Clarification, the -1 penalty for negative level is on all d20 rolls correct?

HOLY SHIT A FORUM GOT TO 2 PAGES

and yes, essentially.

Severantos at November 10, 2013 at 9:58 PM

HOLY SHIT A FORUM GOT TO 2 PAGES

and yes, essentially.

Yeah...I don't like that...I barely make the AC/DC's as it is... 

So then, make a character you will enjoy and try your best to keep him/her alive.

Paladin at November 10, 2013 at 10:40 PM

So then, make a character you will enjoy and try your best to keep him/her alive.

Well no shit....

i thought that part went without saing....

@keyes:  No oneglossed over your points.  You brought upissues with the death/retirement system. That led to refocus/tweak of the system. Instead of the death system being XP based, it’s now based on temp.negative levels.  That was a directresponse to your first post.

Pix asked about transfer of loot from permadead/retiredparty members to the rest of the group. This was something that was voted on, and choice was no.  I responded directly to her questions.

As for wealth and XP from encounters, that is exactly whatwent into the discussion about how fast to advance the party.  Those numbers were looked at in greatdetail.  You want to see balanced encountersand sessions, and that is the goal.

DId I miss something?  I went back through the posts, and I can't seem to determine what wasn't answered that made you irritated.

***********************

Top post in thread edited to reflect new system.

first of all, i feel like only paladin and sev had anything to say about the negative levels.

Second, i never had a problem with losing a level down to -1 xp below the lowest party member. My problem is the XP level gaining system itself. I realize you want to emphasis a low level experience, but i dont enjoy a game where i feel like there is no progress. Your level structure so far has it set up that at the end of the second "campaign" we level to level 3. My problem with this, is that if you look at the CR encounters and their XP rewards, we could, quite possibly, level MUCH earlier or even later. That's the issue. I dont like the lack of progress.

I know of at least 1 dm who has tried to make the switch to awarding exp for encounters/role playing. I feel like this change is a positive growth for our group.

I feel this way for several reasons. 1, it helps keeps players engaged both combat wise and roleplaying wise. I am one of several guilty people who have disengaged from RP because i was either bored or did not care about the encounter. Yet i still level with everyone else. It's not fair to the people who were engaged let alone how douchy it is.

2nd, there are many kinds of encounters that require both player thought and engagement that ARE NOT combat encounters. These encounters are not judged on xp until the end. IE trapped dungeon.

3. there are too many variables for equal xp. If a party splits up in a dungeon, they engage DIFFERENT encounters. Different is not equal. If i go left with 2 people, and Opal has designated this as a harder path, i feel like my group SHOULD be awarded more xp. I would also note that we have used this example for the concept of party loot. we agreed that if a party split the loot found would be awarded to the split parties independently with the example we gave with a rogue finding a treasure chest.  There is more type of reward for encouters in this game.

As a group we typically dont award proper monetary awards for encounters for the level of characters we are dealing with. This is something that i have come to expect, not necessarily agree with. But independent XP is an important reward, as it flushes out characters, role playing, story telling, and engagement from your Player Characters.

Part of the worry i think exists comes twofold. one, you have players who are not engaged and fall behind. this is not the players who are engaged fault, let alone the dm. if one player falls behind, the dm should continue to design encounters for the average party level. That being said, it allows for the player that is behind to reengaged in the story and level faster while being forced to play smart. or they can choose to stop caring altogether, but that is there choice.

The other potential issue is that you have a DM, "power level" a party. I dont feel like this an issue. first all, the encounters required to "power level" have the extreme potential to squash the party like bugs. second, no dm wants the party to jump that far ahead and then underestimated the power required in the final encounter to make it difficult. if opal runs a game and powers the party to level 3 in 2 sessions, but his end encounter is designed to be difficult for a level 2 party, he can get squashed and the dms loses out on the work he put in for the story.

Using this system allows for balance between alternating DM's as well. DM's are going to write encounters with varying difficulty. DM's will also write rewards with varying amount. Using an XP system allows for balanced progression based on the story presented. We should not receive the same reward for defeating a camp of kobolds the first campaign, to fighting an ogre the second. If someone writes difficult CR encounters we SHOULD be rewarded appropriately. It feel like more of a sense of accomplishment when we lay the smackdown on a band of maurading orcs, than it does strangling a goblin. with the rewards of level we have in place, there is a loss of that feeling here. I love feeling like we just pulled some awesome shit out of our collective asses when we take down a small drake at level 4. THAT FEELING SHOULD BE THERE. i shouldnt wait 4 more sessions of harder encounters to level. i should level when it is appropriate.

From what i can tell, most of us that have been involved in this build WANT to be engaged at a difficult, yet progressing level. We all WANT to be here. I dont feel like changing the XP to how the book offers it, will hurt that in anyway. To reiterate, i do not have a problem with losing a level for death. its probably a good motivator end all, but, I want the opportunity to come back and be at least as powerful as the team, and i feel that by having the amount of sessions required for leveling, be the leveling decider (redundant i know), that it isnt possible to get back on the same scale as the average party.

You can still roll a medium to slow progression of XP based on the books to have the affect that Paladin is looking for with more emphasis on lower levels. We are running the potential for a large party here and with the XP division i'm talking about, encounter rewards are slow as it is. I honestly think we could get away with the fast progession with our party size. The fact that you are divding a 200 xp monster by 8-10 people means XP will be slow anyway.

Will there be outliers? sure. Could some people get farther ahead in levels? Yes, absolutely. Is it beyond correctable using the XP system described in the book? No, people's power will fluctuate sure, but it is always possible for that to change, and i feel change is good.

Keyes, the PUG is designed to be an overarching campaign taking years of time to complete. The idea of slow leveling is designed into the game, or at least as I have understood it. 

With that in mind I understand your point and agree to an extent. 

Ideally we want everyone to be relatively close in XP/Level. IMO experience should be divied with that in mind. 

@keyes: To your first point: Sev and I are the most frequent posters. Just b/c someone doesn’t post, doesn’t mean stuff isn’t being read.

Second point: Several planning sessions ago, Sev, Opal, JoeC and myself sat down and worked on XP progression ideas. We looked at the tables, and part of the buy-in to DM was to plan for adventures that followed the CR and wealth appropriate to party. The ideal progression, as we saw it, was to allow for about 2 adventures per level, with each adventure being approximately 2 to 4 sessions.

Take a step back and look at the import words. “About”, “Approximately”. This implies variable progression, which points back to your original point. We are using the CR and level appropriate wealth per encounter.

Please read the previous sentence again. Your idea is already been incorporated.

To the concern of players falling behind: This is really well dealt with using the no system idea of negative levels.

Now, as to pacing: Your opinion on this is noted. It was also the minority opinion when we voted. You did agree (tacitly) to abide by this format.

Like I've been trying to say...that's already how we are doing it.  There is no need for compormise b/c that is how we are already doing it. Lol.  Save for the first adventure which is designed to be a level up at the end of the first session, and a level up at the end of the adventure.  That's only real difference.

Some of your ideas are being incorperated, not all. I like the fixed leveling, as if we are giving exp individually, people who cant attend (due to work, family, etc) are getting the shaft, even though the idea of PUG is to show up when you can.

IMO: this is best hadled by a set leveling system that everyone levels at the same rate. While I can see the benefit of getting exp from enouters, are you ready to wait even longer to level? Because having looked at the leveling rates, its something like 20 encounters to get from level 2-3 on the FAST scale. I dont want to wait that long.

TL;DR:  I like the way it currently is, and while other leveling systems may be good for other campaigns, I feel the way we have it set is best for this "Game"

There will need to be "story goal XP" or "quest reward XP" or something like that in order to maintain our desired progression.  If the CR encounter XP rewards are the only XP rewards then we'll progress even slower.  This means that some lump-sum XP rewards will be issued by the DM, in order to keep progression reasonable.  I will calculate and award XP for my encounters using the rules as written and provide some story XP rewards on top of that.

Ok, so just to clarify:

We will be leveling using the Exp per encounter rules, but with the idea that DM's will suppliment encounter EXP with bonuses for compleating the 'campaign'. As such, the group as a whole is looking for a slower leveling progression, and therefore DM's should keep in mind that EXP for each campaign should not lurch the party ahead of planned.

Am I correct in my interpertation?

Yes, Mike, that is how I understand it.  But the phrase "slower leveling progression" is vague and subjective.  I would instead say "As such, the group is looking for a leveling progression that approximates the guidelines that were voted upon, and therefore..."

From what was alreadyagreed upon:

PCs start at level 1.

* PCs will reach lvl 2 by the end of the first adventure.  The first adventure will be 1-2 sessions (shorter than most adventures.)

* PCs will reach lvl 3 by the end of the 2nd adventure.  The 2nd adventure will be approximately 4 sessions (standard PUG length).

* After the 2nd adventure, 1 level will be earned approximately every 2 adventures (8 sessions).

To facilitate:
PC's will earn (each) 2k XP (medium advancement) and 1k gold in the first adventure (2 sessions)

The Second adventue will net each PC an additional 3k XP (for a total of 5k xp) and an additional 2k gold (total of 3k) during a 4 session adventure.

Thereafter, each new adventure will grant ~ half the XP needed to level and ~ the gold needed to meet the average wealth table.

This may mean granting story awards (for example, bonus XP for completing a main story goal), etc.

Individual players will not recieve extra XP.  Players not present will have thier characters XP and wealth upped in accourdance with the session' success.  While this means you can "coast" and not show up, I would remind you that you are missing out on the point of the game (which is RP interaction).

That sounds fine to me Paladin. 

/agree