(Discussion) General Part IV

[Thels]

Agreed. Early on there is no way to raise your character.

However, if someone who has access to raise dead ends up with one of his characters dead, he would lose a level for dying. If he decides to abandon the char and pick another, he should get another level loss for that I think.

But that's just my opinion. I wonder what the judges think about the matter.

 

[Uriel]

Agreed. Early on there is no way to raise your character.

However, if someone who has access to raise dead ends up with one of his characters dead, he would lose a level for dying. If he decides to abandon the char and pick another, he should get another level loss for that I think.

But that's just my opinion. I wonder what the judges think about the matter.

Firstly, I feel that a 1 level hit for bringing back a character is fine.
Secondly, I feel that a 1 level hit for switching characters is fine.
If someone brings back Silvercat(picking on myself), then decides to switch to another character, they should just start a second character. At least one player has multiples, there is no reason that someone else shouldn't be able to.

The probem is that we haven't "raised the bar" all around as far as a minimum level for the Campaign as of yet. It was mentioned early on that at some point, when most PCs are 5th or 6th level, we could just say that all new PCs could stat at 3rd level, for example.
With such a variance on level and the rate that games are advancing, I doubt that we will be able to comfortably do that.
Then there is the fact that some folks (a great many, I suspect) like developing characters from Level 1. I know I do, although I enjoy higher level games as well.

 

[Sparky]

Can I just nominate Sparky for Living ENWorld Participant of the Month, or something?

I freaking love Sparky's PC, Rainca of the Barav Kree. Cool name, cool background, cool setup. She needs to slay monsters, real soon.

And he made Phyrah, the air and travel goddess for the pantheon. And gave Chennet' some love. Phyrah only needs one more Judge to become official.

I know there are other participants worthy of a gold star, but considering I only saw Sparky's first post here about four days ago, if that, I thought Sparky should be deserving of an ode.

Awww.. shucks. Thanks. I take inspiration where I find it and this place is teeming with creative folks. A good environment.

A note, I'm a she, just for future reference.

 

[Creamsteak]

I think that some of the true "theory" to LEW might have gotten confused with other bits and pieces at this moment. I'm going to argue what I think is the thesis of LEW real quick.

Living EN World is a work of effort by the enworld play by post community to create more interaction between games. This is done by setting multiple games within the same world with the ability to interact in and out of adventures. Characters can actually accomplish feats that affect more players than just their individual game. Players can choose to stick to one campaign, or diversify if they think it would be appropriate. DMs get to work together on overarching goals and develop the world as a whole. It's a real living setting, set in a sort of real time.

We are not competing with each other for experience. We are not necessarily forced to stay with one DM or campaign, we should follow the spirit of the character to decide where to go. We've got a chance to do something big, in my humble opinion.

To Thels: If your character is still interested in following Uriel's story arch, then the thing I would recommend just as advice is to ask Uriel about where you can head to "meet up" with the group later. Possibly after a mini-adventure of your own, and if not, then just running into them later is fine, possibly even with extra story elements and information from Uriel.

 

[Thels]

Ugh

No, I'm okay I think. Perhaps I'll meet up with Troi and the others later back in the tavern, perhaps I don't.

Btw, another thing to wonder about: When one of the games get's completed, should there be a new game starting, so that that players can be on their way again, or should there be at least a little wait so that other games could finish as well, and players could mix and scramble?

 

[dpdx]

Perhaps some players will necessarily mix into other campaigns. For me, I know that Rurik is not going to be ready to head right out into the next adventure after the current one is finished. He'll want to scribble in the family journal, make cool stuff, rent/buy a building in town to have his forge, etc. So I imagine that when Rurik is ready for his next adventure, he'll be with an entirely different group of folks.

[Oh, and Sparky, I suspected, given the female PC and new goddess, but by the time I posted, I thought I'd edited out every gender pronoun, but missed that one.]

 

[Creamsteak]

Btw, another thing to wonder about: When one of the games get's completed, should there be a new game starting, so that that players can be on their way again, or should there be at least a little wait so that other games could finish as well, and players could mix and scramble?

This is entirely up to the players obviously. Theres no forced etiquette about lulling around if a player doesn't want to.

 

[Creamsteak]

My theory on resurrection, ecl races, and stuff of that nature:

I think that characters should be able to be "revived" with the loss of a level in LEW without any further cost. Normally, in a traditional game, I'm an advocate of resurrection being epic, requiring quests on the part of players to handle. LEW is different, we have so many players involved that I simply cannot imagine having so many quests to raise the dead, or so many dead that none will quest for. Theres differences within this idea as well. Here's some proposed options:

1) If a character dies, it can be revived by a cleric of the proper level who the character would allow to raise him. The source of the power must also be willing (similar alignment, deity worship, or attached subcost). No other costs.

2) Characters knocked to -10 hp and below suffer a permanent negative level instantly, but raising their hp back up to positive numbers is still possible. (HP cannot drop below -10 though). This allows quick raising of the dead at most any level with the proper characters around, but death quickly becomes too costly. 1st level characters that die return to 0 xp if they die, and gain no experience for the encounter they were killed during. In other words, a character that was beaten to death is still curable. (I'm fond of this one)

3) There is a scalar cost in GP and you lose one level for resurrection, and it must come from the cleric in scenerio 1.



Don't forget I'm not a final arbitration of things anymore. I want OPINIONS. Especially on something like this. Now I turn my head to ECL Races.




I would like to see ECL races as an option with 2 given methods:

1) A character can be "retired" and a new character 2 levels lower can be created. This penalty does not stack with death, so a dead character can be superceded by a new character 2 levels lower, not 3 levels.

2) Race-Classes that are proposed and accepted by a group of judges can also be created as a core class. These will work similar to a fashion of Savage Species, but the book should not be required in order to use this method, as per the community standard that we should stick to as much open game content as possible.

I think both of those work, and are acceptable to me.

 

[WizWrm]

If we do #1, there would need to be some sort of organization created that would provide similar services for 'mortalists' or nonbelievers or whichever, otherwise those of us who have chosen not to follow a deity are needlessly penalized; if such a penalty is the intent, I'd like to see some sort of advantage to balance it out. Unless, of course, y'all feel that it's vital to the world for everyone to have a deity, like is true for the Forgotten Realms. I think GnomeWorks had something going with his Mortalist sect.

#2 seems 'fairest' to me, but IC, that means we are going to be making all PCs effectively immortal (though definitely with a cost). You could still rule that a coup-de-grace or something similar will kill a character instantly after they reach this stage, but that means it will be a conscous DM decision to kill players, which in most cases is still going to take away the lethality of games. My opinion may not be shared, but I enjoy games more knowing that there's a possibility of failure and a certain level of lethality.

Alternatively, there could be a quest required for resurrection (with an alternate character), but I'd say that it would be fair to have no level loss associated with that, since you're sacrificing 2-4 months of time to complete that adventure. Maybe a solo quest would make it faster? You'd still need IC justification for having an alternate character seek your resurrection, but it could be an "NPC" character that you play - for example, you play the resurrecting cleric who journeys to X place to recover Y artifact to gain Z god's favor so the spell could be provided. Random idea.

For ECL races, would #2 mean that all Savage Species race-classes are automatically approved, or would they have to be redone (since it's technically a copyright violation to post them whole-sale for individual approval)?

Why are you in favor of penalizing two levels to 'start over' for an ECL race, rather than just one?

 

[Creamsteak]

#1 would still be possible with mortalists. Not every source of resurrection asks your worship, some may just ask that you do what they believe is the right thing. I really don't favor #1 though.

With #2 PCs would not be immortal. Your dead unless you can do something about it. Although that something seems easy in most circumstances (wounded in a normal battle) it would be very difficult to heal characters swallowed hole, left in a pit, victim to a TPK (therefor requiring other adventurers to recover the remains) or good old fashioned creatures run off with your body. I think that's fair... And it does allow quests for resurrection when it involves a tpk or such. I'm fond of quests though. Alright, here's ANOTHER alternative:

4) Characters that die must be brought to the tower of positive energy in order to be revived. This forces a limited degree of questing to revive any character, still with a -1 level. This gives one central location where reviving would take place, not to mention establishes how the pos-energy tower is so well protected by the forces of good. Since most adventuring happens farther away from the tower, it makes going more distant from signs of civilization more threatening.

As far as ECL races #2: Yes, I suppose they would need to be redone... though redoing them could be as simple as 3.5 versions that closely resemble the originals. I'm not sure how far we can go. If not, then I'd be willing to go through proposals for all core ECL 1 and 2 races as a whole at some point.

Why am I in favor of "penalizing"? Well, I don't see this as penalizing. I see this as an option that can be available to characters. -2 feels right to me. I'd be willing to retire an 8th level character to start with a "mostly developed" minotaur for instance. I don't see it as a penalty, just an option.