Since this is a separate issue than the original thread, I'm splitting it off onto its own thread.



I'm glad you both feel this way, and I hope other people do as well. However, the truth of the matter is that most people don't want challenge. People want to *win*, and its a lot easier to win when everything is based on a numbers game. They want to get 100% of the experience, 100% of the loot, 100% of the story, and getting anything less often leads to very pointed (often angry) questions of "What did we miss? Why didn't we get that?" or assertions that the experience/loot/story ought to have been handled differently. Or the arguments of "My character would have been able to talk my way into/out of that if you'd just let me roll instead of role playing." Or the "I misunderstood, and I shouldn't be penalized for misunderstanding." Hmmmm... I may be a little bitter tonight. Nonetheless.

We're already starting to do this in combats: They will no longer be designed for optimized parties of 6/7. Instead, we are going to stat them two ways: First to the needs of the story (if you're facing a real dragon, a Voiceless One, etc... in straight out up front combat, you're going to get destroyed. Stupidity leads to character creation.) After those rare cases, everything will be designed for an average level party of 5. Parties of 6/7 optimized players are going to completely run rampant over the combats unless the Chroniclers step up the challenge level. We'll have hints and tricks to do that in a general document, and generally in each module as well.

What I'm interested in is whether this should be applicable to everything. If we as authors truly write to the needs of the story, there are going to be places not everyone can get. A table with two Orthodoxy members may be able to talk to an NPC that won't talk to non-Orthodoxy members, while a table with no Orthodoxy members will not. A table without someone skilled at picking locks will not be able to get into some rooms without smashing down the door (and essentially advertising their skullduggery to other people at the party that evening. I'm looking at you, As Cold and Gray As Stone). But if we have to proceed on the feeling that everyone should be able to get everywhere and get everything... a lot of story opportunities become a lot less viable. So, this is no longer going to be about how high the TN is, which will be determined by the story. It's going to be about the consequences of success and failure, about the opportunities afforded by either, and about who the Heroes are instead of the numbers of their stats. At least, to the best of our ability.

In brief: We are stopping the arms race (at the very least in the Soft Points, which I have control over). We are replacing it with what will hopefully be a more engaging game.

Which brings me back to the errata that's going around, and all the discussion about it: I want to thank everyone who has been participating in the attempt to make the rules of the game clearer for everyone. At the end of the day, we are not trying to screw anyone over. We're trying to bring balance to something that is still in development. D&D didn't get to where it is without going through many previous iterations. Sometimes they made many steps forward (3.5, in my opinion), sometimes they took steps back (4.0, in my opinion). We're doing the same thing.

Thoughts?

Looking for my "like" button. Also, +50 bonus points for the use of the word "skullduggery".

I used to play in a campaign that had the concept that everything should be available to everyone who played, no matter what their abilities. Except the combats were often quite deadly. Thus, if you didn't have a rogue, it didn't matter; but if you didn't have one or two fighters, you died in a combat. I never thought that was right.

I've always thought that different abilities were put there for a reason, and that choices should be rewarded. I would be careful to make anything rare a bonus effect to the module rather than core (having a thespian, or sailor in the party, say); but society affiliation, specific knowledge checks, and common skills, should be assumed to be in a core party; just like fighting ability.

So, the original post was mainly about keeping vigilant about not increasing TNs for every-day skill checks, just to make them challenging. But I can see how that could segue into a discussion like this. Although I think you already know my opinion, I'll state it for the record, anyway. I'm perfectly fine "missing" certain story elements. But I feel as though I'm in the minority there. I like the idea of having certain story elements that only trigger under certain circumstances. (And those could be based on previous decisions, party make-up or even dice rolls earlier in the adventure.) It more closely mirrors reality. It gives a potentially more immersive (and more sincere) story. In a shared-world campaign like this is, players want to feel as though every table that sits down to play an adventure has the same experience. And to a certain degree, that's a desirable thing. But I think that the pendulum can swing too far. Every table *is* different. Every table *will* have a slightly different experience. And some tables will have a very different experience. That's good. I'm all for it.

Now, the problem comes in when players enter into this social contract with the expectation that there are certain "right" choices that need to be made. ...As if the adventure is a puzzle that needs all the right pieces put in a specific order in order to yield the expected outcome. And that expected outcome is a full-share of experience and/or treasure. That is, because this is a shared-world campaign, every time you leave a table, you walk away with a little piece of paper that says that you earned X out of Y experience and X out of Y treasure. It's only human nature to wonder, "What did I do wrong?" "Why didn't I get the maximum?" Here's the subtle part... The two questions are not the same. I always wonder what I could have done to get the maximum (assuming that I did not.) And often, when I hear the answer I think to myself, "Oh. Well my character wasn't going to do that. I just was never going to earn it all." Or, "Oops. I didn't think of that." That's fine, no harm done. But the asking, "What did I do wrong" makes the assumption that there are certain right and wrong choices. It also makes the assumption that you did not "achieve full success." Both of these assumptions are wrong. RPGs are not board games. They are not supposed to be a competition. There are no winners and losers. There are only stories that are told in a special, shared-storyteller way. When you look at the game in that way, you should not feel slighted if you did not walk away from the table with 100% of the possible experience or treasure. But some people do, anyway.

And there's part of the problem. As campaign staff, you want to please as many players as you can. But you won't please them... us all. Everyone is different. Everyone enjoys different aspects of the game and for different reasons. So my suggestion is this... Whatever decision you come to, for whatever reasons you come to it, announce it. Explain why. And stick with it. No matter what decision you make, you will alienate some players and you will attract others. But if you change you minds and change the rules or the style of the campaign too much, you become like the politician who changes his stance on an issue and alienates constituents on both sides of the issue.

Me, I like Arcanis for the story. Keep an engaging, immersive story that I actually feel a part of, and I''ll keep playing. Turn it into Ebberon, where every player earned gold and bought whatever they could afford all the time, and I'll treat it like I did that campaign and I'll cheese it out and make it my &!^@#. (But I know that will never happen because the campaign staff cares too much about this setting to let that happen.)

To summarize: Rewards should be dictated by the story. Every table should be different. I won't complain if I don't "get max" rewards. Oh... and sorry for getting so long-winded.


Scott

I'm fine with missing pieces of the story. However, all adventures should be finishable by any group (eg whatever the main story/goal is should not require X (skill, society, whatever) be in the party). Whenever it makes sense within the story, I would also suggest alternate routes to alternate info/items - eg, if there's something that only a party with society X affiliation can do, make something else that only a party with Y affiliation can do (each one exclusive or not is fine).

My vote is for story first even if that means not getting full XP or finding everything there is within a particular story with a particular character. I strongly believe that TNs must remain as printed to help stave off the arms race. It means that characters who develop things at 2 ranks per level will actually get real mileage out of them, even if not as much as someone devoted to that path.

I believe that the rewards for a mod are set, regardless of the tier played. Assuming that's true, it should be clearly stated with the campaign guide. Even if it's only mostly true, I think a statement to that effect is still helpful. Knowing you don't have to rush to the top or risk out on the best rewards would also help lessen the arms race. 3.5 was built strongly around the gear. Arcanis is not, but it may take a while for folks to truly appreciate that.

I also believe that with every mod, the core story MUST be within reach for all characters. They are the heroes of that story when it's run. Success is something that they should be able to identify and appreciate. Mods that do not follow that principle should be clearly marked as to what kinds of heroes the story is appropriate. The soft point released at Arcanicon should probably get a note. Only those with particularly strong convictions or loyalty will really be able to see the mod in a progression for success. That doesn't mean that they will succeed, but the goal they will wish for is within reach.

The bulk of the XP for a mod should reflect the above. As my wife pointed out setting expectations can be extremely helpful. "Max XP" for one of the hard points is 400, but there's up to 110 extra XP available as a bonus. Expressed that way, it will be easier I think for both GMs and players to adhere to the spirit and letter of the XP earned. Bonus implies things done above and beyond. It removes the need for questions such as "What did I do wrong?" One other note on XP. If you want RP or skill heavy mods to be viewed as valuable, then the end XP rewards should be in line with mods where combat is more significant. I understand the risk/reward principle. Arcanis is built on the quality of its story and pulling people into the characters and the world.

I'm happy to see you go down the route of making richer stories whether those who have specific opportunities to experience them do so because of their race, nationality, background, Path or secret society. As long as people feel like you're spreading those opportunities around, that should go more smoothly as well. I'm not suggesting you need to keep everything equal but if there are a half dozen mods that give extra RP, story and rewards to say the Emerald Society while any other group has at most one or two, you'll either get a lot of converts, grumbling or both. Perhaps that's overstating things and may be less relevant if pitched as I mention above.

Like Scott, I've rambled. Hopefully it hasn't been too difficult to follow.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul

I'm always a big proponent of consistency and fairness, as many know. However, I also understand that not all things are created equal.

I am very happy to have adventures in which it takes certain skills, spells, talents, or other mechanical aspects to get 'extra' or get an added 'benny' (whether that's items, rewards, faction bonuses, etc.) This gives groups a reason to branch out and learn new things or take on different types of characters. It would be nice if those opportunities and required mechanics were varied and not always the same few items.

I also agree though that the main goals of the adventure should be completed by any group that doesn't do stupid things. As a shared campaign and particularly when conventions play such a large part in the game, you can't always choose the 'best group.'

I think what I've seen so far of the variety of 'item rewards' in Season 2 is a good idea of how well the campaign staff is moving things in the necessary direction. I think that having guidelines on what is required to complete the adventure with normal XP and then what the extras are and what they are worth should be well received by the majority of players.

John

So how would you all feel about the following suggestion:

"Standard" XP for modules becomes about half to three fifths (125 to 150XP) what it is now, as a baseline. If you play the adventure "correctly" (that is, you follow the story to its conclusion), you get "full standard XP". Then there are additional things that can give more XP, up to double the "full standard", such as completing SS missions, accomplishing things unrelated to the core story, and generally treating adventures as actual living experiences for your character?

That seems like a big hit to XP, but it really depends on how much a 'general' group is expected to get out of the remainder and how likely it is. For instance if 150 XP bonus is tied up with 1 Secret Society that seems like a big disparity.

Question: How much are SP's going to give normally at Tier 2?

John

SP's give (on average) 250 XP. There should be no difference in XP across Tiers.