proposal: adopt LEB's rules on treasure and retirement

renau1g · Sep 7, 2010

Personally, while I like the parcel system I do find it not as flexible as I like as a DM because I feel almost obligated to give the wish listed item. I know there are some PC's who get left behind (Incarnation was one IIRC) but I know I always look at the PC's CS when awarding treasure to make sure that they are approx. the right amount of treasure.

There's also the not insignificant task of redoing the treasure of the approx. 100 PC's or so that are active in L4W and the judges having to review all those changes. Personally, I feel that the cost of that aren't worth the benefits. That's my opinion of course, but I'm going to vote NO on this proposal.

H.M.Gimlord · Sep 7, 2010

Here's my take on it, and it's just my opinion, not a proposal. Think of it more as a stream of conscious rant...

Granted, I think it would be best to follow a parcel system as guideline, but I've always operated under the assumption that the point of the game is to cooperatively tell a cool story and develop characters.

The treasure I give as a DM (and I've heard grumblings about this) is usually story related and necessary for the development of the plot. The adventures I run are quite deliberate, though flexible. For me to be required to give out something on a wishlist, or even determining the level of magical items outside the context of the story is somewhat insulting, and constraining.

That said, I do try to make sure that characters are aptly awarded, by the end of the adventure. Of course, my current adventure has been going for almost a year now (if you include HTNWB) :devil:

.

H.M.Gimlord · Sep 7, 2010

In reply to EB's post in the discussion thread, I agree that parcels and wishlists are a necessary evil for organized gaming with characters and players floating in and out, which is why I don't propose a change to the rules.

I don't have to like it though, do I

?

As for my own adventures, I'll make sure characters that switch out are properly compensated according to their level.

H.M.Gimlord · Sep 7, 2010

Call me lazy and stodgy, but I'm going to go NO on this one as well (seeing as even the current system is restricting enough for me

). Personal feelings aside, It's good to make sure people don't get left behind, but games go best when treasure is left up to the DMs & players as opposed to judges who waste time testing ways of making a rule that is perfectly fair.

Geez I sound like a Republican

.

evilbob · Sep 7, 2010

And here's my reply to HMG's 11:35 post:

...I'd defend the parcel system as not being as constraining as all that. For one, there's always the option of treasure (gold, etc.) if you don't want to hand someone a specific item. For two, there's nothing that says you can't give someone a plot item in addition to their wanted treasure, so long as it isn't a permanent thing. I think you're seeing boundaries where really, there are guidelines. (Also, you don't really have to worry about the level of the treasure: that's part of how the system works.)

And there's the counterpoint that given the fact that DMs change and leave and characters drop in and out, it'd be extremely difficult for any DM to give plot-specific treasure regardless of the parcel system, so I don't know that the parcel system really plays against that any more than playing PbP already does.

evilbob · Sep 7, 2010

renau1g said:
Personally, while I like the parcel system I do find it not as flexible as I like as a DM because I feel almost obligated to give the wish listed item. I know there are some PC's who get left behind (Incarnation was one IIRC) but I know I always look at the PC's CS when awarding treasure to make sure that they are approx. the right amount of treasure.

There's also the not insignificant task of redoing the treasure of the approx. 100 PC's or so that are active in L4W and the judges having to review all those changes. Personally, I feel that the cost of that aren't worth the benefits. That's my opinion of course, but I'm going to vote NO on this proposal.

Maybe my own experiences are coloring my opinion but I believe it's far too easy for a PC to get left behind. Switching DMs often (indicative of PbP) only makes this issue worse; I don't think it really helps, since most DMs play pretty close to the vest when giving loots. The parcel system fixes this.

And in contrast to the second point, I honestly believe there is an insignificant amount of work to be done to change us over.

First, it seems like there aren't even CLOSE to 100 people actively playing these days. Second, all this would require is for people to - at some point before the next time a judge was to review their sheets - redo their items. It's on each individual player, but the workload would be completely distributed. Additionally, I don't see any extra work for judges - or DMs, since you don't need to change your sheet before your current game is up.

Effectively, all games would play out however the PCs would like, and then only when characters move on to a new DM (or, if they prefer, adventure) would it be a necessary change. Heck, if someone wants to stay with their current DM and never change: that's fine with me. I don't think it would be as devastating or constraining as its being portrayed.

evilbob · Sep 7, 2010

games go best when treasure is left up to the DMs & players as opposed to judges

No judges would have to be involved; in fact, I think it would make judging easier, honestly.

And there is a key distinction in the first part: the treasure would be less up to the DMs and more up to the players. The way it is now, the treasure is more up to the DMs and less up to the players. The main reason I've heard "against" this proposal (from both NOs so far) is from the DM's perspective: basically, I want to be able to give treasure out however I want. My rebuttal to this from the player's perspective is: I'd rather have the treasure that I want than what you give me!

I mean, 4.0 is already more about wishlists and letting the players decide what they'd like anyway - which is very nearly mandatory given the way their product cycle works now, what with a zillion new items every month. I mean, the DM's perspective here is asking for more work: you're saying you'd rather know what's the best items for each of your 4-6 characters and take on that responsibility yourselves. But how can you know each character as well as the player, at least anymore? And how do you have time?

(Seriously, how do you have time?)

The parcel system puts the gruntwork back on the player: and if they player doesn't want it it's still up to the DM - so you'd always know if the player wants you to do the work. The other way around, the DM has more responsibility. Maybe some DMs around here are that awesome - and that's great! But for everyone else: there's parcels.

At the end of the day, it's all about our own perspectives. Mine is that the inequality is most important thing, and I'm willing to sacrifice DM control to fix inequality.

renau1g · Sep 7, 2010

There's 117 PC's listed on the Approved PC's page + about 53 on Requesting Approval. I assumed around 60% of those are still active. There's likely not 100 unique users as many users have 2, or even 3, PC's.

An issue I have is a jarring to continuity if suddenly a PC can't squeeze his items into the parcel system if he's slightly ahead of the curve and suddenly the question is "what do I do know with this Flaming sword... does it magically turn into a Frost sword because that parcel fits better?"

My suggestion for those who are quite a bit behind the expected wealth curve for their PC's would be to PM your DM for the game you're in and discuss it with him/her. Maybe I'm a Monty Haul DM, but I've always addressed any shortcomings in wealth for a PC in my adventure (Mal's Hadrak comes to mind) at the first opportunity.

The judges will have to check at level up time to make sure everyone did their parcels correctly. I can tell you in LEB that there have been more than a couple times where the wrong parcel level was selected.

How I find it constraining? Well, if PC only has slot level 4 left, but there's a really perfect item that would fit their character at lvel 5 that I'd love to give them as a reward, but I can't because theri parcel doesn't match up.

I do like the parcel system in theory, but I'm less enamored with it in practice (no offense stonegod, please don't kill Vok).

renau1g · Sep 7, 2010

evilbob said:
My rebuttal to this from the player's perspective is: I'd rather have the treasure that I want than what you give me!

I almost always select the item from the PC's wishlist, but I'd much, much prefer a list of a dozen or more items to select from as the DM rather than 1 as is often the case in LEB.

Here's Kane's Wish List of over two dozen items in a wide level range. As a DM I much prefer this type of list.

Items Kane wants to help him kill stuff:

* Level 12: +3 Jagged Waraxe > +3 Marauder's Earthhide Armor > Stone of Earth >
* Level 11: +3 Warxe > +3 Earthhide Armor > Dice of Auspicious Fortune > Totemic Belt > Solitaire (Citrine)
* Level 10: +2 Berserker Warxe > Boots of the Mighty Charge> Handy Haversack> Strikebacks
* Level 9: Backlash Tattoo > +2 Blood Drinker Waraxe> Belt of Raging Endurance> Boots of Striding
* Level 8: Coif of Mindiron > +2 Sylvan Armor> Kord's Mighty Strength
* Level 7: +2 Marauder's Hide Armor > Davros Elden's Defensive Step> Belt of Sacrifice
* Level 6: Horned Helm>Rampaging Slayer Gloves> Sandals of Precise Stepping
* Level 5: Bag of Holding> Power Jewel

* Magic Weapons: +3 Jagged Waraxe > +3 Warxe > +2 Berserker Warxe > +2 Blood Drinker Waraxe
* Armor: +3 Marauder's Earthhide Armor > +2 Marauder's Hide Armor> +2 Sylvan Armor
* Feet: Boots of the Mighty Charge> Sandals of Precise Stepping> Boots of Striding
* Head: Horned Helm > Coif of Mindiron
* Hands: Rampaging Slayer Gloves> Strikebacks
* Boon: Davros Elden's Defensive Step > Kord's Mighty Strength > Moradin's Blessing of Iron
* Tattoo: Backlash Tattoo
* Waist: Totemic Belt> Belt of Raging Endurance> Belt of Sacrifice
* Wondrous: Dice of Auspicious Fortune> Solitaire (Citrine)> Stone of Earth > Handy Haversack > Bag of Holding > Power Jewel

evilbob · Sep 7, 2010

After thinking more about it, I'd go even further and posit that both NOs have been more a rejection of wishlists than the parcel system. Frankly, the parcel system is, in essence, a codified wishlist that makes things more fair and easier to check. That's it. If you're ok with wishlists, then it's like a quarter step further to get to parcels.

However, the main issue here is that while it's fairly easy to go "off the map" with wishlists, it becomes extremely difficult with parcels. It's more codified and less flexible - but really it's not, it's just more obvious when you break it.

I think the parcel system works more to constrain DMs than players; it's not really about keeping players from going overboard so much as making sure DMs don't leave someone behind (or go overboard). So I guess that's why the DM's perspective is arguing against it.

You give up flexibility to ensure that a level of fairness prevails outside of your realm of control.