Proposal: Allowances for Playtesting 3rd Edition

[Gibreel]

Thardferr is now officially playesting 3rd Edition for the second time, having lost its first playtesting DM after 3rd Edition was refused entrance in Thardferr the first time. Now it has lost it's second playtesting DM. It seems uncomfortably like playtesting is no more than an artifical barrier put up by those who oppose 3rd Edition to keep it from happening, or to delay it as long as possible.

Thardferr playtests 3rd Edition on a small scale, with mostly internal players who play 2nd edition and those games don't count in Thardferr. Thardferr votes and it is shut-down because the vote is all 2nd Edition players (in reality 3rd Edition has won a Thadferr wide vote already, but this was overturned) or at the least the vote is close and in someway it is deemed a failure. It seems that the failure is going to be automatic when playesting can't show if it is successful or not. Players can't count their games, so new players and DMs are not attacted to ther setting.


Either allowing 3rd Edition will fix our playerbase problem or it will not, but if a true test is not allowed we will never know. Please consider allowing:

1) 1 Year Playtesting Period.
2) Games that count in the Thardferr setting (utilizing the Thardferr IC limits as they are in 2nd Edition).
3) New DM Recruitment.
4) New Player Recruitment.
5) PCDMing for 3rd Edition.

Then we might actually be able to see if it is a good ro a bad thing.

[Jelani]

I was one of the major voices against Thardferr's implementation of 3/3.5E into this world.  However, I think it is time I/we put our personal feelings aside and let it be used.

I also agree with Gib that a playtest has already been done and discarded for whatever reason.  To ask people to do it again, while not having it count in our world and basically wasting their time, seems just plain stupid.  

Find a DM willing to run it, find some PCs who know both systems, run some quests, and then report back what problems and/or changes will need to be made to make 3/3.5E a playable system in Thardferr.  It should not be that difficult and hopefully we can recruit some more players and DMs along the way.

[kluu]

I'd like to repeat my only objection to 3.

I want to see what changes and adaptations will be playtested that will make 3 more interactive with the thardferr 2nd ed mechnics.  Before any 'playtest' shuld be started, soemone should make a list of what is going to be tested.

There is no need to playtest the 3 system. we know itworks and is pretty good. So please, whoever is going to start a 3 grou-p and run it here post the adaptations, changes, things being left out and not used as well as new things tot he 3 system that makes it able to coexist with the 3nd ed.

After we have those and see that they cover the main problems people have seen between the two systems being worked out, I dont see any reason to not allow 3 to be used as it fits this setting.

Off the top of my head, these are things to consider.

Feats- which would not fit this setting and shoud be disallowed.
Perks and flaws- shich should not be allowed to a 3 character and how would they work in 2nd to 3 conversions.
Multiclass- only those that are allowed to 2nd ed or in thardferr setting as decided by the DM boady and TC should be allowed in 3 as well.
Race and class- see above
Experiece and level progressoin- this needs to be equalized betweent he two systems so that al characters rise at an equal time play vx XP gain ratio.

There is probably more.

I dont want to delay 3 comoing to Thardferr, I don't mind it being here and used especially if it brings in new blood that perhaps may learn 2nd ed and so interact with those that will continue to use it. I want it to be able to work between the two systems so they cna interact and the world setting remains intact.

[Gibreel]

*sigh* All of this is done! Now it needs to be tested along with how effective 3rd Edition will be in a friendly enviroment. Not an enviroment in which 3rd Edition does not count, or an enviroment where artifical limitation keeps it from succeeding. Hence my request. Let 3rd Edition have a real playtesting and succeed or fail on its own merit.

Feats + Perks and flaws = Balanced out. 3rd Edition PCs do not get Perks and Flaws and 2nd Edition does not get feats. You covert over these as close as possible back and forth using the Published version of the Covertion Document that already exist.

Classes, Dual and Multiclassing Only those that are allowed to 2nd edition or in Thardferr setting as decided by the DM body and TC should be allowed in 3rd Edition as well. Specialty Priests use spell list and powers and limitation as written.

Races As Above. Thardferr Races only.

Experiece and level progressoin This has already been done Twice. Couyon did it, and someone else more recently did the math on the Boards here and posted it. Even if it cannot be easily found, use a calculator.

These are the things that are done, and need to be tested. There are no real excusses left to hold Thardferr back from testing things for real. If your going to hold it back, do it because you hate the idea. If you want it to be able to work between the two systems so they cna interact and the world setting remains intact--let them interact in a real test.

[Zee]

Aye ive said i would like to keep it out many times, but we may as well, after all i trust gib and the others willing to get this done so we may as well let them, plus we do need the help to boost our ranks.

[Feff]

I will only put my vote in for this if we maintain the ability to play 2nd ed as well. I have never played 3e, and that goes to say that I've never DM'ed 3e and I really don't have the time to learn or to convert everything I have into 3e, so if it goes exclusively 3e, I'm out.

[kluu]

Gib, don't sigh at me.

I don't believe these things have been ever presented to staisfaction. And there was aot fo problems with converting Couyan's characters including experience given , he never took into account the 2nd ed geomwetric experience progressoin and so many of his transferred characters had problems.

I may have missed some discussion But last I heard no one had made a list of what feats could not be allowed because of the setting.

I believe if this is not settled before it has started then dms running 3 in thardferr will assume they are fine and there wil then be problems that occur later, especially when different systems need to interact.

I see no reason to jump headlong into something before settig the peramiters to be playtested. Is there a group waiting right now to play 3? that we cna't spend a couple days or a week to iron out the specific perameters of using 3 here and save alot of problems and time later once a group is actually playing using it?

I'd do it myself if I knew the 3 system better. I have asked that those more knowledgeable of it do it and no one has that I have seen. Though Rithas did much to get it on the way to readiness he hadn't done it all.

as is shown here,

http://thardferr.a-terra.com/viewtopic.php?t=2713

and likley other thireads, there is still work that needs to be done, at least it needs to be decided and written in one place for any using 3 to have accessible and accepted by all using it.

If I have missed someplace where all of this has been figured out and written down, then that is great. lets put it someplace we can all find and then let 3 begin to be used under those rules. If it hasn't I think it should be so we don'thave to deal with problems that will come up later after people have started playing under the 3 system machanics.

[Dalan]

Why assume the worst about something?

"It seems uncomfortably like playtesting is no more than an artifical barrier put up by those who oppose 3rd Edition to keep it from happening, or to delay it as long as possible. "

As far as I know almost all DMs and most players WANT 3.5e to be here.  I don't see playtersting as a barrier at all.

In fact, I wouldn't mind having the 3e playtesting effect IC Thardferr as long as playtesters realize the mechanics of their characters may be changed and or that their characters may have to become NPCs at the end of playtesting.

My only problem right now is XP/Level progression.  If I recall Couyon's was way too fast for a lot of people, and I haven't seen one proposal so far that I like (except something discussed by me and Lalina).

I have run only two or three sessions in 3.5E, so I don't feel qualified for running playtesting, otherwise I would volunteer myself.  I might consider it however (shudder) if no other DM with more experience volunteers.

As for Thardferr wide votes... I don't know what the circumstances were (I don't believe I was here at the time), but I thought that was what the TC and the DM body was for.  I don't ever recall having a Thardferr wide vote establish anything but the TC.  Who put it on and who deemed it official?

But like I said, I'm for 3.5E playtesting have an impact on IC Thardferr.  It was Endel himself that proposed it not effect IC Thardferr, no one else.  I think there should be a MAX of one year playtesting, but no minimum if we can work out all the kinks beforehand.

The only roadblock facing 3e is the lack of a DM to run it.

[Gibreel]

My only problem is the XP progression

If your only problem is one you have the solution to because of "something discussed by me and Lalina." You could post that proposal you like Dalan.

The only roadblock facing 3e is the lack of a DM to run it.

That is why I asked for the allowances above. All the 3rd Edition Dms have run away screaming because of this crap. Exactly what is going on this thread is why we have lost them, and nearly half of Thardferr's players after the first Playtesting.



Kluu.... I am lost on what to do for you. I posted guidelines. Others have posted more detailed guidelines. I am not sure anything will make you happy at this point. You keep posting the same questions, people give you answer over and over and you then say the same questions again.

I welcome you to send me 20 Questions that you want answered in a PM and I will cut and paste answers to all of them--or write them up. It should take an hour or so. Maybe a bit longer since my tendonitis is acting up.

[Dalan]

If 3e DMs run away, it is their own fault and responsibility, no one elses.  I may not like it when they leave, but no one has forced anyone out.

I'll go ahead and post the idea then, I just wasn't sure if anyone had posted one before.  This isn't a proposal though, just an explanation

Me and Lalina discussed the possibility that instead of making a max guideline for experience, we could make a max guideline for the percentage it takes to advance in levels for both systems.

Thinking about it, however, I just thought up something similiar, but perhaps easier.

Right now the average time it takes a 1st level fighter to get from 0 XP to 2,000 XP assuming 65 xp an hour is about 30 hours.  Divided by four hour sessions that means in approximately seven session the first level fighter will go from 1st lvl to 2nd lvl.  Also according to the current guideline that time will be cut in half (around 3 and a half sessions) to go from 2nd to third, since the same XP is required, but the max guideline is doubled.

Instead if we say, the number of hours required to advance is a certain amount, it doesn't matter what system you are in, the result is basically the same.  This also frees up DMs to award however much XP they want in a single session, as long as it evens out.

Advance to:

2nd level: 15 hours

3rd level: 17 hours (32 total)

4th level: 21 hours (53 total)

5th level: 29 hours (82 total)

6th level: 45 hours (117 total)

7th level: 77 hours (194 total)

8th level 100 hours (294 total)

9th level+ 100 hours (394 total*)

* Add 100 for every level beyond 9th.

That means it will take around 25 sessions or weeks to advance in level after 9th.  This isn't a proposal however, this is just an example that could be modified by less or more depending on where the TC wants it.

[Zee]

Not to drag it down, but if something like that were to happen you would have to consider grandfathering... after all there are many that have played hours over the amount required for certain levels. But then going back and counting the hours for every session a PC that has been around that long would take forever - unless it is simply decided that it doesnt count in this circumstance and everyone retains everything then the new rules are used.

[Gibreel]

Gibreel walks away from this post.... Proposal Made. Feel free to simply shut it down. I don't want to bang my head against this that much.

[Lalina]

I like the original idea that Dalan and I talked about, which is that DMs just give a certain % needed for your next level at the end of a session.  So, say we want it to take about 10 levels for you to get a level -- well, then just give 10% of the experience needed for a level. Indeed, you can get rid of the entire experience chart -- when you get 100%, you level.

My problem with the above proposal is that it makes it like a job.  You punch in, punch out and when enough hours are there, you level.  It makes actions undertaken irrevelant and leaves no room for a DM to give a group a big bonus or high experience (without having a counterly "low" experience session -- since everytime experience is given a little faster, then it has to be given a little slower to balance it out). It seems to privilege people sitting in a OpenRPG room rather than doing things.  Also, it makes any incidental bonuses (TTs, character background, Boards, etc.) impossible.

[Gallorn]

Actually those last few things you mentioned are quite possible, but as a function of percentages.

Let's assume for a moment that DM's give 10-15xp/lvl per post on the boards.  Instead, they would now be giving percentages.

DM: That was a well written and well thought out background.  I'm giving you 20% towards your next level.

DM:  All board posts will be rewarded at .5%.

Etcetera.  That's just a sample.  

The real problem is controlling the rate the levels go up.  If a group has a mix of different levels, but they all receive let's say 10% when the session is over, then your 9th level fighter is leveling as fast as your 1st level mage and vice versa, which isn't good at all.

[Lalina]

Yes, as a function of %s, it does.  I was saying that the idea above with each level requiring so many hours has that problem.

DMs can award different leveled people different %s, or the same, depending on the discretion of the DM.