Player Proposal
Arkaris
the player base. The ideas will only be implemented if we have a
strong majority agreement. Failure to post your agreement or
disagreement (in either case it is suggested you mention what you
agree with or disagree with) will result in your character being mvoed
to the inactivity list in two weeks. These ideas will be implemeneted
no sooner than February 6th.
Ideas:
#1) Games will be limited to 6 players only. The method of selection
will be discussed below
#2) Players are garunteed one spot in a given week. If you play the
first game of the week, you will only be allowed to play in the second
game if there is room. Every GM will have their own list. I run one
game with Saidin, Jared, Jacob, and Conrad. A second game the same
week is with Conrad, Serrenade, Tenser, Saidin, Radzo, Haehoth, and
Brianan. A third game would automatically accept Relf, while Conrad
and Saidin who played two games will be last on the list and only
accepted if the game is short on players. Meanwhile Conrad and Saidin
might be accepted in to a game run by Tenser or Jared during the week
as well, giving them a total of 3 games for the week.
#3) Players who are lower than the average level of the group will
receive an xp bonus to "catch" them up.
#4) Players who participate in multiple games during the week will
only receive xp for completing adventures, not for monster kills.
#5) New Characters that are created will be rolled as if they are 1
level below the lowest active player (minimum level 1, but I would
hope that goes without saying).
I have three proposed methods of selection.
#1) I get to choose and who I like I like and if I don't like you,
you don't play... (some reason I doubt this one will be accepted....)
#2)Characters will be accepted in to the games based upon xp total.
The Players with the lowest amount of xp (even if the same level) will
be accepted first.
#3) Characters will be accepted in to a game based upon class. If
Zeke and Haehoth both wish to join a game and we have 7 players
including them, only one will be accepted as they are both rangers
(preference will be toward the lower level).
The methods of selection will be curtailed by Idea #2.
Xeiro
and two level 5s, and three lvl 2s; the new charcter would be of 3rd
lvl. The reason I say this is to make charcter death not so bad for
some one if say they were a lvl 5 then they pass. However on new
players I understand why you want them to be the lowest, but depending
on how active we stay it would really suck for a newbie to be dragged
down to lvl 2, when we're all lvl 8-9 cause we have an inactive party
member that hasn't played in weeks. I understand that their is talk of
an 'inactive' list, that would help in this situation by bypassing
those who choose/can't play, so that we aren't making cannon fodder.
Though I have no arguement against the rest of this, if there is a
reason to choose who goes and who dosen't, I rather it be metheod 2. I
understand meathod 3 could work, however unlike 4thed we're not labled
for our abilites in combat; though both me and Hea are rangers, we're
two diffrent types of rangers. As for meathod one, its childish,
however if there is a true player-gm issue, then I would suggest that
that player not play with that GM unless nessary.
Tensers Imp
times would be the most important factor. I am on GMT, although
thanks to a current attempt at becoming an author - or watching my
savings dwindle away to nothing as I like to think of it - I have a
flexible schedule. Different time zones and schedules will likely
make certain games more or less appealing to folks.
Of course there is also adventure continuity there are instances where
a DM will want to keep the majority of his group consistent for a few
sessions, etc. It's a tough nut.
How about we put up a thread for each game and everyone applies to the
one which is more convenient for them - or which they prefer, etc.
Players who have not played in a game that week should get priority
over those who have not, but after that DM discretion.
I'm personally not wild about the idea that new people come in at one
level lower, they would - presumably - get to select their gear freely
from the DMG whereas the rest of us are kinda going to have to slog it
out. I would prefer new PCs to come in at 1st level, but that is
based partly on the assumption that we are expecting a steady flow of
players so I am not sure how practical it is. If we do allow players
to begin at higher levels I feel that there should be some limitations
posed on their equipment to set them at, or slightly below, the level
of someone who has leveled their character from scratch. I'm
obviously thinking of someone coming in at a highish level here.
Tensers Imp
much as I would love to be in two games to everyone else's one!
Relf's my wiz.
Of the options offered I'm pretty much with Xeiro, how about something
simple like new players come in three levels lower than the highest
character? Obviously with a minimum level of 1, I would think this
would put the approximately at the lower end of the active membership,
and once we kick past 4th level they would level more swiftly than
their higher level colleagues naturally - thus having the chance to
catch up.
And option 2 for the methods of selection, though I think this can be
a last resort if we cannot simply wing it by seeing who fancies which
game, etc.
Altius8
that, though I do belive the more we play and use Orpg the smoother it
gets.
#2 Not a huge fan of being limited to one game a week. Half the reason
I am in this campaign is becuse I can play when it suits me.
#3 I don't have any issue with an xp bonus to catch people up. Tuff to
run an adventure with people that are more than a few lvls appart.
#4 I for one am not super concerned about how you reward xp. If I play
two times in a week and only get half xp or none its ok with me. I
mainly just want to play.
#5 Is personal preference. I am fine with what ever the DM decides.
As far as selection. I like option 1 or 3.
That being said. I belive we won't always have such high attendence. I
don't think we will always have to many people as an issue all the
time.
Altius8
Someone could email all the players they want to take on an adventure
and decide what they want to do. Then they can post. Serrenade,
Conrad, Relf, Zeke, and Brianan would like to venture to the Old Ruins
on Tuesday or Wednesday night. Then the groups are allready set. If
you think about it thats prob what would happen in a real setting like
this anyway. Minus the emailing. =P
> > game, etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jason
especially if he's controlling 2 or more NPCs at the same time.
2) Nothing much to add here.
3) Agreed on this one. The DMG usually gives much more exp to people
at lower levels (encounters exclusive).
4) Agreed.
5) Depends really. If for example the lot of the party members are
level 8 and the lowest active one is level 5 for whatever reason, he
should roll for a level 5 character.
Option 1 or 2.
Juggernaut
be fine for selecting to people.
Arkaris
I inteded #1 of the selection method to be more of a joke than any
serious recomendation.
The notes about gear and new characters does need to be taken care
of. Since most players have yet to obtain any magical equipment I
would not allow a fresh character to start with high level magic gear.
Idea #2, will only limit players when the game is full. If I have 3
players in a game and Serr and Conrad have played in a previous game
they will be more than welcome to join. However, if I have 5 players
and Conrad and Serrenade wants to play... only 1 would be allowed, and
based off the topic so far, it would be the one with the lowest xp
(which I think they are both the same at the moment).
Sorry for screwing up my example there Tenser, I couldn't keep it
straight who I had used.
I am mainly suggesting these ideas for our mass games, or main story
driven games. If the group would have completed the temple quest last
night I would have got more information on the goblin scouting quest
and done something with that Saturday. But since we went a different
way, and I have material ready for a full quest we are going to do
that, and the ogre slaying was the player's game.
Tensers Imp
practicing my maps on OpenRPG and I've got three encounters already
drawn up and ready to go so if I can get a group together I'm raring
to go and would be prepared to start tomorrow if anyone is interested
and we can figure out a mutually agreeable time.
I do agree that 6 is a sensible maximum, about what I'd be comfortable
with.
Acidic
I believe that if there are more than 6 players, it should be chosen
first on who has played already that week, and then go to the lowest
experience character.
I believe new players should start at one below the lowest character
level. Sure, they get to choose their gear they want (and may have
more gear than we did at that level), but they will also level a few
levels extremely quickly with very little monetary gains. So I
believe it evens out. Starting at one level below also keeps older
players from just rerolling every time they get bored.
Just my 2 copper.
FifthWheel
sense in order to keep a well rounded adventuring group.
kalistan
my character, Savin Alik, to the wiki. Here's my response to the
questions asked - looking forward to meeting you all in an upcoming
game.
#1) I think it's very reasonable to limit players per game. I'd
suggest that the GM announce how many slots they're willing to take
for any given game. 6 sounds like a good number.
#2) I like the idea of having some way to ensure that people get a
fair shot at playing. I think that giving priority to those who've
least recently played makes sense.
#3) I'd suggest that the bonus XP for those lower in level appear only
at the end of the adventure in question - it makes it more of a reward
for surviving the challenge and less of an automatic handout, and is
somewhat more believable in-game (you tend to learn very quickly when
hanging around those who're much more experienced than you!).
#4) Not too concerned with the mechanics of handing out XP. I'd
suggest that instead the XP for subsequent games cut in half, thirds,
etc., rather than focusing on story vs. monsters. I think the idea
for selection #2, below, could remove the need for this entirely.
#5) Sounds fair, but I'd rather see new characters start at level one
and receive significant "survival bonuses" for each adventure
completed - makes it more of a challenge to be overcome than an
handout, while still functioning to catch people up.
Selection:
#1) I think it's reasonable to boot players for inappropriate
behavior, but it should be for something bad enough to be booted from
the group entirely - not just excluded from one GM's game or given
lower priority. The first is a reasonable way to solve a personnel
issue; the second can just breed bad feelings.
#2) Going with least-XP-accepted-first sounds like an excellent and
very fair way to select for games. I'd prefer it to idea #2 above -
that those lagging behind would be given game after game, whereas high-
level players might have to sit a week or two out if interest flared
up at the low levels.
#3) Rather not give preferential treatment based on class. Having an
evenly distributed party is not always necessary or ideal, nor does it
necessarily hold that members of a single class are interchangeable.
Overall, I think the Selection method #2 solves a number of these
issues together without a lot of complicated bookkeeping.
debo11
If you want to make the game go more smoothly, then you need to post
chat rules, such as (()) for ooc, /me for emotes, that kind of
thing. Also have players already prepared for their next move will
help as well, but we all know that works about 40% of the time.
The option 2 about the lowest xp is my pick as well. Helps to keep
everyone balanced.
Arkaris
make the mistakes of misstyping or forgetting the first (( or the
last )), but generally we all follow those rules. Dealing with large
8 player games I do have a very strict 30 second rule, no post in 30
seconds you go to full defense, no waiting, no holding, you just lose
your turn and gain 4 AC.
> > issues together without a lot of complicated bookkeeping.- Hide quoted text -
Kenneth Grigg
Tensers Imp
for situations where a player cannot plan ahead for their turn - which
there was.