proposal: adopt LEB's rules on treasure and retirement

This is really two proposals, so I'll call them A and B. They're extremely related to each other and to another proposal I just made, however, so I've made one thread for both.

A. Adopt LEB's parcel system for treasure.

Reason: It's more fair, it's more simple, it's faster to evaluate, it's logical, and frankly, I just like it. Is it perfect? Nah. But I think it's better than just leaving it up to semi-random.

Downsides: There is the chance that some characters will have slightly better items. My counter to this is: other characters already have slightly better items, and some characters may be reigned in a bit. But overall, I'm guessing the average power level will likely rise slightly because I think most DMs here play pretty conservatively when giving out loot.

Difficulty: There is a one-time cost, although it would be distributed over everyone on the board. We'd have to ask everyone to re-tool their items, and that's no small task. We might also want a process to give exceptions to anyone who just really hated the idea. I think we wouldn't need character sheet checkers to go back over anything until the normal checking times, however.

I think if my other proposal to allow higher-level characters is passed, the one-time cost would be reduced, as many people would be retooling their PCs anyway. And it may annoy some people. I still believe it'd be better for the boards, and better in the long run, and we may as well stop confusing people who play both boards anyway.


B. Adopt LEB's rules on retirement.

Reason: It's simpler and more direct, and if my other proposal passes about starting higher level characters, it'd be necessary to discourage feeder PCs.

Downsides: It makes less sense if my previous proposal and proposal A of this thread don't go through. If both of them are not approved, this would need a serious re-thinking and possibly need to be scrapped.

Difficulty: I think it'd have zero difficulty, and in fact make things simpler.


Comments, thoughts, suggestions?

I dunno, I'm not sure how I really feel about LEB's treasure/parcel system yet. I admit it's easier for building higher level characters, but it seems to have other properties that I consider flaws as well.

For example, I know there's been a certain amount of discussion about wishlists over here before. Well, in looking at the "wishlists" on LEB, it seems like many of them are less wishlists and more orders. They aren't just a list of items a person might like to have. Often it's more like a shopping list: Level 5 parcel: xyz item; Level 6 parcel: gold, Level 7 Parcel: whatever weapon; etc.

It also seems to phase out the "random" parcels more. By that I mean, the way I read the DMG, there should actually be a total of 10 parcels for a party per level: 5 items, and 5 that are gold paired with other things, like precious gems, potions, or scrolls. My, admittedly limited, experience with LEB thus far seems to eliminate those other 5 parcels all together. People are just given enough gold to satisfy the 1/5 their level item requirement to do with as they please. I think this eliminates some of that flavor.

I have to admit, DMing my first game over there, I really wanted to put some of that more flavorful stuff in, but I feel like I can't; where-as I feel like the way treasure works in L4W, things like that would fit in better and be better received here.

You may ask, "Why do you feel like you can't do that?" Well, because things are stricter, from what I understand. If my NPCs hand out gold to hire people (and it's hard to motivate them to take an adventure otherwise), then that 1/5 an item of their level is used (or at least mostly), which doesn't leave any room for those flavorful treasure finds without eliminating someone getting their magic item, which they may not be keen on.

Besides that, I think the work involved in having every PC in L4W re-tool their items and need to be re-checked is too high for the time the Judges currently have at their disposal. I know that the approvals process already gets easily backed up. I can't imagine what would happen if every PC in L4W needed a recheck.

As for the retirement rules, I think they're ok the way they are too. The idea of feeder PCs was addressed when the new rules were created. I understand that you're looking at it from the perspective of your other proposal passing, but you I think the arguments that applied previously still do. It takes a good amount of time to level a character from 1 to 2, so it's not likely people will just make "feeder PCs" all over the place. Also, keep in mind that you can only "feed" half the exp lost. So, if you sack a level 4 character and replace it with a level 3 character, you only get half of the 1 level's exp.

Just modify the rules to state that if you sack a Level 2 character and create a level 5 character (because you have one at level 6) you get no "feed" exp from the level 2 character because your new character is higher level than the old. I think that should fix the potential problem.

Having been on L4W since the beginning and having a variety of DMs come and go, I ended up with a PC *way* behind the "what he should have and level x" curve. That's been addressed by now, but the parcel system helps avoid this in shorter time frames.

The "wishlists" over in LEB is a suggestion, but not a straightjacket. Many DMs over there do grant from it directly, but its not fixed. So long as it is within the limits given. I have seen DM give out items that don't mesh with the list but fit a matching parcel. A PC that is pushing them should have a talking too.

There is some room for flexibility. Sometimes I'd really like a n+2 item when I don't have an n+2 slot. Nothing really to do about that (and the DM may not want to give me that item anyway). If they do, I've "lost" some, but this may not be a huge deal.

The gold parcels are "eliminated" in the sense that they are not part of the LEB parcel system other than the 1/5 gold per player (which, if you divide the DMG gold parcel totals by 5 is about what one gets out). How that gets distributed is up to the DM: It can be piecemeal or all at once. i've seen both.

The DMG system works well with 1 DM, not so well when you switch between them. The LEB system is aimed to address that in a PbP environment.

Wishlists are always just suggestions. I was just saying that it feels more rigid with the parcels system. I also understand that the value of 1/5th an item of their level is the about the same as what those other parcels come out to. I'm just saying that there's little room for leeway. I think people wouldn't want to go on an adventure if they were only going to get 20g to do it so that the DM had the ability to fill in the rest with potions or scrolls, which are more expensive. Therefore, I feel it's difficult to include that flavor. You can walk into an alchemists laboratory, or an abandoned mansion full of fine art, and find nothing you can take with you, for example, because the DM can't assign you anything without someone giving up their parcel. Do you see what I'm saying?

You're right that it's harder to deal with the DMG's system in pBp, and it's not just because there's more than 1 DM. It's also because PCs don't necessarily stay with the same party. In a tabletop game you would know your party and know how to motivate them to go on an adventure for little to nothing promised up front. From what I've seen online, no one goes anywhere without at least being assured they'll be paid a good sum when they get back.

I will grant you that my online experience is much more limited than some of you have, but I still thought I'd toss my view out there. I like a little flavor thrown in, and I feel the current treasure system makes that easier to do. *shrug*

LadyLaw said:

As for the retirement rules, I think they're ok the way they are too. The idea of feeder PCs was addressed when the new rules were created. I understand that you're looking at it from the perspective of your other proposal passing, but you I think the arguments that applied previously still do. It takes a good amount of time to level a character from 1 to 2, so it's not likely people will just make "feeder PCs" all over the place. Also, keep in mind that you can only "feed" half the exp lost. So, if you sack a level 4 character and replace it with a level 3 character, you only get half of the 1 level's exp.

Just modify the rules to state that if you sack a Level 2 character and create a level 5 character (because you have one at level 6) you get no "feed" exp from the level 2 character because your new character is higher level than the old. I think that should fix the potential problem.

Click to expand...

This. There's a diminishing amount of return to create "feeder" PC's as it takes more and more xp to level up at higher levels so Callen (our current highest PC) has 13,207 xp. If he created a new PC and retired him, the xp would be say 500 or so (if he leveled up), which is just a drop in the bucket. A far more efficient method of bumping up some xp is to DM a game, especially as you level up. Every 6 months or so would be a level, regardless of your PC's level. It takes around 3-4 months with a good speed game to level up in most cases.

Re: feeder PCs
If my other proposal passed, I could start with a level 5 PC. Then, create a 2nd PC at level 4. Then retire that PC: 1/2 XP for the level 4 PC goes to the level 5 PC. Level 5 PC levels up to 6. Now I can create a new 2nd PC that's level 5 and then retire him and give 1/2 XP to my level 6 PC. And so on.

When you can make higher level PCs, feeder PCs are much easier because the numbers are bigger. Granted, no one will really be able to pull off the above scenario because it's too obvious. But I think XP donation would be a touchier subject and require more regulation - so why not cut it out entirely?


Re: loots
Wishlists can encourage DMs to make giving out treasure more mundane - but it doesn't work much differently in tabletop 4.0, where you also are encouraged to get wishlists from your PCs. And frankly nothing is stopping anyone from giving out the cash equivalent of an n+2 item (potentially in gems and art items) instead of the item itself. I guess what I'm saying is: the rules don't keep you from being creative in treasure distribution, even if they seem to encourage it.


Re: parcels
The parcel system does keep things more even, and personally my experience is a bit closer to stonegod's example. DM shuffling means that there's no standard by which to measure, and if someone disappears right before they meant to hand out a big wad... well, there are just too many issues and too many ways for this to get out of whack. The parcel system, while more sterile, maintains that balance and fairness without much additional effort.


Edit: character checking
I've already suggested that no additional character checking be involved. I'd say just wait until the character's next appointed character check time and that's that. No need to add more work.

evilbob said:

Re: feeder PCs
If my other proposal passed, I could start with a level 5 PC. Then, create a 2nd PC at level 4. Then retire that PC: 1/2 XP for the level 4 PC goes to the level 5 PC. Level 5 PC levels up to 6. Now I can create a new 2nd PC that's level 5 and then retire him and give 1/2 XP to my level 6 PC. And so on.

When you can make higher level PCs, feeder PCs are much easier because the numbers are bigger. Granted, no one will really be able to pull off the above scenario because it's too obvious. But I think XP donation would be a touchier subject and require more regulation - so why not cut it out entirely?

Click to expand...

That's actually not possible, since you only get half the exp you lose when creating the replacement character. If you are replacing the character, then you aren't losing half the exp for a level 4 character unless the new character starts at level 1. That's why I said you could just write in that if you replace the character with one of higher level, then you get no exp from your retired character as you've already got one at higher level.

evilbob said:

Edit: character checking
I've already suggested that no additional character checking be involved. I'd say just wait until the character's next appointed character check time and that's that. No need to add more work.

Click to expand...

You are correct, you did. I misread that part. Sorry.

LadyLaw said:

That's actually not possible, since you only get half the exp you lose when creating the replacement character. If you are replacing the character, then you aren't losing half the exp for a level 4 character unless the new character starts at level 1. That's why I said you could just write in that if you replace the character with one of higher level, then you get no exp from your retired character as you've already got one at higher level.

Click to expand...

Hmm - I guess I still don't understand the retirement rules then! It's ok - I don't know if it matters that I understand it; I'll just take your word that my example was poor and that feeder PCs are not as easy as I thought, or maybe they're not possible. I don't think that it weakens the case.

withdraw B (bumping A)

No one has been biting on this proposal either. Frankly, it may just be too much to ask all at once, and the discussion hasn't been as focused, so let's just drop B and focus on A.

I'm still in favor of adopting LEB's rules for treasure: I think the parcel system's great. Thoughts?

Like it bunches. Of course, I helped create it.

EvilBob: You should either mention the other judges or post about it in Discussion. I do this for all proposals I make to make sure they are seen.