Death Shouldn't Feel like a Punishment

[kid]

Ahh, the M word.

like the all powerful lv17 (omg, meta) going around delivering mail(!) and collecting mushrooms(!) and selling them for peanuts when she has gazillion goldz in the most IC thing in the world.
No matter what spin you try to put on that you won't ever convince me that's IC.

So drop the bullshit holier than thou attitude.

[Xanthea]

Anyway, a higher level start in general is probably the least jarring and most fair approach to all of this.

Count me in for a level 3 general start. It would still be a problem rejoining super high level campaigns, but there aren't many of those around anyway.

[Brokenbone]

Technically we allow starts at a higher effective character level on application, so, potentially, welcome to single hitdice deep gnome-dom. We will pretend you are level 4 to start, due to ECL+3.



...

Levels are I guess an easy way to "fit in" with groups, as in "pow, here's a few thousand XP with an XP wand", takes 10 seconds... as opposed to maybe intricate hooks you give to a fresh new PC to maybe integrate with an existing group. Like "oh this guy may have a club and leathers but only he knows where the gnoll lair is!", or is the only speaker of Undercommon and party's out of Tongues, only guy who knows how some puzzle in a dungeon works, happens to be tall enough to reach a really special MacGuffin off a high shelf in a room without ladders... whatever.

[kid]

You still need RP hooks and back story to fit into a group no matter the level.
That part's hard enough.

levels in no way counter the need for RP, on the other hand, it makes the RP make a little bit more sense.
Can't see why a group with reasonable skill would accept someone who's incompetent (relatively) into their fold.
Unless they are mean bastards who want some canon fodder.

[shad0wfax]

If we put as much energy and thought into bringing new life to ALFA, both by enjoying new characters and inviting new players to the server, we might have a larger population to enjoy new things with, and being level 1 all over again wouldn't be so bad, especially with active DMs.

What I mean by this, is that this is currently one of the only active topics on the forums, and it's five pages of tangents, gripes, complaints, snarky references to players, and a few good points. It's not exactly putting our best foot forward.

[kid]

Lv1 is not bad.
I actually like it.

But if all my friends are level Y and I can't play with them cause it doesn't make sense in any level of the game...
(RP wise, mechanically, etc.)
That seems counter productive.

[Ronan]

Toril is not the real world. Taking greater risks can result in greater gains, whereas in the real world there is generally not a lot to be gained by risking your life ("oh you killed a bunch of drug dealers and took their stuff. GL trying to do the same to the police who are now coming for you"), or there are usually less-risky alternatives to make the same gains. There's nothing necessarily irrational about being risk neutral even when risks and rewards are high.

Everyone has their own risk/reward preferences. Obviously you'd want ALFA to incentivize the more popular preferences before the less popular ones. I suppose we could have a poll, but I'm fairly certain most people prefer adventurers. I've never met a DM who enjoyed DMing non-adventurers.

Relative to D&D, ALFA makes things easier for non-adventurer players who find character advancement an incentive, through the use of RP XP scripts and (indirectly) the wealth standards. This is a side-effect of our desire to encourage people to log in and RP. We also allow non-adventurers to take levels in adventuring classes.

Relative to D&D, ALFA makes things easier for adventurers with the -6 floor (unless you get a DM who ups encounter difficulty on account of it, like me). It makes things harder for adventurers by requiring all new PCs to start at level 1. Our wealth and XP standards also make things harder for especially high-risk adventures, because our XP (and therefore wealth) rewards cap out pretty early. As Foam states it would be nice if this was not the case, but it is, likely because DMs tend to over-report the risk of their sessions.

All DMs I know of enjoy DMing danger. Most players enjoy playing adventurers. Our system should therefore incentivize adventure. If you punish adventure you get less of it, and less adventure means less overall fun since most people enjoy adventure. Death is a consequence of adventure, and for a lot of people grinding to the point where they can contribute to a game they enjoy is a punishment.

IMO bumping the start level to 3 would help, though it kind of misses the more general point of D&D producing too many differing power levels of PCs for our uses. Something like a level 3 start with rapidly slowing progression until an asymptote at level 12 or so would be my preference. However in practice DMing higher levels (especially casters) is shit and is rarely done, so a level cap is somewhat redundant.

People used to think the one PC pillar was central to ALFA and without it our RP would suffer, staff would become more overworked, etc. I think this has shown to be incorrect. ALFA's about hardcore RP within for the Forgotten Realms, and the "permadeath" (in quotes because D&D) which comes along with that. There's nothing more hardcore about a level range of 1-20 than 3-20, or 3-12, or whatever. Back in the days of yore, ALFA was considered hardcore because it was hard to get to higher levels without dying. With the RP XP scripts, riskless statics and the -6 floor that is no longer the case. Its easy to hit high level as long as you have the time and desire to do so. Ergo a level 3 start doesn't make the game any easier.

IMO its all about restricting PC power ranges so that we can more easily form adventuring parties (PCs + a DM) of like-powered PCs (though this also benefits static content, building, etc.). Yes some people are going to be jealous of people who start at higher levels while they had to hack their way through hordes of gibberlings while trekking uphill both ways in the snow. Jealousy is a zero-sum game at best, and not worth playing.

I personally like the level 1 start. I'd like it a lot more if power gains were non-linear and vastly favored the lower levels. i.e. making it to level 3 was super quick, say you hit level 2 after the first challenging combat. Then we could probably get rid of the horridly annoying -6 floor too.

[Twin Axes]

An option for a level 3 start could be that in order to make it to the next level you'd have to earn the total amount of xp needed to go all the way from level 1 to 4, so 1000+2000+3000=6000 xp instead of just the 3000 needed to go from 3 to 4. Like paying off a debt. This should go a fair way toward keeping a bunch of people in a similar range.

I was going to make another point but I forgot it.

Edit: Oh yeah, I was thinking of the OC's for both NWN's, where the intro section bumped you to level three while playing out a back story before the campaign proper began. I was thinking of something like that when a while ago I made some unrealistic suggestion in the brainstorming forum abut having statics written to get people from level 1 to 2, tailored to specific races/classes. But maybe DM's, if they have the time and energy, could come up with some introductory quests or missions that would serve to bring a fresh PC up a level or two while at the same time building back story for that PC. Like performing chores for you tribal shaman, getting drawn in to the periphery of political intrigue in the Argent Legion or Iron Throne or what have you, and earning abnormally large xp awards in the process just to bring you up to speed. Maybe it is asking too much of DM's though to do this for every new PC on the scene.

[Brokenbone]

An option for a level 3 start could be that in order to make it to the next level you'd have to earn the total amount of xp needed to go all the way from level 1 to 4, so 1000+2000+3000=6000 xp instead of just the 3000 needed to go from 3 to 4. Like paying off a debt. This should go a fair way toward keeping a bunch of people in a similar range.
<SNIP>.

I think Veilan and I have talked about an IOU concept before without great investment or seriousness. Here, you start with thousands of XP, but please do not actually hit "levelup" for next level, instead get a DM to remove a bunch of XP to cut back your IOU. I guess a token that casts a unique scripty thing of "remove 100xp" that has to be used 50 times, preventing levelup until it's burnt out, could be a DMless but more "buildy skills needed" solution.

[jmecha]

I would not be against new characters starting at 3rd and all characters having a level cap of 12 or some other number lower then 20 to close the level gap within the player base.

Characters higher then whatever new level cap we agree on? I say grandfather them in like we did Warlocks.

[HEEGZ]

I'm opposed to a XP buy back solution. I am not opposed to starting at level 3-4, but there still seems to be opposition, and I like level 1. Perhaps a DM/player opt in program that adds to our current rules.

IMO the easiest solution, if a problem exists, is to alter the existing house rules. An example would be to permit DMs to increase XP awards for PCs below level 4/5 (as opposed to the current 3) and then dial it down beyond that. We could also bump the bio xp as I mentioned in my previous post.

I have found increasing XP awards for level 1 and 2 PCs to work really well to help people level up quickly and join a group. It is a very small change to allow DMs to extend XP boosts beyond level 2 into the 3/4/5 range. Also, we could change the XP increase from the current 150-200% suggestion to something much larger, say a 500-1000% XP award increase at low levels.

In this way, a PC/DM could opt to keep to the regular XP awards, or a PC could be fast tracked out of low levels into mid range for easier party play. This has the benefit of keeping level 1 start, and a simple increase in XP awards that we already permit. Also, people can opt out if they prefer the traditional XP gain rate, or opt in if they are trying to rejoin their friends in a campaign group.

*****

My personal preference is to allow DMs to award up to 500-1000% xp for PCs until they reach level 5, while retaining the level 1 start. I also would prefer to allow DMs to award up to 1,000xp for bios for level 1 PCs (compared to the current 250xp for bios for level 2+ PCs). This latter change is less important if the first one is implemented. These changes give DMs and players more flexibility for advancement, while still retaining the level 1 start and staying within our currently implemented ALFA house rules.

[Xanthea]

I like that too.

[hollyfant]

Can't we just lower the levels or numbers of the enemy instead? The Goblins are whooping our asses even at level 3.

[Galadorn]

No one's opinions are 'wrong'. Some like to play with the people who play on ALFA... but would rather a faster pace i guess? So they want ALFA to move faster where it feels to them in their opinion "unnecessarily" slow... like leveling from 1-3. This confuses me forever. It is so easy (and fast if you have patience for 1-2 weeks) to get to level 2 and 3 with no xp bonuses for Bios or anything else.

For me I just hope ALFA stays the way it is (minus 2 PCs). There are many games out there I hope those against ALFA present can get their enjoyment out of and not try and change ALFA to be more like them. ALFA was a certain way for a long time for good reason (not for all but for most back then, and saying back then does not mean times have changed so change ALFA... why can't we play ALFA the way it is?). I think it comes down to patience.

If you want to smash things early, ...or to be more on topic..., if you want to "survive" to level 3... make a PC, meet some friends, develop your PC "in-game" from level 1-3, do a few statics (...so their boring?? jeepers it's just for a week?), and in meeting those others you RP with, demonstrating your new PC's personality, before you know it you are level 3. I just can't believe people are so impatient they can't play for 1-2-3 weeks before they think their PC is survivable. Survivable for what? So you won't die chasing Goblins around?
ALFA classic was all about fear of the things lurking in the woods that will kill you if they spot you. It's not WoW or Diablo where the entire idea is running directly towards enemies for immediate drops. ALFA was never and should never ever be that way. That's why we got WoW and Diablo!
And if it should not be that way... and people want to risk adventuring through dangerous woods right away... then they have to expect a very high chance to die. Even at level 4-5, especially non-warrior types.

Like I said, we can all have valid opinions. Why can't people accept the rules the way they are for this place. It may not be as satisfactory to everyone (as it is to me), but playing low survivable PCs and "making it" to a survivable level, and then redeveloping new relationships and character development after putting the time in to get there makes those lower levels that more awesome and satisfactory to have survived through.

And don't give me that horsepoop about "sitting around taverns OOC farming RPXP so those levels are not worth being proud about", omg, that's just an argument from people who just don't have the patience to do it, trying to gain ground over those who will do it.
And with DMs on, taverns and RPing is NOT that safe anyway. It's safer than "Adventuring into the wilds" at level 1... but IMO, doing that... is just plain dumb. Better not have a Wisdom or INT over 10 if you do alone, or even a small party of level 1 (without a DM), adventure be damned in that example.

Here we go, get ready for the "Bu" flames, *snort*, trust me, i've heard it all before. But before you do, choice few who can't wait for it, Bu has a terrible build for survival from level 1, and has been in hundreds of life and death situations down to the wire both solo, in parties with or without DMs, on all servers. Just because I RP him a certain way, and played a lot, especially when not many others play, does not mean I farm RPXP no matter where he sits down near no matter how many campfires. I want to play him the way he is. I like him. He's fun because in my opinion that's what I like. I tend to think he was played well, and it took a long time not PGing to get where he is now.

Please DMs and Admin, if (sigh, and "when") you eventually do implement a level 3+ starting level for ALFA. Which includes huge bonuses for pre-written Bios, etc, it's all the same thing). At least allow whoever wants to start at level 1 (or level zero, like my next PC) if the players want to start at level 1. I'm sure that will be allowed of course.

game on

[oldgrayrogue]

Toril is not the real world. Taking greater risks can result in greater gains, whereas in the real world there is generally not a lot to be gained by risking your life ("oh you killed a bunch of drug dealers and took their stuff. GL trying to do the same to the police who are now coming for you"), or there are usually less-risky alternatives to make the same gains. There's nothing necessarily irrational about being risk neutral even when risks and rewards are high.

Everyone has their own risk/reward preferences. Obviously you'd want ALFA to incentivize the more popular preferences before the less popular ones. I suppose we could have a poll, but I'm fairly certain most people prefer adventurers. I've never met a DM who enjoyed DMing non-adventurers.

Relative to D&D, ALFA makes things easier for non-adventurer players who find character advancement an incentive, through the use of RP XP scripts and (indirectly) the wealth standards. This is a side-effect of our desire to encourage people to log in and RP. We also allow non-adventurers to take levels in adventuring classes.

Relative to D&D, ALFA makes things easier for adventurers with the -6 floor (unless you get a DM who ups encounter difficulty on account of it, like me). It makes things harder for adventurers by requiring all new PCs to start at level 1. Our wealth and XP standards also make things harder for especially high-risk adventures, because our XP (and therefore wealth) rewards cap out pretty early. As Foam states it would be nice if this was not the case, but it is, likely because DMs tend to over-report the risk of their sessions.

All DMs I know of enjoy DMing danger. Most players enjoy playing adventurers. Our system should therefore incentivize adventure. If you punish adventure you get less of it, and less adventure means less overall fun since most people enjoy adventure. Death is a consequence of adventure, and for a lot of people grinding to the point where they can contribute to a game they enjoy is a punishment.

IMO bumping the start level to 3 would help, though it kind of misses the more general point of D&D producing too many differing power levels of PCs for our uses. Something like a level 3 start with rapidly slowing progression until an asymptote at level 12 or so would be my preference. However in practice DMing higher levels (especially casters) is shit and is rarely done, so a level cap is somewhat redundant.

People used to think the one PC pillar was central to ALFA and without it our RP would suffer, staff would become more overworked, etc. I think this has shown to be incorrect. ALFA's about hardcore RP within for the Forgotten Realms, and the "permadeath" (in quotes because D&D) which comes along with that. There's nothing more hardcore about a level range of 1-20 than 3-20, or 3-12, or whatever. Back in the days of yore, ALFA was considered hardcore because it was hard to get to higher levels without dying. With the RP XP scripts, riskless statics and the -6 floor that is no longer the case. Its easy to hit high level as long as you have the time and desire to do so. Ergo a level 3 start doesn't make the game any easier.

IMO its all about restricting PC power ranges so that we can more easily form adventuring parties (PCs + a DM) of like-powered PCs (though this also benefits static content, building, etc.). Yes some people are going to be jealous of people who start at higher levels while they had to hack their way through hordes of gibberlings while trekking uphill both ways in the snow. Jealousy is a zero-sum game at best, and not worth playing.

I personally like the level 1 start. I'd like it a lot more if power gains were non-linear and vastly favored the lower levels. i.e. making it to level 3 was super quick, say you hit level 2 after the first challenging combat. Then we could probably get rid of the horridly annoying -6 floor too.

Sign me up.

Better yet, lets all start at level 7 and stay there. Progression after that only grants you skills, feats, attributes, and if you are a caster maybe a few more spells. Maybe.