PROPOSAL: Slight Change to Retiring Rules in Charter

[covaithe]

Yeah. I dunno. I've retired characters before, but when I did I used DM points to bump them up just over a level threshold before, so I didn't lose much XP. I suspect that a reasonably large fraction of retirements have used similar tricks... which I find to be kind of not fair. I'm not really cool with DMs having a loophole to dodge the retirement xp penalty, and other players not having that option.

On the other hand, I do think that encouraging character continuity is good, and that there ought to be some kind of negative consequence to retiring/dying.

What about a percentage penalty? Something like, 25% of what it would take to go from your current level to your next level? So if you retired at level 1, you'd lose 250xp. If level 2, you'd lose .25 * (2250-1000) = 312 xp. If level 15, you'd lose .25 * (69000-57000) = 3000 xp.

That kind of penalty might cause you to lose a level. Is that okay? Note that we're talking about retiring here anyway, so the character reviewers have to review a new character either way; level loss doesn't affect their workload any.

It's not obvious to me one way or another whether DM points can be abused under this proposal. I *think* it's less subject to abuse, but I'm not completely sure.

As usual, I pulled the 25% number out of my backside just to have a number to talk about. I'm open to other percentages.

 

[Ozymandias79]

how about the penalty only taking a % of the excess exp that way you cant loose a level?
and what if DM credits can only be used on characters that has gained adventure XP, that way if a person retires a character he cant use his DM creds until after he has gained some xp?

 

[Mewness]

I've actually retired characters five times, in this manner:

1st slot: One-Who-Waits (deva shaman) > Livia (human seeker) > Scarmiglione (kenku rogue|sorcerer)

2nd slot: Papolstaanas (warden) > Papolstaanas (battlemind) > Papolstaanas (avenger|battlemind)

3rd slot: Goldenhorn (minotaur cleric|runepriest) > Pharodeys (petrified human shaman)

All of these retirements involved heavy losses except for the last retirement of Papolstaanas (where I had credits to spend).

I have to say, though, that I didn't find the retirements in which I replaced a character with a completely different character all that painful. (This despite the fact that Livia lost almost an entire level when she turned into Scarmiglione.) I was introducing brand new characters, and it didn't matter all that much to me what level they were.

The first Papolstaanas retirement was extremely painful. I hated losing the experience--hated it. I felt I'd earned it, and I felt that the new Papolstaanas really was the same little dude who got dragged into the tavern by his mother so many moons ago, despite mechanical changes that were too severe to be legal as a free rebuild. The second retirement of Papolstaanas was kind of painful as well, despite the fact that he only lost wealth.

To me, there really is a difference between revamping a character and introducing someone entirely new--not just because of personal attachment, but because of the effect on the feel of the world. I don't much like the idea of brand new high-level people that nobody's ever heard of appearing out of nowhere, but I don't mind much if established people change a bit.

 

[Luinnar]

What if a character just lost a time month or two worth of xp? That would be the simplest way and less confusing than a % of xp.

 

[covaithe]

how about the penalty only taking a % of the excess exp that way you cant loose a level?
and what if DM credits can only be used on characters that has gained adventure XP, that way if a person retires a character he cant use his DM creds until after he has gained some xp?

Loophole for DMs still exists; you spend the DM points on the character before retiring them to bump them up across a level threshold, then the penalty doesn't apply. If the goal is to avoid DM point abuse (and I recognize that not everyone may share this goal with me), I don't think this suggestion is helpful.

What if a character just lost a time month or two worth of xp? That would be the simplest way and less confusing than a % of xp.

A month of time XP is 1/6 of a level, or 16.7%. Two months would be 33%. I certainly don't mind if the penalty is worded in terms of months of time XP rather than a percentage, if people think that's easier to grok. The effect is the same.

 

[FourMonos]

Loophole for DMs still exists; you spend the DM points on the character before retiring them to bump them up across a level threshold, then the penalty doesn't apply. If the goal is to avoid DM point abuse

Only recently stepping into the DM scene, I personally don't want to penalize the people (who came before) who have put forth the effort and time to make this a fun experience for everyone. I can't recall any abuse of the game as we have discussed in hypotheticals.

 

[covaithe]

Sorry, I don't mean to imply that DMs are trying to cheat or anything; I'm not aware of anything like that happening. I just don't think it's fair that DMs get to effectively avoid -- or minimize -- the retirement penalty under the current system by making sure their characters are just past a level threshold before retiring them. I'm not trying to imply that anyone who has done so in the the past -- a list which includes me -- was doing anything malicious or underhanded. I just don't think it's a fair situation.

 

[CrimsonFlameWielder]

Why is it unfair? Is not everyone who plays here welcome to be a DM?

 

[Nebten]

I don't see it as DM abuse. I see it as a DM reward. That is why DM points were put in place. The more you DM, the more leeway you should have. Afterall you are creating the worlds in which we play in.

 

[covaithe]

Time for some ancient history, I guess. I've pretty much been against DM points since well before L4W started. It's entirely possible that I'm the only person here who feels this way; certainly I'm in a small minority. That's why I always seem to lose these debates whenever they happen from time to time.

The vast majority of L4W seems to agree that DMs deserve a reward for their hard work; that's why we have DM points. I don't really disagree that DMs are deserving, I just don't think that the rewards serve any useful purpose to our community. I think that DMs do what they do for the fun of it, not for in-game rewards. I honestly don't think theres *any* in-game reward that you could give me that would convince me to run a game if I didn't think it would be fun, and conversely, if I *am* having fun, you're not going to get me to stop by removing the in-game rewards.

I think that DM points have a downside; they divide the community and create a class of privileged players. There are things DMs can do that other users can't, such as advance really fast when it's convenient for them. I think we once calculated that renau1g could have made a level 1 character and advanced him all the way to paragon just using DM points. Not that he ever did that; but... There have been situations where there was, say, a level 5 adventure recruiting, and two level 3 characters in the tavern. One of them says they will spend DM points to advance to 5 if they can come on the adventure, and surprise, the DM picks their character instead of the other one.

The community has made it pretty clear on many occasions that we're happy to give DM points as a reward for the indispensable things that DMs do. I've long since made my peace with that; heck, I've earned and used DM points myself. Still, I'd prefer to minimize the extent to which DMs are more privileged than normal players.

To get back to the subject at hand: if we as a community are saying that there should be a mechanical penalty for retiring, that it should hurt a little, then I think it should hurt for DMs too, not just for "normal" players. I don't think we should leave in a loophole that lets DMs avoid the sting.

But that's just my opinion. As I've said, I'm usually in the minority when it comes to anything having to do with DM points.