Difference between revisions of "Talk:Proposal for Rules Changes"

Latest revision as of 14:23, 15 November 2007

Melanie: Aww... but I like rolling characters. But yeah the druid leveling is getting a tad ridiculous, I'm totally ok with using the priest table.

Noah: I have long suggested using the cleric table for druids, or including pre-12th level leveling duels for them like Kensai (which I think is cooler, BTW, because when druids fight it is awesome). Seeing as I am playing a druid, and had crazy plans for when he achieved 12th level in the not-too-distant-future, I would be a tad disappointed if this proposition were to be implemented; but it every druid life some rain must fall, and none can deny that the druid class is, well, broken.

I give a big thumbs down to non-dice generated stats, in general, although I did once ask Hal to 'assign' stats when I was rolling up a particularly prohibitive character class (Paladin). It seems that if individual players wanted a DM-generated character, Hal might be amenable depending on circumstances, but I see no reason why that should be the case for everyone automatically. 'Cuz, as much as I hate to admit it, rolling new characters is pretty fun.

Chris: I would support a point assigning system for stats, provided the amount of points you were allowed to assign would be prohibitive. Say, 33 for all six, just slightly below the average you would roll.

Kerry: Hal had previously suggested giving sets of stats to choose from that one can then assign as one sees fit. For example, one template might be 18 15 13 11 9 7, while another would be 17 17 14 10 8 8, and so on. Just giving points is far too open to abuse. Rolling dice is fun, but it is also profitable. When combat seems to be going south in our group everyone starts rolling sets of stats, and I have seen some characters rolled up that put Harald to shame. This means that those who wish to powergame can, while those whose nature prohibits them from rolling out fifty characters to get 18 18 18 16 15 14 may well feel like they suffer inordinately for their principles. Perhaps a limit on character rerolls? Pick the best of five? I don't know.

Noah: I would support a limit on re-rolls -- I think ten seems reasonable, and not too time consuming -- and perhaps if none of them are sufficient to play the desired class, Hal could intervene.

Melanie: Yeah limiting re-rolls sounds good. Pre-ordained stats would be no fun at all... However, you may have noticed that most of the time when we start re-rolling characters during a fight, we all come out ok. Maybe it uses up all our bad rolls.....

Hal: Obvioulsy I am in favor of these rules. If I had to do the game over from the start, I would change the way characters are rolled, as one lucky day can set you on easy street for life, which seems counterproductive for a game.

Druid xp should probably be up to the people currently playing druids, meaning Noah, Melanie, Laura, Erin (retired), and sort of Adan (the hideous limbo and all); I've been demanding for a while that future druids not get the druid xp table, but I have no problem with grandfathering in those already druids. If the druids do choose to take Cleric xp, it might be sporting to give druids the 10% xp bonus so many clerics enjoy.

A Hegelian synthesis may be called for in the manner of rolling stats: a series of templates could be generated as defaults, and then a player gets, say, five chances to best the template; those failing to roll up a character they like in those five rolls could have a template to fall back on.

Noah: Oh poo poo. When I first conceived of Marty, I went so far as to even offer to take the cleric leveling table. But you were all like, 'no, no -- it's fine. I hate druids sooooo much that nothing can possibly make them any better. blee blee blee.'

But as long as we're talking Hegelian synthesis, I suggest a cleric leveling table steeper than it is now, but also with the possibility of level duels after 7th level. Because duels between people who can change into different animals are always awesome.

Hal: Well, I had intended to kill Marty before he hit fourth level.

Kerry: I agree with the dueling, but only because I think Marty and Ailyll will have to duke it out at some point, and she has much better animals.

Noah: Yeah. She's even got dinosaurs, I hear. Sigh.

Melanie: Hehe, ya some dueling practice would be fun. On the other hand, anyone I duel in Africa probably has some pretty cool animals too. But why turn into a dinosaur when you can be a cute little kitten? Or a cute little venomous snake? Thiro totally counts as a tiger by the way.

ET: I'm putting in a vote against limiting character re-rolls. For anyone who really wants good stats, it'll come down to going through a series of suicidal characters until the player gets a set they're happy with anyway. However, if the final decision is to limit re-rolls, then I have the following suggestion. Instead of limiting the total re-rolls, the players should be limited by number of re-rolls on qualifying sets for their character class. So they'd get to roll up X viable sets of stats for their class. If X is set at a low number, players should be able to choose from any in that set. If X is set higher, then players may roll up to X sets and have to give up any previous sets if they choose to continue rolling (like the current system). Any set where either the total points is really low, or which has more than 2 single digits, can be thrown out and not counted against the total.

Chris: What's wrong with two single digits? I'm had several characters with two single digit stats that were real fun.

tcm: I am so against both of these rules changes, it's not even funny. Not rolling your own characters is just un-American, dammit! I'm not too keen on limiting rerolls either, but that's not as bad. And I think the druid XP table is just fine the way it is. Yeah, they level superfast at first, but then they never level again. It's even slower than the cleric XP table when you guys get up there.

ET: I quote myself "more than 2 single digits" - that would be 3 single digits and up. Also, just because you like to play those kind of stats doesn't mean everyone else will have fun with them. Of course anyone who wants to keep a weird set of stats would be able to do so. It's just that if re-rolls are going to be limited, it seems unfair that a really bad set of stats should be held against the count. And again, although I'm suggesting ways to make the re-roll limit somewhat more palatable, I'm still opposed to limiting them at all.

Chris: Touche. How about these apples? You roll up 3d6, they are assigned to the stats in the order you rolled them and you have to make a character out of them and play that character. Also, you can only make a new character once every other month, so if they die, too bad. And they start at first level. And they level as monks.

Hal: I like Chris's proposal, but it probably wouldn't fly in Peoria. ET, your worry about rolling up a hopeless or doomed character should be alleviated somewhat by the promise of templates to fall back on. Templates give roll-happy players a goal to beat, while still serving as a safety net should the rolls gang agley. (I suggested templates rather then point assignation, because with points everyone ends up with a 3 charisma.) Tell you what: everyone email me your characters stats (if they're not on the wiki), and I'll figure out some good but reasonable stat templates that would fit in with the parties; I'll post them and see if that makes everyone sigh with relief. Beacuse, really, it is kind of ridiculous to reward somebody for sitting for seven hours just rolling and rolling dice and sweating at the thought of how powerful he is going to be.

One of the problems with D&D in general is that Gygax (et al.) were confused about certain aspects of game balance. In early Dragon magazine articles you can find the arguent presented that it is fine for a character class to be overbalanced in power if it has very difficult stat requirements; this overlooks the fact that players who want that class will get those stats somehow (e.g. Chinese dice farms), and what you then have is a class that is even more powerful because its scores are all amazing. Other alleged balancing is achieved by offsetting rules-power with role-playing limitations, so that Drow are very powerful but encounter prejudice and shun sunlight. But these limitations are precisely the limitations that are tedious to play, and so get forgotten by necessity, while the magic resistance and innate spells never get boring (this problem carries over into 3.5). (Gygax’s lamest attempt at balance was in Unearthed Arcana, where he introduces a host of powerful races and then insists that they are “very rare”; ha ha ha! Drow were certainly not rare after UA came out!) And then there is the balance method of differential power; that is to say, power levels differ depending on what stage in the game you’re in. A first-level mage is very weak, a twentieth-level mage very powerful; but really a first-level mage is just no fun to play. One must endure low levels as a MU to have fun at higher levels. This may be simulationist, but it doesn’t make a very good game. Worse: Demi-humans have a lot of extra powers, but then stop leveling when they hit max level. This means that for a long time, demi-humans dominate a party (frustrating human characters) and then finally they get stuck, really frustrating their players. In essence the game rules are balanced by annoying different sets of players, hardly good game design. (Also, few games hit the point where demi-humans suffer.) Druids have a problem like demi-humans, they advance far ahead of the rest of their party, vexing other players, and then they never level again, making it no fun to play a druid because you know darn well you’re not going to hit the next level ever. Druids may be a balanced class with a different xp table; the alleged balance of their current xp table is, however, less harmony than the stridency of two opposing fanatics.

But Melanie, Noah, and Laura are the ones most affected by this (because no one will ever rescue Celdrix). Someone get Laura to read the wiki.

ET: Hal, the numbers aside, your templates idea disregards how people simply like rolling their characters. Using a template is just plain unsatisfactory since part of what makes a character yours is rolling up the stats. Templates smell kinda like pre-gen. And D&D is supposed to be partially dependent on luck. Why not give people a choice between fewer re-rolls and the templates to fall back on or taking a gamble on more re-rolls without the safety net. (And don't forget to account for all legal classes when you come up with your templates.)

Chris: Would something that had a 3 Charisma constantly be attacked by everything that ever saw it? I mean, wouldn't you have to be both hideously, disturbing looking AND the biggest d-bag around to have a 3 Charisma? Eorl has the whole of Asia Minor trying to assassinate him, almost independent of one another, and his Charisma is almost triple that. This character sounds hilarious to me. Also, yes, don't forget to make templates suitable for my upcoming Halfling Whistler and Half Dragon/Half Elf Cavalier...and a Vampire Urban Ranger.

Hal: The 3 charisma problem is that it simply becomes boring (for DM & player alike) to constantly be attacking the player with every NPC; also, players never play a 3 charisma; also, AT BEST it eventually just becomes "We cover Throg with a sheet as we get to town." Really it just gets forgotten about.

Templates would not be class-specific, but simply a list of 6 numbers you can arrange in any order you want. The problem with ET's suggestion of risking all to make more re-rolls is that there is in fact no risk. If I still don't get the stats I want after x rolls, I just retire the character and make a new one. Or I start the always unpleasant begging process.

If people think a point-assigning system would work better, we can talk about that.

tcm: Who has ever retired a character after only playing it a few sessions? As far as I know, the only way characters have ever left the game have been in body bags, in gems, or because players have left (with the sole exception of Slim, who was retired to make way for Jean-Claude, an already existing character). Is there actually a rash of character-making and then immediate retiring that I don't know about?

Melanie: For the templates not to be prohibitive to certain classes, wouldn't they have to be better than rolls for a 'normal' character? In that case, unless you happen to roll up three 18's in your first five shots, we may well end up with a bunch of identically statted characters (in different orders perhaps), which really doesn't sound like that much fun. The point of rolling dice is to add variety in the characters, and really as long as we don't get a ridiculous amount of re-rolls most of us turn out ok. Again if people want assigned stats for a particular character, sure, but it shouldn't be imposed. On the other hand I'm all for a limited time frame/number of characters, just to keep it reasonable.

Kerry: Here is a solution that I have seen implemented in most games I have played in: You have a limited rolling system (4d6 x 7, drop lowest, 3d6 x 6 five times, take the best, 4d6 in order, reroll one, etc). Then you take the stats you get out of it, and use them to make a character. Note that this means you might not get to play that Paladin you wanted, but you have to be a fighter instead. I know Hal has a major weakness with regard to giving people what they want. However, if you have a limit (in some way) on the amount people can flout luck then these hard classes will be rare as they are meant to be. I did a fair amount of tournament play as a youth, and it was really fun to take a character that wasn't your ideal and play it. Hell, I've even played Good characters, and done a fair job (it helps that the other players vote on your roleplaying at the end of the game, after they've read your character sheet.) I think the Brooklyn group is a fine example of how little the strength of your stats is related to how much your characters can accomplish, let alone how much fun you have in the game.

Hal: Retiring characters: This is probaly not the forum to discuss players' let's-make-a-mage-for-one-session shenannigans. Thorvald, of course, was retired, but there need not have been a rash in the past, since the whole point is that players will only start retiring characters in droves if they can't roll a hundred rejected characters.

Noah: Aaaahhh... Comprehend Languages. How sweet it is! And there isn't a thing Hal could have done about it!

tcm: Ha ha ha! I forgot about Sister Angela (seriously though, all those decisions were Gaylord's own). Thorvald was retired, yes, but only after playing him for months, not days. I just got tired of him (plus his backstory really kind of made him go). That's neither here nor there, though, as I don't find your views on impending character genocide tenable (except through the regular course of the game, of course). I can't speak for everybody, but most of our players don't roll all that many sets of stats. We already have that house rule that says you can't use any previous sets once you start rolling a new one. Isn't that enough?

ET: I think this whole discussion is a fine example of why we split into three separate parties. The three different groups are looking for three different styles of play and if everyone is happy with what's going on within their own parties, I don't see why players from any one group should impose their preferences across all parties. I assume that when Noah came to play in Queens, he accepted our playing style, just as Adan would accept Brooklyn's style when he went to play with them (I haven't seen Adan playing in Brooklyn, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as he hasn't been uninvited). Why is this suddenly an issue anyway?

Chris: Let's face it, everything about the way the other parties play Dungeons and Dragons is disturbing and wrong. I'm just kidding, you guys are alright. How you roll up your characters is between you guys and Hal. I do support the revised Druid leveling table, though, cause the original is a little silly. But that can just be a Brooklyn thing if you guys don't support it.

tcm: Hear, hear! I'm for each party deciding for themselves. Queens, of course, will not take either of these revised rules as they are, frankly, thinly veiled Communist propaganda.

Noah: Well, I'm not crazy about some parties self-limiting and others not, and I don't know to what extent Adan should have any influence on druid rules because Celdrix is still trapped in a hideous limbo, but for myself, I think it would make sense to flip Marty over to the cleric table at his current level and XP, and then not level again until achieving the next cleric level (I'm willing to, ah, vote against my own self interest here, so to speak, but I'd rather not treat it as if I'd been level-drained). As much as I would want duels at levels lower than 12, it seems prohibitive (although still very cool) without using either a less steep leveling table than the cleric table, or, you know, re-writing the class somewhat. I think he could also lose the 1d6 x 10% hit point gain for changing animal forms in favor of a 1d4 x 10% gain, since that is the other druid ability that seems a little, uh, over-powered.

Chris: Disparities amongst the parties doesn't bother me too much, what with oceans of time and space between them in game. The odds against them having to fight, or even teaming up, seem fairly remote, so I don't worry too much about anybody dominating hypothetical gameplay. and I'm sure, to some extent, Hal customizes our encounters to the abilities of our characters,so I'm not worried about Brooklyn's traditionally lower rolling characters getting overwhelmed. Sure, you might notice that Queens is bravely fighting villages of giants in the North and Hoboken is dueling with demon goddesses and Super Mummies in Africa while Brooklyn quietly contentedly takes on a handful of Gripli and crabmen around Greece, but that doesn't bother me. Different places, different types of monsters, you know?

Noah: Maybe so, but regardless, Barnacle Bashim had better watch out.

Kerry:

• To Noah- Yup, 'cause me and my crew are gunning for him.
• To everyone- I am for rules applying to all, but I can see that rolling characters could be implemented on a party by party basis. I think that all sincere people can recognize that the Druid table is insane, and that rule should be fixed globally. It is significant that both Noah and Melanie, who gain most from the current rules, realize that they need changing and are willing to sacrifice a small personal in-game gain for rationality and balance. I understand that there is a third Druid player. What does she think?
• To Chris- Yeah, well, we also had to listen to about a hundred people tell us we were never coming back from seeing Ayesha, and that she could kill with a gesture, and that there was really a nice survivable side quest over here, and going to Kor wasn't really a big deal on our Igwilf agenda, and a hundred other signs that say "This module may be too big for your breeks". We're just dumb and foolhardy. I meant brave. Brave and awesome.

Noah: Speaking of which, it doesn't seem like you have survived your dealings with She yet... that, and you're, like, 2000 miles and two months from the Mediterranean. I'm just saying. I fully expect Bashim to be way out of our league, but I'd be disappointed if we didn't at least get to take a crack at him.

tcm: "All sincere people?" Druids are a fine class just the way they are. You're just trying to have some kind of wealth redistribution by screwing over the Druid class. I think it says something (and that something is that Druids aren't all that overpowered after all) in that ONLY three players are playing Druids, and not, you know, everybody. If you want to hamstring your Druid and it's okay with her, fine. I don't think we'll be doing it in Queens.

Chris: Well, I don't think it follows that if druids were the most powerful character class that everyone would be playing them. People don't necessarily choose a character class just to excersise some kind of will to power. I'm sure if they did we'd all be playing paladins. I'm sure it's more about who the hell would want to pretend to worship a big tree. Lame.

Laura: I am at work right now and would like to discuss this further after I get home. I haven't had internet for over a week and I am hoping it will be fixed today but I cannot say that for sure. I am not in favor of these rule changes; obviously Druid are highly favored in terms of leveling. That's why I chose the druid class for my character. I wouldn't have done so if I knew this were going to happen, so I feel a bit like the rug is being pulled out from under me. More later.

Hal: You needn't worry, Laura; no one's changing your character without your permission. Except she's now a black policeman in gritty '70s Chicago.

Chris: Oh, you said I couldn't play a time traveler.

Noah: And why can't I have any candy?

Melanie: On the subject of Druid experience, frankly it's gotten to the point were leveling is not even fun anymore. It's just something that kinda happens every other session. On the other hand, waiting who knows how many months to get past 14 doesn't sound all that great either. Hence my willingness to use the Priest table, as long as I can keep my current level. One thing to note though, is the weird stuff that happens to Grand druids (on the wildly optimistic supposition that I'll make it to 15th level alive). Would we just ignore those rules completely, or would we modify the priest table somewhat? Or keep the Druid table and the going back to zero, but with different level requirements?

And who wouldn't want to worship a big tree?

Noah: So debate on these topics seem to have died down, though nothing yet has been resolved.

As an alternative to switching the druids to a steeper leveling table, let me suggest a different option: leveling druids duel after reaching each level (since they level so quickly), as soon as there is potential for them to do so. Druid duels can take all manner of forms, to be decided between contestants, and need not necessarily be combat, although combat is certainly the default if druids cannot agree.

I think that this not only fixes the problem of druids leveling too fast, it also adds the potential coolness of dueling druids from different biomes, who have wacky powers and crazy freaky creatures they can turn into, and also introduces the potential for awesome NPC druid characters. If Hal gets to throw around some insect and fungus druids, maybe he won't hate them soooooooo much any more.

Thoughts?!

Hal: This idea = awesome!

tcm: Agreed. Vote yes on Prop C!

Chris: Or, how about since he just found that book of Humanoids an aarokocra Sky druid? I don't even know what that would be like, but it sounds hilarious and awesome.

Kerry: I'm still for the cleric table. Dueling for each level means several things:

• 1- There have to be a lot of druids running around. Isn't the point that Druids are a culturally limited class with low numbers? This would mean that there are a huge number of druids running around al over the world. I really don't like that from a Simulationist viewpoint.
• 2- It doesn't make up for the difference between XP tables. Look at the numbers. If the duels are even odds over time (as they should be) then you will pay 1.5x XP in effect for each level overall. An example:
  • Ailyll is about to make 10th level, having gained 35,000 XP since she won her 9th level duel. She loses, going back to 90,000 XP. She gains another 35,000 XP and wins her duel, becoming 10th level for a mere 70,000 XP. Saiiq, who made 9th level at the same time with 225,000 XP, still needs 155,000 XP even though he had no duel. And remember, this is when Ailyll loses her duel, which will only happen on average half the time.
• 3-
  • A- This will create further disparity with regard to different druid PCs due to their luck of the draw in duels. If each duel is equal, 50/50 chance of win vs. loss, then the probability that one character will win OR lose 5 duels in a row is only 1/32. Consider if one druid loses all and another druid wins all. That means level 3 vs. level 8 for the same amount of XP. Is this fair?
  • B- On the off chance that anyone makes 13th level, losing a duel (50/50) means losing 750,000 XP. A duel with this big of a "wager" only occurs at this level, so winning and losing suddenly mean a lot. Again, is this fair? Would you want to stake 750,000 XP on a coin toss? Even at a rather high 50,000 XP/session, this means 35 sessions worth of work are gone.
• 4- Given the normal gameplay, I predict that duels will not even be equal, but will be in the PC's favor, exacerbating problem #2.

Hal: Your complaint is that the dueling will be too easy and too hard? Where I come from that's called balance.

Anyway, here is what I propose: Current druids start their leveling duels after level nine (thereby assuaging Laura's fears); future druids will start dueling after level three. Dueling will be freaking hard! Although we wish to keep druids Celtic, in order to avoid the need of people constantly sailing back to Ireland, an unending host of nature priests and even nature spirits with powers and abilities identical to a druid (to make it fair) will conveniently be on the ready to appear when Mother Earth (or whoever) thinks her priests need to be tested. If most of them are schoolgirl with hivemaster powers--well, don't be surprised.

Chris: This would also grant the opportunity for PC druids to have random encounters with lower level druids challenging them.

Melanie: Is the supposition that duels will come out to 50/50 accurate? Since our characters are necessarily a bit unbalanced by our stats, our hp rolls, and the animals we happen to meet, the stronger (or should I say luckier) druid does have a higher chance of winning. Then as an added bonus they get a level and their opponent doesn't, making for an even bigger difference in strength between characters.

Also, if I understand correctly loosing a duel, even if you aren't the challenger, makes you loose a level? Does that mean that a particularly unlucky set of random encounters can bring you down two or three levels in one session? Bear in mind that if there are not currently the maximum number of druids or archdruids in your region there is no duel. Will we then be coming up with a limit for each level, and assume that the (theoretically rather sparse) druidic population is always at a maximum?

tcm: No, you'd only have to duel when you leveled. For example, when a druid levels from 6th to 7th, he'll duel another druid (or forest spirit or whatever). If the druid wins, he keeps his level like nothing happen (though he gets the XP for the encounter). If he loses, he gets knocked back down to sixth level as if he had just started it. In either case, the druid will not duel again until he levels again (either back to seventh or up to eighth).

Chris: You would loose a level from a random challenge? I did not know that. In that case, I would be against it, even if it were against a saurian swamp druid, challenging you to a game of lizard chess...or a half-stone giant rock druid challenging you to a proto-kurling match...or a tengu cloud druid challenging you to a RACE AROUND THE WORLD!

Noah: No, no, no! Challenges take place between druids who are both leveling; this is the same way it works with Kensai (except they have a chance not to have to duel at levels 1 - 9, I believe, and the duel would be mandatory for druids). If you are level 7 and become level 8, you get your hit die and abilities, but in order to KEEP them you must face an opponent who is in the same situation that you are (has just leveled from 7 to 8), and will likely -- literally -- come out of the woodwork to challenge you, in whatever locale you happen to be. The winner stays level 8, the loser starts at the beginning of level 7 and must level up to 8 again (and duel to keep it). Thus, you as a druid will not have a 'random encounter duel,' you will only duel when you reach the next level, and never lose a level that you have already duelled to achieve (at least not by duelling -- you can always be level drained by a lich or what have you).

But as Chris points out, duelling can take many forms and cross many species and, generally, is super awesome. Unless you lose, in which case... it is a bit of a suck. Fortunately, because of the favorable leveling table, it will not take too terribly long for you to get another chance. There is always the possibility you might die in the duel (especially if combatants agree to a duel to the death!), but generally I think it's a pretty rare occurrence.

Hal: OK, so we have three druids and three desires. M wants to take the Cleric table; N wants to increase level duels; and L wants to keep things as they are.

We could just have three different rules for three different leagues, but I'd much prefer once law for the lion and the ox.

Would M, N, & L like to discuss, either among themselves or right here, the merits of their respective proposals?

If we canot build a consensus, should we decide one way by 1. lot, 2. majority vote of all players (to avoid a three-way tie), or 3. ritual combat? Or should we just split it three ways, and each party has different druid rules? What say you?

If we do have a vote, I get a vote, too, but I will restrict myself to one vote and will abide by majority opinion (unless majority opinion is all druids immediately advance to 17th level and get a ring of wishes or something).

Noah: Wel-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l... I'm amenable to using the cleric table, although I would be bummed. I'd like to hear M's reasons against duelling. Maybe we can still work out a compromise of some sort.

Melanie: Now that I better understand how dueling would work, I'm less against it, though I would still rather just use the cleric table. As long as we keep it consistent between parties I'm fine with any of the solutions, especially the ones that come with rings of wishes.

We should totally decide this with ritual combat.

Noah: ...you mean you want to demonstrate your opposition to ritual combat through ritual combat? You just blew my mind!

I'm, uh, totally for it, though. Although your animals *are* way better than mine.

Kerry: I think (or hope) that she meant player ritual combat.

Melanie: You bet. It'll be awesome.

Noah: I may wish to change my vote at this time.

Noah: Right, so, still nothing has been resolved here, and word on the street is that druids will stop leveling until this gets resolved. So: I call for a game-wide vote and hope that there is a clear enough majority that we can consider the issue settled. Without invoking Robert's Rules, I'm not sure exactly how to do this, but I figure folks will have a week to vote, discuss further, etc. and we'll tally next Wednesday. This will also give Laura a chance to chime in, should she desire. Does this sound pukka to everyone?

Melanie's Final Vote : Cleric Table (but if anyone wants to duel some time just for fun I'm game)

Noah's Final Vote: Dueling -- because dueling for levels is AWESOME!

Chris's Final Vote: Not having a druid, or intending to play a druid, I still would support dueling, but perhaps dueling at every other level? So as to not make it feel like you've always got to worry about it? And consistently have the duels be of a non-lethal nature (for surely the Big Tree doesn't want her followers felled).

Melanie: Or what if the losing duelist only lost a fraction of their level or something like that, rather than starting back at the beginning of the level. But yeah non-lethal sounds good...

Hal: I believe it's traditional for the participants to outline the parameters of the duel: first blood, tapping out, or even something weird like first to fetch the blue rose of Karnathor from its mountain home. Chris's suggestion that druids duel every other level will scarecely do much to mitigate the druid xp problem, especially since two druids are already at ninth.

And what kind of "final vote" is "not one of the three options presented, but one I just made up"?

Chris: That's how I roll. And I thought this problem was mostly to take care of new druids, as I heard something about current druids being "grandfathered in".

Kerry: Go to the Vote Tally Page and vote there for one of the three options. No last minute "I'm making up my own options". One vote per player, all rules take immediate effect when the voting is done. No one is "grandfathered in", save Laura, who will not feel the dire effects of the new rules unti she reaches 9th level.

Chris: I am against Proposition D. While perhaps more accurate or balanced, it has several problems. First, it seems that only NPC's ever have negative armor classes or good tHAC0's, or at least that's how it is in Brooklyn Party. Maybe I'm too pro-PC, but it seems this like it would work against us. More importantly, however, I feel it would rob Dungeons And Dragons of two of it's most significant and exciting moments. I suppose the 1 isn't very exciting, but does anything beat the rush of rolling that natural 20? I think we'd be trading something quite visceral for something so abstract.

Melanie: Agreed. Rolling 20s is no fun if it's just "almost".

Noah: There are also other ways that the game provides for the balance. Hush might be able to hit Indra on a 20, but unless she was swinging with a magic weapon she isn't going to do any damage.

And a 1 can be very exciting... if it's Indra who rolled it when attacking Hush.

Kerry: Noah, I expected more of our resident Simulationist. A blind little girl has the same chance (and 5% at that) to hit a major god as a trained sighted warrior? In addition, if you slow that girl, and blight her, and deafen her to boot it won't change her hit probability at all? "Exciting" is Narrativist. If I can't depend on everyone to stick to thier appropriate arbitrary categories I'll never be able to predict all thier actions!

Noah: Your argument being that a blind girl with a 1.5% chance of hitting Indra makes sense, but a blind girl with a 5% chance of hitting Indra is right out? Look - a blind, deaf, slowed and blighted little girl waving around a +2 scimitar might cut Indra -- it's awfully unlikely, but it is not outside the realm of possibility. Whether the odds are 1.5% or 5% doesn't much offend my simulationist sensibilities one way or another. Point is, I wouldn't count on Hush getting her licks in... and yeah, when facing down a god like Indra, I can see where a trained warrior might have just as much chance as a little girl (practically none).

Further, I don't see why "exciting" has to be narrativist. Real battles are full of fumbles and reversals and so forth.

Kerry: Indeed, but to make a rules system that encourages "exciting" over "makes sense" is narrativist. However, the above comment was mostly a joke. I disagree with GNS because a pure G, N, or S player is extremely rare. I'm very Gamist, but I love Hal's game for the Simulationism, and when a good Narrative happens I am quite pleased, e.g. Father Michael Saves the Day.