PROPOSAL: Slight Change to Retiring Rules in Charter

[treex]

Iron Sky, that's how I read it too, initially. But then I didn't have the guts to be that direct.

And there's a death penalty?

 

[stonegod]

Iron Sky, that's how I read it too, initially. But then I didn't have the guts to be that direct.

And there's a death penalty?

I got burned by the rules too. Still don't want to make it easier to cheat death by retiring though, and we should reward continuity where possible. but, as someone whose retired three characters, it shouldn't be onerous.

Death is a -1 penalty to everything for three milestones IIRC. We rewrote that over in LEB; don't know if it was done here.

 

[Mewness]

@Mewness , if I understand you correctly, your argument is "it sucked for me, so it wouldn't be fair if it didn't suck for everyone else?" I might be way off base on how I read that, but that seems like the best reason to change a rule rather than keep it.

And YES by the way.

I hope that that isn't the case. While I can't honestly say that I'm overjoyed when I retire a character and lose XP, I think that some sort of penalty is reasonable, and the existing penalty is not that onerous.

I think it would be nice if simply revamping an existing character were easier (with a stiffer penalty for introducing a spanking new character at higher level), but that would require some sort of judgment as to what constituted a true revamp, and the approval process is complicated enough as it is.

 

[CrimsonFlameWielder]

It has been more than 48 hours now, since the count of Yes votes was 2 more than that of the No votes. I believe that means that this proposal passes, right?

 

[Dekana]

This really bums me out. I don't want to play in a game where there's no consequence to failure.

 

[Dekana]

Would there be any support for an amendment to this proposal to make a distinction between retirement due to character death and retirement for other reasons? Something like:

If a PC dies and that player chooses to retire the dead character, the next PC that player creates using retirement option A starts with enough XP to reach the same level of the dead character (instead of the same XP total).

 

[CrimsonFlameWielder]

Dekana:

I'm not a judge, but I would support something along those lines. The only problem is...how do you prevent someone from allowing their character to be revived, play a couple of extra encounters to throw off suspicion, and then decide that they don't want to play that character and retire it without penalty?

Should the amendment state that they are considered to be retiring due to death during the period that they are under the influence of the death penalty?

 

[covaithe]

Proposals need (at least) 3 yes votes to pass, so the timer is from Iron Sky's post, not mine. This hasn't passed yet.

I'm getting the feeling that people want to talk more about this before it passes, so I'm going to change my vote to NO temporarily, so that it won't pass while we're still talking.

Seems like there are three options:

1. status quo. There is still a (variable) penalty for dying and for retiring. Downside is that there are strange corner cases where what seems to me like a disproportionately high amount of XP can be lost for retiring, like the OP of this thread.

2. remove the penalty for retiring. If we do this then we have to decide what to do about death. Keeping the penalty seems weird; it's better to retire. Removing the penalty for death also seems weird.

3. Something in between. A reduced penalty of some kind, details yet to be specified. Pros and cons depend on the details.

Do I have it about right?

 

[CrimsonFlameWielder]

I think you have it about right, Covaithe.

 

[FourMonos]

What about those who have paid the fee of lost experience previously? I know Mewness didn't retire his character completely, just changed his kobold to a different class which he felt better represented him. I've done this myself and lost xp. Also dimsdale, stonegod and others who wanted to try a new character concept?

Does it fall into the "you knew what you were doing under the previous rules" section and that's just how it is?