stonegod
Spawn of Khyber/LEB Judge
Counterpoint: LEB also had a surge in addys at start that tapered off, so don't assume what we see now will be steady state.
What is DMing worth (AKA how do we award DM credits)
Phoenix8008
First Post
True that assumptions don't hold alot of weight, but we have those adventures already running plus a few more getting ready to run, so I still believe that there will be enough that do DM to have a group of characters of higher level than the rest to play together. The biggest issue will probably be having a balanced party between those players as far as character roles. Or they may just have to wait a bit or go slumming with a little lower level other PC's. We'll see though.
covaithe
Explorer
The question of whether the earlier results is official or not is certainly a good one. Short answer: yes, for now.
Longer answer: One of the big things we have left to do in L4W is write down a charter; the meta-rules collected in one place, like how DM points work, how retirement and character death work, and how we would go about proposing and voting on changes and new content. There's a very early draft of such a document floating around, but it's really quite out of date by now, and updating it always seems to be a lower priority than other things, such as character approvals and running my games. Such a document would be the authoritative answer to the question "Is it official". In the absence of such a thing, I think we have to accept these poll results as official for now. I think we should hold off on proposing any changes until we've sorted out how to make and implement proposals.
Longer answer: One of the big things we have left to do in L4W is write down a charter; the meta-rules collected in one place, like how DM points work, how retirement and character death work, and how we would go about proposing and voting on changes and new content. There's a very early draft of such a document floating around, but it's really quite out of date by now, and updating it always seems to be a lower priority than other things, such as character approvals and running my games. Such a document would be the authoritative answer to the question "Is it official". In the absence of such a thing, I think we have to accept these poll results as official for now. I think we should hold off on proposing any changes until we've sorted out how to make and implement proposals.
Velmont
First Post
And why 4 person didn't vote. Bront told this vote was confusing, Erekose would have vote for more then 15, the other two hasn't talked. If the people who hasn't vote vote for 12 month, it will finish 8 vs 7...
From the start, there was too many choice, that's my opinion. If the 6 month win 12 vs 3... well, great. But I think that, is among all the point, will be the point that can change the face of L4W.
Halford
First Post
That part of the poll is not confusing, sorry it just isn't. Had Erekose voted for more than 15 it would clearly been irrelevant. The vote is over and the result is clear.
I understand what Bront meant about the poll overall, but the top part was clear and simple. Had there been any significant showing for 15 months creating a poll with longer time frames available might have a point; it didn't and thus it doesn't.
As far as I am concerned the issue is settled, for now.
I understand what Bront meant about the poll overall, but the top part was clear and simple. Had there been any significant showing for 15 months creating a poll with longer time frames available might have a point; it didn't and thus it doesn't.
As far as I am concerned the issue is settled, for now.
elecgraystone
First Post
So? If they didn't vote, they don't count in the vote. That's kind of how a poll works.
I have to agree with Halford. I found nothing about this part of the poll confusing. Now, overall I had to look over if a few times to make sure i was doing it all right.
If that's the case, Erekose should have voted the highest amount and noted here in the post that it was for 15+.
As far as the non-voters, they were non-voters and don't count.
I fail to see too many options. As I pointed out, up to 6 months won out over 7+ months and 6 months won out over all. If people didn't vote that was their right but that can't be taken into account on why a re-vote should be taken. That's voting after the fact.
I'm going to agree with Halford. As far as I am concerned the issue is settled for now. I could see re-opening it up to a new vote later, but only after a bit of time has passed (at least a year) and there is a showing that more than just a couple people want it changed.
Graf
Explorer
One general comment: I am massively against people calling for a revote because they don't like a given outcome.
I've edited this post, to make it polite, but I have tremendous dislike for that attitude.
To the extent that I have time or effort I will strongly and vigorously resist people who feel that "It's not exactly the way that I want it. I'm going to demand we vote and vote and vote until you change to match my preference."
If you have a critique of a poll's wording, or similar then that's a fine justification to see about repolling. But, absent a mechanical mistake?
I'm not really interested in running 15 polls until you've exhausted everyone else and get what you want.
That goes for every issue. If you're not comfortable with compromising with the community as a whole you will find participation in this community difficult.
And, L4W isn't LEW or LEB. We respect them, and the tremendous contribution they make and continue to make for the community as a whole. But this is a different community playing a different edition of everybody's favorite game (with many overlapping members).
We may choose, as a community, to follow different paths. It's fine to talk about how you feel, but just insiting that people change to match what you want is not the sort of behavior we want to reward.
Also
If you somehow jury rig the outcome so that you're prefered choice were to get the most votes (even though a significant majority is asking for something else)... we'll go with the majority.
We'd prefer a compromise, but I think you'll find that a position of "I don't want to compromise, I want it my way" isn't going to find much favor.
[d]--[/d]
Yeah. When the community was small this wasn't a problem to the degree that it seems to be now.
I think, at the time, we wanted people to feel like they could come back in a week or two and still have their vote "count". We -do- want people to come and share their opinions and be counted.
It's good that people get a chance to come and talk, to vent. etc.
If 20 new people came in and wanted to change something, what would we do? I guess it depends. It hasn't happened and a lot of the issues that people really want to talk about fall under the "reconsider in December" situation.
Either way we've grown and that means more typing for the judges.
We'll have a judge huddle and see if we can get official versions up.
[d]--[/d]
I think, personally, that these are the key issues. I'm playing in two higher level games on the boards. It's rewarding and fun. There are certain aspects of being 1st level (few ecounter powers, one daily) that limit your choices. It's not terrible. But....
To a certain degree I feel that this is an issue.
Personally, I've repeatedly attempted to add in other ways for people to get "extra xp". So it's not a DM vs Player issue.
They've been profoundly unpopular.
The current sitaution is a compromise situation.
Almost no one in the community would deliberately go out and pick this situation. It's a our best shot at what the community would like.
[d]--[/d]
On the other hand, if you feel like it's "unfair" that you character isn't as high a level as somebody else I think you've basically missed the point of PbP roleplaying.
Would your work on Rinaldo somehow be "devalued" because of what some other character does?
Can people play a character without developing them significantly for 10 levels?
Hint: Yes. Yes they can.
Level is level. A good character is a good character.
My person suggest would be that you should feel proud of your roleplaying for itself without being concerned about whether you're more or less powerful than some other character.
I've edited this post, to make it polite, but I have tremendous dislike for that attitude.
To the extent that I have time or effort I will strongly and vigorously resist people who feel that "It's not exactly the way that I want it. I'm going to demand we vote and vote and vote until you change to match my preference."
If you have a critique of a poll's wording, or similar then that's a fine justification to see about repolling. But, absent a mechanical mistake?
I'm not really interested in running 15 polls until you've exhausted everyone else and get what you want.
That goes for every issue. If you're not comfortable with compromising with the community as a whole you will find participation in this community difficult.
And, L4W isn't LEW or LEB. We respect them, and the tremendous contribution they make and continue to make for the community as a whole. But this is a different community playing a different edition of everybody's favorite game (with many overlapping members).
We may choose, as a community, to follow different paths. It's fine to talk about how you feel, but just insiting that people change to match what you want is not the sort of behavior we want to reward.
Also
This is exaclty the sort of analysis we do when dealing with a vote.
If you somehow jury rig the outcome so that you're prefered choice were to get the most votes (even though a significant majority is asking for something else)... we'll go with the majority.
We'd prefer a compromise, but I think you'll find that a position of "I don't want to compromise, I want it my way" isn't going to find much favor.
[d]--[/d]
stonegod said:
Yeah. When the community was small this wasn't a problem to the degree that it seems to be now.
I think, at the time, we wanted people to feel like they could come back in a week or two and still have their vote "count". We -do- want people to come and share their opinions and be counted.
It's good that people get a chance to come and talk, to vent. etc.
If 20 new people came in and wanted to change something, what would we do? I guess it depends. It hasn't happened and a lot of the issues that people really want to talk about fall under the "reconsider in December" situation.
Either way we've grown and that means more typing for the judges.
We'll have a judge huddle and see if we can get official versions up.
[d]--[/d]
Halford said:
I think, personally, that these are the key issues. I'm playing in two higher level games on the boards. It's rewarding and fun. There are certain aspects of being 1st level (few ecounter powers, one daily) that limit your choices. It's not terrible. But....
Velmont said:
To a certain degree I feel that this is an issue.
Personally, I've repeatedly attempted to add in other ways for people to get "extra xp". So it's not a DM vs Player issue.
They've been profoundly unpopular.
The current sitaution is a compromise situation.
Almost no one in the community would deliberately go out and pick this situation. It's a our best shot at what the community would like.
[d]--[/d]
On the other hand, if you feel like it's "unfair" that you character isn't as high a level as somebody else I think you've basically missed the point of PbP roleplaying.
Would your work on Rinaldo somehow be "devalued" because of what some other character does?
Can people play a character without developing them significantly for 10 levels?
Hint: Yes. Yes they can.
Level is level. A good character is a good character.
My person suggest would be that you should feel proud of your roleplaying for itself without being concerned about whether you're more or less powerful than some other character.
Graf
Explorer
Obviously a concern.
But it's something I think we'll grapple with really, no matter what.
It's just a question of "when we get there".
No matter what we will always arrive at a point where we have a 3rd level character and a 6th level character and a 9th level character hanging out in the tavern with LFG signs hanging from their necks (metaphorically of course).
[d]--[/d]
The differences between levels are not as big, imho, in 4e. A 4th level 3.x wizard was radically different than a 5th level 3x character.
4>5 or 6>7 are not going to be the headache (or 5>prc1) inducing nightmares that we'd see otherwise.
Since the system can accommodate level spreads (especially at lower levels) better than 3.x I think we can just hang out for a while and see what happens.
I -doubt- you'll see someone unilaterally elevating themselves several levels up. The most likely side effect is not having any games to play in.
Is it -possible- that all the DMs will, in a year or two, do a level hop and try to get a new game going at 3rd level?
But it's far enough away that I don't see it happening. Mostly I expect to see people either
1 using their xp to nudge themselves up a level if they're under the limit, or
2 banking it to give themselves some flexibility (like if there's a great 4th level game starting and they have a 6th and a 2nd level character they can bump the 2 up...).
Similar Threads
