Living 4th Edition Discussion Thread

Graf · Aug 13, 2008

covaithe said:
Thus, I think as far as setting goes, the next step is for all of us, especially facilitators, to read the current setting proposals and come up with specific todo lists for each setting. As for whether we vote to proceed as soon as the first setting ticks all the boxes or wait for others, well, we can decide that when the time comes, based on our feeling of relative levels of interest.

In principal I'm in support of this. I think I need to take a bit of a back seat though (or rather, work more on ticking off boxes than making boxes to tick).

My only concern is that there has also been a pretty big push toward "not filling anything in". I'd hate to wind up with an exhaustive list, fill everything in on it and then have people say "you're setting's too detailed/in filling in all these boxes you've added some details that i don't like -> and upsetting the apple cart (so to speak).

It's very easy to complain that a setting isn't the sort of setting you'd write if you were doing it, or if it were your home game or that it's not the way that you think it ought to be because you like X and prefer that X be a really big part of the setting and you don't like Y so you think that it ought to be more X than Y.

edit: basically I'd like to see objections come with constructive suggestions.
And, I think, some things that some people feel are "must haves" aren't things that other people want.

[d]--[/d]

I also, point out, once again that both settings (Zheen, Transitive Isles) are on the Wiki and can be edited by anyone.

You can suggest elements to be changed here, on their talk pages (talk:Zheen, talk:Transitive Isles) OR go re-write them yourself.

I would love to see people getting involved writing and re-writing. (and I don't just mean fixing my hideous spelling and awkward sentences).

Obviously there are certain fundamental things that I'd like to keep (Transitive Isles as mid-sized islands in the shifting seas) but other than that you can go nuts.

Or "fork" a setting and make your own proposal... maybe Daunton is on the plane of Law and ruled by Modrons... go nuts.

renau1g · Aug 13, 2008

covaithe said:
About the character sheet: A good start, thanks for doing this. Some notes as I read through it:

I'd like to see the defenses split out on separate lines so that you can see the math. E.g.

Done!

covaithe said:
In general I think that the easier we make it to show the math, the faster approvals will get done.

I think there should be at least brief descriptions of the powers in the sheet. Not the full text from the PHB or anything, but at least "str vs. AC, 2d8+4 and slowed until end of next turn" or whatever. In my 4e character sheets so far (all two of them) I've found it really helpful to have detailed math for each power listed separately, sometimes split out by which weapon I'm using.

I wasn't sure how much we'd be legally allowed to post, I went off of the SRD, which looks like it's just the titles.

covaithe said:
And I'd really like to be able to squeeze in there the fact that the +9 comes from +4 dex, +3 proficiency, +1 level, and +1 enhancement. But I'm not sure how best to fit that.

Hmm.... let me think about that, maybe I can put an asterisk next to the bonus to hit and a section below to show the math?

covaithe said:
One more thing: getting skill ranks and equipment lists to line up is much easier if the numbers are to the left of the names, rather than the right:

It probably is, I know sometimes formatting the sheet can be difficult.

covaithe · Aug 13, 2008

renau1g said:
I wasn't sure how much [of the text of powers] we'd be legally allowed to post, I went off of the SRD, which looks like it's just the titles.

A fair point, and one that I've thought of in the past. My current thinking is that it should be all right to go ahead and put most or all of the rules there, paraphrasing where possible, and if they send lawyers after us to tell us to stop, we'll stop. But if others are uncomfortable with that, we can just list the names of powers too.

As far as having the math elsewhere, Graf's suggestion of a separate math area seems promising. I'm wondering if it would make sense to describe powers as just "STR vs AC" or whatever, and put the full math for STR attacks elsewhere. E.g.

Kick to the Groin (standard, at-will, unarmed)
STR vs. Reflex, 1d6+str mod and target is nauseated

(elsewhere)
Attacks:
--------------
Unarmed STR +5 (+1 level, +2 str, +2 prof)
+1 Halberd STR +6 (+1 level, +2 str, +2 prof, +1 enh)

renau1g · Aug 13, 2008

Re: the math section - That make's sense to me, we can sblock the math areas to have a cleaner looking sheet.

As for the powers, I'll try to put something together that works and is standardized (or at least try

)

Erekose13 · Aug 13, 2008

WotC says they will be releasing a fan site policy in the near future which should address what we can and can't post to the forums.

covaithe · Aug 13, 2008

I read through all the material for the two current setting proposals, and made some lists for each one of things that I think need doing before it can be considered "ready". I put the results in the Zheen thread and a new thread for Transitive isles.

I encourage other people to do the same: read through both setting proposals, taking notes on what needs to be done. Don't leave this all to my eyes; I'm not nearly detail-oriented enough for that.

garyh · Aug 13, 2008

I've chimed in on the setting discussions. Thanks for getting those started! I gave the settings on the wiki a good reading this morning myself.

garyh · Aug 15, 2008

Hey folks, I had a thought. I know when I'm working on something and the timeline is open-ended, I can kind of drag. When I've got a deadline, I make sure I meet it. I think this is common. The reason I bring this up is I think we might make more solid progress if we have a deadline. Here's my idea:

The first Living 4th Edition adventure will start on September 15th.

How do you all feel about a target date, and in specific, about this target date? I think we can do it, personally (which is, of course, why I've suggested it.

)

covaithe · Aug 15, 2008

Intriguing. The idea appeals to me, but I wonder if it would have the effect of suppressing discussion. For example, Transitive Isles is the only setting proposal that is vaguely near ready to go. If people vote to accept that proposal and move forward with it, then yes, 15 September or even earlier is quite reasonable. But if we put down a deadline of 15 September, I think it would put pressure on people to vote yes on Transitive Isles, and other voting items when we get to them, on the grounds that it would be too hard to come up with an alternative idea by the deadline. Did that paragraph make any sense? I'm not sure....

But looking at the roadmap, I agree that we're well positioned to be able to start playing pretty darn soon.

garyh · Aug 15, 2008

Plenty of sense. As I read it, you're concerned that by trying to meet a date, we'll stifle conversation and/or favor ideas that happen to currently be more developed.

I agree there's a chance of that, but I think there's also a danger of taking so long to talk through everything that we lose momentum. Personally, I'd rather rush a little and get playing than risk slowing down and never getting there.