Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
Draft: L4E Charter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="covaithe" data-source="post: 4429833" data-attributes="member: 46559"><p>Glad to see I waited and let you do it, garyh. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Here are some notes, typing them in as I read. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Probably want to link to the FAQ here, and specify that it's the ENWorld FAQ that is meant. I envision that there might be a L4W FAQ at some point, though it would probably be premature to write it at this point. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is now My Account -> Settings and Options -> Edit Options -> Receive Email from Other Members. I always wondered about this paragraph in the other living world guides. Is it really necessary? The only time I can think of when judges need to email players is when approving characters, or, for DMs, adventures. But in those cases the player contacts the judges first. I wonder if we might try softening the wording to something like "It is strongly suggested that players edit their message board settings to allow email from other members. This allows judges, DMs, and other players to contact you privately if need arises."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I suspect we'll want to keep the character creation rules in a sticky post in this forum, rather than in the wiki. It doesn't need the kind of easiness to edit and revision history that the setting pages or the character sheets themselves do, and would benefit from the security of only judges being able to edit it. But I don't feel strongly about this; it would be easy to start with a wiki and change to a sticky later if people want to try it that way. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I <strong>definitely</strong> think that the list of approved characters should not be in the wiki; it should be a sticky post. It's important that only judges be able to edit that. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I thought there was consensus for one character at start. There was disagreement as to how soon and under what conditions to allow a second character, but I think there was general agreement for starting with one. Perhaps the wording could be, "Only one character per player is allowed currently, though more characters are expected to be allowed later." Or maybe not; that feels awkward to me at the moment. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Don't we generally allow characters that have been submitted but not approved to hang out in the inn? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This paragraph needs some work. For one, it's talking about three different things: 1) you have to be approved before you go on adventure, 2) DMs may penalize your character if you don't warn them before a posting hiatus, and 3) characters shouldn't level up during adventures. I think 3) is completely unnecessary; I don't think I've ever seen a game in LEW where people held off on leveling until the end of an adventure. If a DM wants to delay leveling up, they can just hold off on awarding xp. 1) and 2) are good points, but they need to be phrased better. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Unapproved characters will never receive experience, so that's just "characters" in the first sentence. The second sentence can be omitted entirely, I think; we're defining the rules here, not defending them. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This list will do for now as a placeholder, but as someone who has puzzled over it trying to figure out how to submit an adventure proposal based on it, I can say with some authority that it leaves something to be desired. Still, I'm not sure how to do better. Maybe this is something for the wiki? An example would also help; maybe once we get a few completed adventures under our collective belt, we can dig up one of their proposals and document it as a template. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'd like to see the adventure recruitment process be more open to hooks that don't start with the tavern, so I'd like to see that possibility reflected here. Perhaps something like, "Most adventures start with an NPC recruiting a party of adventurers from the (Mysteriously Nameless) inn, but DMs may also arrange a different beginning by arranging it OOC in the general discussion thread."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good point. I hope we'll carry this over, but if so we should do so by explicitly deciding it, rather than slipping it in under the door, so to speak. But hey, one of the purposes of this draft is to find these things. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>True, but we've gone to some trouble in the setting proposals to allow for a fair amount of leeway for DMs to create content in their adventures. I think we can take that as an implicit goal, and the basic way that the world gets created. Players can create content too in their backstories, though at a much more granular level (individual people and specific events rather than geography, locations and so forth). I suppose we might want to describe this somehow in the charter, but the LEW verbiage always felt to me like groundwork for a more rigid system of structured worldbuilding that never materialized. LEB's concept of interfaces goes a little farther, but seems unnecessary to me. Perhaps people with more LEB chops than me can speak to that. In short, I think we can probably just say that individual characters' backgrounds are private and not to be used as character knowledge or adventure material without that player's permission, and let the rest of the worldbuilding take care of itself. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This certainly needs a change, since we're building this whole game off of non-open content. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We've been using the LEB version of the voting rules rather than the LEW as described here. In LEW, 4 yes to 2 no would pass, but it would not in LEB, if I've understood the system properly, which I'm not sure of, since the LEB one seems to be assuming a specific number of judges. If we were to use LEB-based rules, I'd rephrase them as "YES votes need to exceed NO votes by at least 3 to pass, with a minimum of 3 YES votes," and similarly for failures. </p><p></p><p>I don't have a strong preference myself. Requiring a pass by 3 is more conservative; it will make it harder for new rules content to be approved. Which may be a good thing; I don't know. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There seemed to be an informal consensus in the discussion thread to allow PCs to be raised as with the Raise Dead ritual in the PHB. We should probably require of setting proposals that they include some information about which temples are likely to be able, and willing, to perform Raise Dead, if only as a guideline for DMs. </p><p></p><p>This raises another question though, one that's related to this question but runs much deeper. It was a kind of unstated world-building goal for LEW that high level NPCs be rare and not affect the game world too much; the goal being that the PCs would be larger-than-life, worldshaking figures. Do we want the same for L4W? If so, we might should have some guidelines, possibly on the wiki and not as part of this document, that address NPC levels. </p><p></p><p>But the reason I thought of this is that Raise Dead requires at least an 8th level caster. Those may (or may not) be pretty rare, depending on what we decide. </p><p></p><p>What level to allow replacement characters after permanent death or retirement is something to be discussed, certainly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="covaithe, post: 4429833, member: 46559"] Glad to see I waited and let you do it, garyh. :) Here are some notes, typing them in as I read. Probably want to link to the FAQ here, and specify that it's the ENWorld FAQ that is meant. I envision that there might be a L4W FAQ at some point, though it would probably be premature to write it at this point. This is now My Account -> Settings and Options -> Edit Options -> Receive Email from Other Members. I always wondered about this paragraph in the other living world guides. Is it really necessary? The only time I can think of when judges need to email players is when approving characters, or, for DMs, adventures. But in those cases the player contacts the judges first. I wonder if we might try softening the wording to something like "It is strongly suggested that players edit their message board settings to allow email from other members. This allows judges, DMs, and other players to contact you privately if need arises." I suspect we'll want to keep the character creation rules in a sticky post in this forum, rather than in the wiki. It doesn't need the kind of easiness to edit and revision history that the setting pages or the character sheets themselves do, and would benefit from the security of only judges being able to edit it. But I don't feel strongly about this; it would be easy to start with a wiki and change to a sticky later if people want to try it that way. I [b]definitely[/b] think that the list of approved characters should not be in the wiki; it should be a sticky post. It's important that only judges be able to edit that. I thought there was consensus for one character at start. There was disagreement as to how soon and under what conditions to allow a second character, but I think there was general agreement for starting with one. Perhaps the wording could be, "Only one character per player is allowed currently, though more characters are expected to be allowed later." Or maybe not; that feels awkward to me at the moment. Don't we generally allow characters that have been submitted but not approved to hang out in the inn? This paragraph needs some work. For one, it's talking about three different things: 1) you have to be approved before you go on adventure, 2) DMs may penalize your character if you don't warn them before a posting hiatus, and 3) characters shouldn't level up during adventures. I think 3) is completely unnecessary; I don't think I've ever seen a game in LEW where people held off on leveling until the end of an adventure. If a DM wants to delay leveling up, they can just hold off on awarding xp. 1) and 2) are good points, but they need to be phrased better. Unapproved characters will never receive experience, so that's just "characters" in the first sentence. The second sentence can be omitted entirely, I think; we're defining the rules here, not defending them. This list will do for now as a placeholder, but as someone who has puzzled over it trying to figure out how to submit an adventure proposal based on it, I can say with some authority that it leaves something to be desired. Still, I'm not sure how to do better. Maybe this is something for the wiki? An example would also help; maybe once we get a few completed adventures under our collective belt, we can dig up one of their proposals and document it as a template. I'd like to see the adventure recruitment process be more open to hooks that don't start with the tavern, so I'd like to see that possibility reflected here. Perhaps something like, "Most adventures start with an NPC recruiting a party of adventurers from the (Mysteriously Nameless) inn, but DMs may also arrange a different beginning by arranging it OOC in the general discussion thread." Good point. I hope we'll carry this over, but if so we should do so by explicitly deciding it, rather than slipping it in under the door, so to speak. But hey, one of the purposes of this draft is to find these things. True, but we've gone to some trouble in the setting proposals to allow for a fair amount of leeway for DMs to create content in their adventures. I think we can take that as an implicit goal, and the basic way that the world gets created. Players can create content too in their backstories, though at a much more granular level (individual people and specific events rather than geography, locations and so forth). I suppose we might want to describe this somehow in the charter, but the LEW verbiage always felt to me like groundwork for a more rigid system of structured worldbuilding that never materialized. LEB's concept of interfaces goes a little farther, but seems unnecessary to me. Perhaps people with more LEB chops than me can speak to that. In short, I think we can probably just say that individual characters' backgrounds are private and not to be used as character knowledge or adventure material without that player's permission, and let the rest of the worldbuilding take care of itself. This certainly needs a change, since we're building this whole game off of non-open content. We've been using the LEB version of the voting rules rather than the LEW as described here. In LEW, 4 yes to 2 no would pass, but it would not in LEB, if I've understood the system properly, which I'm not sure of, since the LEB one seems to be assuming a specific number of judges. If we were to use LEB-based rules, I'd rephrase them as "YES votes need to exceed NO votes by at least 3 to pass, with a minimum of 3 YES votes," and similarly for failures. I don't have a strong preference myself. Requiring a pass by 3 is more conservative; it will make it harder for new rules content to be approved. Which may be a good thing; I don't know. There seemed to be an informal consensus in the discussion thread to allow PCs to be raised as with the Raise Dead ritual in the PHB. We should probably require of setting proposals that they include some information about which temples are likely to be able, and willing, to perform Raise Dead, if only as a guideline for DMs. This raises another question though, one that's related to this question but runs much deeper. It was a kind of unstated world-building goal for LEW that high level NPCs be rare and not affect the game world too much; the goal being that the PCs would be larger-than-life, worldshaking figures. Do we want the same for L4W? If so, we might should have some guidelines, possibly on the wiki and not as part of this document, that address NPC levels. But the reason I thought of this is that Raise Dead requires at least an 8th level caster. Those may (or may not) be pretty rare, depending on what we decide. What level to allow replacement characters after permanent death or retirement is something to be discussed, certainly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
Draft: L4E Charter
Top