|
The actual rule for this is on page 30 of the Guide to Organized Play v. 6, in the chapter on Modules, the section on Applying Credit:
Players who do not complete each game session earn 1/3
fewer gold pieces, 1 less XP and 1 less Prestige Point for
each session missed. This also applies to players who join
later sessions; they receive 1/3 fewer gold pieces, 1 fewer
XP and Prestige Point for each session missed. In both
cases, players earn a minimum of 1/3 gold pieces, 1 XP and
1 Prestige Point. If a character earns more XP than she
needs to reach her next level, she may not choose to switch
advancement tracks at the new level earned.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would request that the Campaign Leadership review this policy.
Right now, a character with 3n+1 or 3n+2 experience points, playing through something like the Emerald Spire or Dragon's Demand, cannot change gears either to slow progression or out of slow progression, unless he jumps out to play through some scenarios, or deliberately aborts a module mid-way, to get less XP. Neither of those is ideal.
|
Indeed in this situation I'm not in any way trying to abuse the system (don't see how anyway...), it purely about letting two character catch up while keeping playing altogether, and the fact I'm 4.1 i/o 4.0 prevents me from doing so.
Most rules exist to prevent abuse: because there's something you can do to game the system and well... being gamers we need to watch extra close for loopholes.
So if no abuse exists there's no reason for the rule to exist.
|
if no abuse exists there's no reason for the rule to exist.
That's not entirely true. It could also be in place so characters don't get stuck in module mode, as Chris points out.
If fact, that issue is especially prevalent in Emerald Spire. My group also had someone who had to miss out on a level in order to get back on track and keep pace with the rest of the team.
|
I would request that the Campaign Leadership review this policy.
Right now, a character with 3n+1 or 3n+2 experience points, playing through something like the Emerald Spire or Dragon's Demand, cannot change gears either to slow progression or out of slow progression, unless he jumps out to play through some scenarios, or deliberately aborts a module mid-way, to get less XP. Neither of those is ideal.
Or if you play a good character and don't murderhobo Godhome (emerald spires) you screw up your progression. Really this rule just causes far more many problems than the few non-apparent it issues it supposedly solves.
|
|
I just wish someone could point out one issue this rule intends to solve.
The only thing I've heard is that people will try to "mitigate" low reward scenarios by going slow speed for just that scenario after they see what the rewards are. Which is ridiculous and utter hogwash if you ask me. There should be no declaring slow/fast if you've already seen the chronicle sheet. That info should be known in advance.
|
|
if no abuse exists there's no reason for the rule to exist.That's not entirely true. It could also be in place so characters don't get stuck in module mode, as Chris points out.
If fact, that issue is especially prevalent in Emerald Spire. My group also had someone who had to miss out on a level in order to get back on track and keep pace with the rest of the team.
Hmmm? If you could switch back and forth out of slow mode on a dime how would you get stuck in module mode?
|
|
if no abuse exists there's no reason for the rule to exist.That's not entirely true. It could also be in place so characters don't get stuck in module mode, as Chris points out.
If fact, that issue is especially prevalent in Emerald Spire. My group also had someone who had to miss out on a level in order to get back on track and keep pace with the rest of the team.
One of my players for ES is bringing a different character for floor 9 because of this. It also creates an interesting conundrum if your players don't get full experience on floor 4.
Like Chris, I would like this issue reviewed.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But why not instead just allow each chronicle be either at normal speed or slow speed?
For Nefreet's example, I am at 5 XP and play a module. I would have the choice of either earning 3 XP, 4 PP, and full gold, OR I could apply a slow chronicle for 1.5 XP, 2 PP, and 1/2 gold.
If the argument against is really that I could use slow chronicles to mitigate poor gold rewards, that is easily remedied. Simply require players to declare whether we are playing normal or slow at the beginning of the game when we fill out the sign-in sheet, like claude suggested.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wish someone could point out one issue this rule intends to solve.
The rule wasn't created to solve a problem. It was added to provide an additional option for people who wanted to play their characters longer. If it's really that much of an issue, the option should probably just be retired.
|
|
Alright, here's a test:
You're on slow track at 5 XP, and play a Module. Normally, this would put you at 6.5 XP, and you'd earn half Gold and 2 PP.
Say you wanted instead to revert to normal track once you crossed over into 3rd level.
How much XP, Gold, and PP would you earn?
It'd be incredibly simple. You'd either earn full or half rewards from the chronicle. The only change needed to the rule is to let you go slow/full whenever you want instead of only on multiples of 3xp.
|
|
I just wish someone could point out one issue this rule intends to solve.The rule wasn't created to solve a problem. It was added to provide an additional option for people who wanted to play their characters longer. If it's really that much of an issue, the option should probably just be retired.
This isn't really directed at you Kevin, well, it's not just directed at you.
You know, normally I'm all for this sort of knee-jerk overreaction to people being overly melodramatic, it makes for good reading, but this is a bit silly. Also, it's getting hard to tell who really cares about something on the boards and who's just posting in a thily veiled attempt to get this banned.
FWIW, I think the normal / slow tracks are fine the way they are.
|
|
I don't see anything wrong with what Kevin said.
Can you elaborate? I don't feel either he or I are being knee-jerk, melodramatic, or overreacting.
Kevin's reaction is kind of a knee jerk reaction since some people have brought up concerns in a reasonable fashion (it feels like he's of the position of "if you don't like it I'll take my toys and leave"), and some of the people on the other side are being overly melodramatic.
Once again, this isn't an attempt to take a shot at Kevin or you, I actually agree that this should just be left the way it is. But, it has become somewhat of a trend for people to bring up an issue only to have people just lobby for the thing to just get removed (SLA's counting for prereqs, feral child/true primitive, et al).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything wrong with what Kevin said.
Can you elaborate? I don't feel either he or I are being knee-jerk, melodramatic, or overreacting.
Kevin's reaction is kind of a knee jerk reaction since some people have brought up concerns in a reasonable fashion (it feels like he's of the position of "if you don't like it I'll take my toys and leave"), and some of the people on the other side are being overly melodramatic.
Once again, this isn't an attempt to take a shot at Kevin or you, I actually agree that this should just be left the way it is. But, it has become somewhat of a trend for people to bring up an issue only to have people just lobby for the thing to just get removed (SLA's counting for prereqs, feral child/true primitive, et al).
Not trying to be melodramatic, and definitely not lobbying for removal, just pointing out another possible resolution. Locally (and at conventions), I've never seen any issue with folks using slow progression, and I think it works as is for what it was designed for.
My previous post was mostly trying to answer Fox's question about what problem the rule solved.
|
|
I just wish someone could point out one issue this rule intends to solve.The rule wasn't created to solve a problem. It was added to provide an additional option for people who wanted to play their characters longer. If it's really that much of an issue, the option should probably just be retired.
What the hell man?
This amounts to stop trying to improve the system or it should be broken.
The systems implementation isn't perfect. It could be better. There is no discernible reason not to make the change to a per chronicle sheet basis. How on earth do you go from that to scrapping the system entirely? It makes no sense and it smacks of telling people to shut up.
|
|
Kevin while possibly overextending the concept to complete removal (I don't think he was advocating for this so much as playing Devil's Advocate, at least my reading) made a completely reasonable statement with no malicious intent, IMO, Also, in the first part answered another players question, whcih no else had done up to that point. However, people have jumped all over it with far more malicious posts for little reason.
I personally have no issue with slow track existing as is, being changed, or removed, I simply don't care. I've never slow tracked a character and don't intend to do it (with the exception of when I get around to doing Emerald Spire, which I will slow track some levels just to attempt it all on one character). Frankly there are three options for slow tracking - as is, every scenario, and removal. I'm not sure how having the option makes play better, but since it doesn't generally affect me I can't say (I know the concept of playing a character longer, etc. but since 33+ sessions is longer than most campaigns I've been in, it just doesn't bother me).
I've only ever seen players slow track for 1 of 3 reasons.
1 to get more sessions with a character pre-retirement. PRO - You get to play a character longer CON - It's often the same players who complain about not having anything left to play that do this (especially high tier content).
2. To let another player catch up in level PRO - You play at the same table while allowing characters to mature simultaneously CON - In a lot (not everywhere I know) of cases you could build a second character to play at a different table that isn't waiting for the companion to play as well - not ideal but functional I've definitely built other characters while waiting.
3. To exploit day job gold. PRO Extra Gold, CON - It really isn't much and when it makes the most percentage difference in WBL are the most punishing levels to play since most characters haven't fully come online
*4* I haven't personally seen this but I know Emerald Spire players have to do it at some points, and it gets iffy depending on how you do in certain areas.
With the exception of the Emerald Spire I see no reason slow tracking has to exist even in its current form. However, I don't see any reason it should be removed. As for changing it, I can see the benefit for players (especially post 4th level of ES) in that you could do it more easily, which I think would have to weighed against the increase in paperwork and more difficult audits.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything wrong with what Kevin said.
Can you elaborate? I don't feel either he or I are being knee-jerk, melodramatic, or overreacting.
Kevin's reaction is kind of a knee jerk reaction since some people have brought up concerns in a reasonable fashion (it feels like he's of the position of "if you don't like it I'll take my toys and leave"), and some of the people on the other side are being overly melodramatic.
Once again, this isn't an attempt to take a shot at Kevin or you, I actually agree that this should just be left the way it is. But, it has become somewhat of a trend for people to bring up an issue only to have people just lobby for the thing to just get removed (SLA's counting for prereqs, feral child/true primitive, et al).
Not trying to be melodramatic, and definitely not lobbying for removal, just pointing out another possible resolution. Locally (and at conventions), I've never seen any issue with folks using slow progression, and I think it works as is for what it was designed for.
My previous post was mostly trying to answer Fox's question about what problem the rule solved.
I agree, slow progression as is does the job it was included for. I've got a handful of characters on slow, and I think slow progression as is fills the role it was created for. I like using slow progression to extend my PC's ability to play at levels where they straddle multiple level ranges, mainly levels five and nine. And I apologize if my first post seemed incoherent or unclear, that's what I get for posting half-conscious.
|
|
2 more reasons, Joe Ducey:
• to play through all scenarios in a given Season with one character. I'm doing this now with my "Season 6" character (though after level 5 I probably won't need to anymore).
• to earn extra Prestige via a vanity found on a Chronicle Sheet, combined with a Convention Boon to get free items by spending Prestige (something I'm doing with a Core character).
|
|
2 more reasons, Joe Ducey:
• to play through all scenarios in a given Season with one character. I'm doing this now with my "Season 6" character (though after level 5 I probably won't need to anymore).
• to earn extra Prestige via a vanity found on a Chronicle Sheet, combined with a Convention Boon to get free items by spending Prestige (something I'm doing with a Core character).
Oops, left off the sentence I meant to leave at the end "I'm sure there are more reasons I haven't seen, just examples."
Thanks for the extra reasons, very interesting. I haven't seen either in use I believe. Though I have seen a couple people with that vanity.
Oh and first name's fine. :)
|
|
I just wish someone could point out one issue this rule intends to solve.The rule wasn't created to solve a problem. It was added to provide an additional option for people who wanted to play their characters longer. If it's really that much of an issue, the option should probably just be retired.
Hey, no worries, Kevin. I think you misunderstood my question (I wasn't very clear). I know why the slow track exists, and I think it is a positive part of the campaign.
What I intended to ask was, what is being solved by only allowing switching tracks when a character's XP is divisible by 3?
|
|
(with the exception of when I get around to doing Emerald Spire, which I will slow track some levels just to attempt it all on one character).
I want to hone in on this point quickly because Emerald Spire is one of the biggest pain points in the current slow track rules.
Floor 4 has a variable reward system. Players can leave with 1, 2, or 3 experience based on how the floor is completed (along with similarly scaled PP and gold). It is also one of the floors that is recommended for slow track (those floors being 4-5 and 10-15). This creates three major problems:
- If the player does not seek out external scenario experience (GM or play), they will PERMANENTLY be stuck in their current slow/normal experience track.
- Characters who have been designed for the Spire do not necessarily have the same qualities (RP or mechanical) as characters designed to play in scenarios. Moreover, many players who create characters for the Spire are not interested in having them outside the Spire.
- A character death outside the Spire is jarring for the group if that group has been consistently playing the Spire together. It also effectively removes that player from the Spire for reasons that had nothing to do with the Spire itself.
JC had great reasons for the way that floor 4's chronicle works. It truly makes sense given the writing of the floor. That does, however, make the current restrictions on slow/normal track extremely disruptive to some parties.
|
|
1 to get more sessions with a character pre-retirement. PRO - You get to play a character longer CON - It's often the same players who complain about not having anything left to play that do this (especially high tier content).
They'd hit the exact same problem regardless, they'd just do it on two different characters instead of 1.
|
|
I just wish someone could point out one issue this rule intends to solve.The rule wasn't created to solve a problem. It was added to provide an additional option for people who wanted to play their characters longer. If it's really that much of an issue, the option should probably just be retired.Hey, no worries, Kevin. I think you misunderstood my question (I wasn't very clear). I know why the slow track exists, and I think it is a positive part of the campaign.
What I intended to ask was, what is being solved by only allowing switching tracks when a character's XP is divisible by 3?
I think it was for two reasons:
1) It was a new option, and they wanted to add it in a controlled way, not just something that was added willy-nilly.
2) Doing it at level change was a way to try and keep the bookkeeping simple.
3) It also avoided the whole "I want to only take the first 1/3rd//2/3rds of this module at slow track, then get the final part(s) at normal track." pile of mess. After all, if you can switch every scenario, why can't you switch every third of a module or sanctioned section of an AP, they are worth 3 XP.
