out a few buildings, the mindflayer blasts all of the guards on the wall with a mindblast and the visiting mage kills the mindflayer with a disintegrate spell. Would you give the guard and xp? What if all the guards were 1st level PCs?

First off a party should always get XP for surviving an encounter if the encounter is equal or higher than their party ECL regardless of the charts having cutoffs. And note I said survive, not defeat. THis party did just that: survive. Thus, they don't get full xp, only a partial award. Secondly the party ECL should be calculated based upon the levels of all those involved, including NPCs, particularly since they did the most work. Then divide the XP by the number of PCs/NPCs involved in the encounter and I'd say just for the sheer fact that these players were more likely in the way than assissting the city guard that they shoul have the calculated XP reduced by 20-50%--your judgement call. In the end they get XP which they are entitled to, but you maintain balance and a steady progression of their levels. Besides, even the luckiest fool can become mighty indeed simply becasue they're lucky enough to survive in the first place. Another way to look at it is though they didn't do much in the way of helping to dispatch the threat, they still gained valuable knowledge ("experience") from the ordeal such as, "Oh, wow. My spells are pretty much useless against this thing. Rasputin, remind me if we live through this to research more powerful spells at the library in case we meet one of these in the wilderness."

As to the second scenario figure it out much like the first though I would seriously consider as a DM myself not giving anymore than 500 XP to any character on the sheer principle that (by your description) they had one attack during the whole encounter, they got lucky and an NPC really did all the work. If your players moan and goran and you feel like caving (which I wouldn't but hey...) then follow the rule that they can only advance one level in any game session and place them 1 point away from 3rd.

In 20+ years of D&D I've never seen the issue tackled or even dealt with (steps back waiting to be corrected).

It's regularly addressed in Online RPG gaming but is never mentioned in pen & paper RPG's. D&D relies on the honour system, well that's open to abuse right?

What DM's have experiences with it, is it a widespread issue or does it even happen? Is it a taboo subject, a dirty secret or something that could undermine the game as whole?

In a similar amount of time gaming I have found it to be a rampant problem--if you don't make rules to prevent it. The honor system just doesn't work because the minority of players are turly honest 100% of the time while the rest fall somewhere between occasionally having a weak moment of willpower to any way they can they will cheat. I have one guy at my table that I have played with since day one and I'll tell you this guy will cheat if given half a chance in every possible way. I have (it seems...) cured him of this habit by imposing a few rules.

1)all characters are either rolled in front of me, or you get the quickstart set of scores to assign.
2)all rolls in game are made in view of me while I watch.
3)any die I can't read without getting up can't be used.
4)"Let the dice fall where they may!"
5)everyone uses the same surface for rolling.
6)If it's not on your sheet you don't have it. (this includes languages; he used to like to put down "2 more lonaguages", as if he could choose as needed what they were.)
7)If I don't own the book you can't use it to make your character. This came about because he is a rules-lawyer, too.

Hope these rules help since I get the impression you are having a bit of trouble in the cheating department.

Something I keep reading in people's reposnses are that they acknowledge Eberron as not being true to the expected D&D campaign setting. If that's the case I then ask you: Why does it bare the D&D name? I have no answer for my own question; but I can express my own views as to why it should not bare the D&D name to it.
First, you have a timeline that stretches to somewhere around 15-17,000 years and the world is still medieval predominantly. Okay, account for the fact that some civilizations will develop slower than others; but with magic in such readily available supply and being used in everyday practices as it is one would think that this world should have PCs and an internet at the very leasty by now. I mean how do you honestly expect an intelligent consumer to read about how there is essentially an electrical metrorail crisscorssing the continent as well as entire cities that move mechanically yet there aren't even revolvers much less "lightening pistols" invented yet? I'm sorry but D&D has through the years always represented a pseudo-medieval continent/world with attention to a certain amount of believability along those lines. The exceptions I will offer for you have been mentioned a couple times: Dark Sun and Planescape. These two however aren't around anymore as official products due to the fact that though they may very well have their loyalist fans they were never popular with a wide audience. I would predict the same fate for Eberron, but unfortunately the next reason it shouldn't be labeled D&D is why it probably will survive.

Second reason: power players' heaven. Constructs and barely toned down lycanthropes and dopplegangers as playable races, a class that makes magic items and adventure/hero points (the true name slips me at the moment). Come on; play an orignal race and class and just roll the d20. Why are all these uber "options" available? I give you the answer with no malice, just observation from a gamer veteran of more than 20 years. Because the gamers entering into the hobby today were weened on video games that gave immediate gratification and were all about gaining levels--not about telling a story.

And that right there is the core of my beef with Eberron. Certainly it has its interesting elements much like Dark Sun and Planescape did, but they are few and far between. D&D is--or was prior to D20, anyway--about telling a story, not how powerful you can get in the shortest amount of time. I have heard 3.5 described in my own group as "a system of options"; while this is certainly true, it is unfortunately not the interpreted vision most players have (in my experience). Having gone on long enough I shall simply finish by stating that I give kudos to Kevin Baker for thinking outside the box and thus winning the WoTC contest, but that I personally feel you jumped into another box a mile away while doing it; Eberron is not D&D.