Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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
If/how to impliment OOC points
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="Graf" data-source="post: 4427146" data-attributes="member: 3087"><p>So you're <em>having issues getting awarded my DM points for [your] first LEW adventure</em>. And yet you want to introduce a more complex system for L4W...?</p><p></p><p>Just saying....</p><p></p><p>The encounter = reward thing? Someone is already checking XP handouts (right?); it's virtually effortless for them to check OOC points at the same time.</p><p></p><p>Simple, easy judging should be a design goal (to my mind anyway).</p><p></p><p>[d]--[/d]</p><p></p><p>The problem with caps, I think is that </p><p>1. They're another layer of complexity </p><p>2. They're an indirect and poorly targeted method of trying to do something really really simple*.</p><p>3. It's not going to even effect most people, and it's targeted at people who are doing a lot for the community.</p><p></p><p>*Lets be clear: what people really don't want is someone bringing in some super awesome PC Am I wrong? </p><p>I mean... nobody objects to someone who's doing a great job DMing (or whatever) having some sort of "magical points that reflect that".</p><p></p><p>You just don't want someone creating a 5th level character with a +7 weapon when everyone else is only 3rd level. Right?</p><p></p><p>So target that instead of trying to complexify the whole point award system in the hope that you'll manage to stave off some behavior just come out and <strong>cap the action you're worried about</strong>. Why not just say....</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"> ...you can only use OOC points to bring in a character who is 1 level lower than the highest level character in the setting and who has no more than 2 magic items (or whatever).</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="text-align: center"> and/OR</p> <p style="text-align: center"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"> ...you can only spend x points a month on a character</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="text-align: center"> and/OR</p> <p style="text-align: center"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"> ...once a character reaches a certain level (equal to the highest level character in the game)/gets a certain number of items/whatever they can't spend points on that character until they fall below that point.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p><em>If you only use <strong>indirect</strong>, <strong>complex </strong>and <strong>non-explicit</strong> methods to try to limit a behavior it seems <strong>natural </strong>to me that <strong>you can't predict the outcome</strong>...</em></p><p>(which is something that seems to bother coviathe a lot)</p><p></p><p>[d]--[/d]</p><p></p><p>As an example I think it's reasonable to say: Until a character in L4W gets to second level no-one can spend OOC points on their characters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Graf, post: 4427146, member: 3087"] So you're [I]having issues getting awarded my DM points for [your] first LEW adventure[/I]. And yet you want to introduce a more complex system for L4W...? Just saying.... The encounter = reward thing? Someone is already checking XP handouts (right?); it's virtually effortless for them to check OOC points at the same time. Simple, easy judging should be a design goal (to my mind anyway). [d]--[/d] The problem with caps, I think is that 1. They're another layer of complexity 2. They're an indirect and poorly targeted method of trying to do something really really simple*. 3. It's not going to even effect most people, and it's targeted at people who are doing a lot for the community. *Lets be clear: what people really don't want is someone bringing in some super awesome PC Am I wrong? I mean... nobody objects to someone who's doing a great job DMing (or whatever) having some sort of "magical points that reflect that". You just don't want someone creating a 5th level character with a +7 weapon when everyone else is only 3rd level. Right? So target that instead of trying to complexify the whole point award system in the hope that you'll manage to stave off some behavior just come out and [B]cap the action you're worried about[/B]. Why not just say.... [INDENT] ...you can only use OOC points to bring in a character who is 1 level lower than the highest level character in the setting and who has no more than 2 magic items (or whatever). [/INDENT][CENTER] and/OR [/CENTER] [INDENT] ...you can only spend x points a month on a character [/INDENT] [CENTER] and/OR [/CENTER] [INDENT] ...once a character reaches a certain level (equal to the highest level character in the game)/gets a certain number of items/whatever they can't spend points on that character until they fall below that point. [/INDENT] [I]If you only use [B]indirect[/B], [B]complex [/B]and [B]non-explicit[/B] methods to try to limit a behavior it seems [B]natural [/B]to me that [B]you can't predict the outcome[/B]...[/I] (which is something that seems to bother coviathe a lot) [d]--[/d] As an example I think it's reasonable to say: Until a character in L4W gets to second level no-one can spend OOC points on their characters. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
If/how to impliment OOC points
Top