Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

ragnarok1983 wrote:
I wouldn't mind a NON tradable, once-every-six-months token per character. Coded in. Requiring no DM support. Characters are still subject to all the previous build rules anyway.

This. The occasional full rebuild is valuable for not just fixing mistakes and refining a build, but also (and more importantly in my mind) in accommodating character developments that have occurred over preceding months.

Rhifox wrote:

ragnarok1983 wrote:
I wouldn't mind a NON tradable, once-every-six-months token per character. Coded in. Requiring no DM support. Characters are still subject to all the previous build rules anyway.

This. The occasional full rebuild is valuable for not just fixing mistakes and refining a build, but also (and more importantly in my mind) in accommodating character developments that have occurred over preceding months.

I'll second this.

Edit: Upon the recommendation of a friend- Make it check to make sure you don't already have one, so players can't save them up then chain-RCR to take quick advantage of appraise characters and such (I see no issue with this, as anything that reduces the grind someone feels like they have to do is good in my eyes [less grind=more time to rp], but this seems like something that someone would raise as a counter-point).

ragnarok1983 wrote:
I wouldn't mind a NON tradable, once-every-six-months token per character. Coded in. Requiring no DM support. Characters are still subject to all the previous build rules anyway.

This^

metaquad4 wrote:

Rhifox wrote:

ragnarok1983 wrote:
I wouldn't mind a NON tradable, once-every-six-months token per character. Coded in. Requiring no DM support. Characters are still subject to all the previous build rules anyway.

This. The occasional full rebuild is valuable for not just fixing mistakes and refining a build, but also (and more importantly in my mind) in accommodating character developments that have occurred over preceding months.

I'll second this.

Edit: Upon the recommendation of a friend- Make it check to make sure you don't already have one, so players can't save them up then chain-RCR to take quick advantage of appraise characters and such (I see no issue with this, as anything that reduces the grind someone feels like they have to do is good in my eyes [less grind=more time to rp], but this seems like something that someone would raise as a counter-point).

Agreed on the elimination of that possible exploit as well.

metaquad4 wrote:...but this seems like something that someone would raise as a counter-point).

That does sound like something someone would raise as a counter point...why does that sound so familiar?

ragnarok1983 wrote:
I wouldn't mind a NON tradable, once-every-six-months token per character. Coded in. Requiring no DM support. Characters are still subject to all the previous build rules anyway.

Per month or per two months. Also, Free RCR is superior to tokens, because people have jobs.

The best idea would be to keep 100% RCR.

I'm afraid I can't in good conscience keep it open as there are exploits that will only become more widely known (and possibly more widely abused) with the passage of time.

I fear it would also eventually result in a top-heavy server where veteran players are all largely on level 30 characters and newcomers are starting at the bottom, with very little variation between the two sides.

Permanently level 30 players also discourages commitment to a single character concept or build. There has been a huge upswing in short-lived concepts and throw-away characters that ultimately will limit player impact on the server environment -- a level 30 PC made through RCR is going to have none of the server impact, enemies and allies, and connections that a character who's worked for level 30 over a period of several months will. They'll be a blank slate -- a really powerful one. But there's much less to make the player fall in love with their character if they haven't had to overcome any challenges to get them to where they are.

Finally, it's more difficult to DM for level 30 characters. Either you barely challenge them or you accidentally wipe the party. Level 30 PCs also tend to be very confident in their own abilities (and often justly so), fearing very little, and as a result can be pretty boring to DM for as well. There's usually no growth and they're hard to award.

All that being said, I'd not be opposed to once-a-year rebuilds, like our existing once-a-year rollbacks. But I'd need to discuss it with the DMs before seriously considering it. They would have to be the ones who track the program and manage it.

Maecius wrote: All that being said, I'd not be opposed to once-a-year rebuilds, like our existing once-a-year rollbacks. But I'd need to discuss it with the DMs before seriously considering it. They would have to be the ones who track the program and manage it.

I'd like to encourage you all to keep in mind my earlier recommendation in this discussion. A once a year rebuild doesn't have to be all or nothing 100% RCR. If that is deemed too much, anything in between 50% to level 20 and 100% to level 30 is also a way to simply ease the burden of silly mistakes (leveling from 25 to 30 is far less burdensome than leveling from 20 to 30, for example).

I once suggested we give PCs 100% XP up to level 20 and give EPIC PCs 50% not capped to level 20. This could be as easy as giving the RCR NPC more options at the talk. Basically a PC can get 100% of their XP capped at level 20. Or they can choose another option if they are past level 20 and get 50% of their total XP but not capped at level 20 stop. Which would help mitigate some of the pain of a boneheaded mistake at level 26+. This also gives a more options for those who want to impose their own "PURIST" rules say and just use the 50% RCR anytime.....for those hard corp RPers and stuff. Or they can if they choose still use the capped to level 20 RCR as well if they are epic. Either way I think that would be the best option IMHO.

Unfortunately the math for '50% but not capped to 20' means that it doesn't actually change anything. Removing the cap just means you get to 21 instead of 20. (specifically, 435,000 exp for level 30, divided by two, is 217,500, which falls under 21 (210,000)). It's nice, an extra 27k exp, but it really doesn't change the problem at all.

Maecius wrote:Finally, it's more difficult to DM for level 30 characters. Either you barely challenge them or you accidentally wipe the party. Level 30 PCs also tend to be very confident in their own abilities (and often justly so), fearing very little, and as a result can be pretty boring to DM for as well. There's usually no growth and they're hard to award.

So why do we even have a level 30 cap? Just seems like more reasons to me to lower it to more reasonable levels.

Rhifox wrote:So why do we even have a level 30 cap? Just seems like more reasons to me to lower it to more reasonable levels.

Tradition? A goal for everyone to strive towards? A signifier to players that they might want to start thinking of wrapping up the character's storyline and moving on to another, fresher character -- or to start making their goals more roleplay-oriented (building an organization, changing some IC laws, etc.) instead of adventure-oriented?

I suppose the biggest reason is that it's "just always been" a level 30 cap, and a vault wipe would make people very sad.

Maecius wrote:

Rhifox wrote:So why do we even have a level 30 cap? Just seems like more reasons to me to lower it to more reasonable levels.

Tradition? A goal for everyone to strive towards? A signifier to players that they might want to start thinking of wrapping up the character's storyline and moving on to another, fresher character -- or to start making their goals more roleplay-oriented (building an organization, changing some IC laws, etc.) instead of adventure-oriented?

I don't know about other people, but my 30 is still just beginning in her story. She's still fresh. She's a commoner of no great accomplishment; by traditional DnD ranges she'd be between levels 1-5, maybe a bit above that. And she's certainly done barely any adventure. The grind is not adventure, it's a grind. 30 isn't an end, it's the arbitrary level at which you become on par with other established characters on the server. For me at least, I equate 30 to being 'the level of the party' as in the sense of a pnp campaign where every character in the group is level X and all new characters must be at that level to contribute effectively. There's characters whose story is less developed than mine (as in newer, more fresh, more inexperienced) at level 30, and there's characters whose story is more developed than mine (as in veteran, experienced, accomplished) at level 10. The numbers have no real bearing aside from making things complicated.

A character's story ends when their story ends, not when they reach some arbitrary number on a character sheet. This 1-to-Max completionist thing that is forced onto online dnd games has never sat right with me. It's too MMOy, too OOC achievement based. An ideal RP environment should be one in which all characters are roughly within the same range of each other, allowing for participation in the same plots, adequate challenge by the same monsters, and ease of storytelling for the DMs. Instead we have this environment where your level largely means nothing. 30's will be given level 30 bandits, and 10s will be given level 10 dragons. The plot is based on what the DM wants to run, not on the level, and they'll scale the CR for who they are running it for. The level only adds complications in how the event is run and who is allowed to participate.

The same goes for non-DM RP too. IC announcement gets put up, advertising a mercenary/adventure company, or a task or mission, but hey, there's this OOC note at the end saying "for players of level X only". So much for responding to that announcement ICly, if your range is above or below what is desired. And then there's established guilds, where you'll have 30's and 5's in the same group wanting to RP with each other but heavily skewing their ability to contribute to the same degree any time mechanics come up. Such a massive range between character levels heavily limits dynamic roleplay.

Level on most NWN servers doesn't indicate anything about the character's story, or their experience level. It's something people do almost entirely OOCly, when they aren't roleplaying (the occasional adventure group notwithstanding). It's there for the grind, because people think it's "supposed" to be there (especially seen with servers that have a lower cap, where the community is constantly demanding to increase the cap because 30 is the maximum for the game and they feel incomplete by being unable to reach it). It's that insidious "achievement" mentality that has become all the rage in modern games as a way game developers artificially extend a game's lifespan.


Now yeah, I don't expect the cap to be changed. It'd cause too much of a fuss. The server is what it is and that wouldn't change. I'm just stating my disagreement with the way most servers handle leveling.

IMO though, if one was to change it, and if one really wanted to have levels portray a character's position in their story arc, then I'd remove monster and RP experience entirely, and instead give all characters a flat experience gain per month, low enough that max level would require two to three years of play (online time only, not gained when offline). DM events would be supplemental to that. You'd still want to reduce the range in such a system, though. DnD was not designed for characters of 1 and 20 being in the same room, let alone 1 to 30. 5-7 levels should be the maximum range between highest and lowest levels.


... anyway. Sorry for the rant.

If such a change were made i can guarantee you 90% of the server would leave. It already takes up to a year to lv even with monster and quest xp, having to wait 3 years with little to no ability to speed up the process would be a nightmare and boring beyond measure. And limiting the maximum lv to 7.... yeah no, 1-20 ok but 1-7, no way in hell lol. The server would die in a few weeks at most with the population likely going to Sigil or Trinity. Its a bad move, dont do it.

I didn't say limiting the maximum level to 7, I said limiting the range. The difference between the lowest level and the highest level.

Even if it was a cap of level 7 though, that really shouldn't matter. Roleplay is not about your level.

My bad then. However limiting the max lv to 20 could be beneficial, a character would neither lose nor gain power. If they do decide to limit max lv let it be this. Its a reasonable compromise.