Lunar Loot

I agree that loots requres *significant* balancing. I would simply ban the use of many of the items from my game as theyre just game breakingly stupid. i.e.

resist or die swords
99% MR armour

Terry

Helpful feedback on Lunar Games items would be good Terry. What do you think, and why do you think it, and what are the problems you see?

--Jono Bean 12:43, 25 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Perhaps it would be helpful to put the text of the write ups up on the wiki in one or many pages. Then they could be annotated.

I've just had a look through them and I think the majority of them are way off the scale. Permanent RK 20 Str of Stones or Waters of Str!!??!?!?! They belittle the xp/time investment in these spells that characters have to put into them.

Also there seems to be rather a lot of items. A share of these are more items than all my characters have put together. I dont know if the DQ norms have changed significantly since I've been gone. What ever happened to the loot guidelines? There is more than than a years worth of high level adventuring. 93 pages?!?!?!

That's my opinion.

--Dan 08:06, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

The number of items given out on certain games has leapt up in recent years (since Autumn 805) in what has been stated "a desire to give out items to balance the other GM's who give out vastly fewer (and less potent) or no items on games" . I suppose it gives those 'younger' and less played PC's of say around half a dozen years or so experience (and a bucket load of items) the ability to beat /surpass 'older' PC's who have accumulated stuff over 20 or so years and developed their PC's towards the high end of gaming.

--Chris 08:35, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

It is difficult to compare "norms". Yes, from a single adventure you can acquire the same amount of "cool" stuff than you used to be able to get from about 5 years of play at medium to high level (perhaps even more if you are lucky). Typically, it will take about 3 Jono adventures to equal the loot from Saydar's 30 odd adventures. This is a deliberate decision. Jono has been making a deliberate effort to increase the amount and level of loot. Around 10 pages of loot per character is the norm on his games today. Compared with recent loot given out, this list is not exceptional :)

I can't speak for Jono, and can't explain why this decision was made. However, keep in mind the big picture. DQ is currently a game where items define what your character can do rather than exp (in fact, exp is a minor part of the equation). Having the "right" items changes your character completely and gives you the opportunity to contribute far beyond other characters that have *vastly* more play time. I have no problem with this, as long as people sign-post their games. If someone wants to play a tough character, then what difference does it make... they just get to play in higher level games. This is a hobby that people play for fun, and if someone prefers to play in high-level games, then why should we stop them? Getting a lot of tough items and abilities is the fastest and most effective way to make this move. It is *great* that there are games which fill this role. I know that I can start a brand new character and within a year I can play on "high-level" games --- cool.

(In fact, we should just let people generate high-level characters with 500,000 exp if they want... who cares, as long as they have fun doing so - either they like the character and continue to play it and have fun, or they decide they don't want to play that way and stop. It is all about allowing people to play the kind of game that they want to play.)

I would suggest though that such games are advertised as "This game will make you significantly tougher, and if you want to advance rapidly to the high-end adventures, then this is for you". Then everyone will be happy. Problems arise when these "tough" characters go on adventures with companions of similar age who don't have the items. The characters without the items feel unable to contribute and worthless. I have seen this happen and it is a little unfortunate.

As far as this list goes, I don't really care how tough the items are... and some are pretty tough. Personally, I don't like the items that are "save or die" since they are a binary effect. It is not *interesting*, and the big bad guys in the *big* encounters *have* to save otherwise it is an anticlimax and the game will suffer. If the items are designed to wipe out large numbers of weaker minions quickly, then rewrite so that the intention is clear. Otherwise, they remain items that cause tension between what the player will expect and what the GM decides will have to happen to maintain an interesting game.

Andrew 09:10, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

The difference between PC's which have these super items and 'have not' may cause issue when the diferent types of PC go on the same game.

Its hard to compete when you're a solid (medium/high rated) fighter who can take an opponent down in 3 or 4 pulses using your tried and true fighting technique (warrior), your solid 10pt plate armour and H & Half sword vs a new (low/medium) fighter with a whoopy sword item that does massive armour ignoring save or die damage each pulse.

As Andrew has said it doesn't really matter as obviously there are games for those sort of PC's and I agree we should be able to create an superhero extreme level PC with X amount of Exp to play on those games.

--Chris 09:27, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Sadly, the last encounter at the Winter Games was a classic example of what these items do to the game. The Senators, from my perspective, were basically unbeatable. My perspective is from the point of view of Sabrina, an 18 year, 900K Ep character with some unquestionably good items and abilities, but unfortunately nothing would have helped. Consider what happened. I entered the arena and lost all magic on myself, including greater (no resist). I tried a trigger, but was in a permanent disjunction. Counterspells (needed for the resist or wither magics when hitting or hit by the senators) fell off after 2-3 seconds. Given no other choice, I charged in, only to find myself at +75 on ALL dice throws (no resist). If you think that is bad, it got worse!! It became +100 for the next 3 pulses. I could not even withdraw, as a 5xAG check to walk was impossible, and I fell down (yes, I was made to make a 5xAG to walk, fun eh?). A dead Senator then fell on me. I could not roll away, as even dead, it exerted +100 on my rolls, and even dead, the act of falling on me gave me harrowing nightmares (no resist). In case you are wondering, I was going to try hitting at range, but Jono had said I was unaffected by the die roll modifiers. Once I had charged in, William informed me this was not true. Meanwhile, the unbeatable were being beaten. Mebh was practicing her skills at 'Uber Item Use 101'. Being a virgin, she did not have any dice modifiers, so 4 uses of numbers off the Frozen Luck table later, 2 of the Senators were dead from Spec Grevs (Kudos to Julia for doing this by the way, no dig at her intended by this). Toledo, with a pure heart of gold and Glacius was doing D+40 to another Senator, backed up by the double damage, ignore armour (Tetramagon thingy) Drum who was getting around his mere +75 on the dice by rolling 24, 23, 22 from his Frozen Luck.

I have not felt more powerless or frustrated in a DQ game. Was there roleplaying or use of skill involved, no. Did we have any chance without the Uber Items available, no. What scares me is that these items will continue to be out there. If they can beat the unbeatable, then feel sorry for the next major deity level bad guys to face these adventurers, as without a LOT of GM fudging, the tension of a true fight is completely overwhelmed by uber items. The GM is therefore either forced to make monsters of the ridiculous level as above, or to turn away items (and maybe people). As in the case above, if one or more of the party do NOT have the uber items, and the GM has gone down the Uber monster track, then people will feel as powerless as I did. Of our entire party (Sabrina, Aryan, Nicola and Tehe), Tehe and Nicola went down in the first pulse, Aryan got to heal someone, and my story is above. This is the disparity caused.

I understand that people want to play high level games as fast as possible, I understand (though do not condone) that Jono has taken it upon himself to balance a perceived inequality in item handing out. What I do not like is the direction some of these items are taking the game. They are also 'defining' the game, when it should be skills and roleplaying that do this. It is coming to the point where there is almost a defined split between GM's that run these games and give out the items, along with players who play in these games, vs GM's and players who do not. For the reasons above, these two sides cannot co-exist easily. This dichotomy needs to be addressed soon for the health of the DQ Guild.

--Dean 12:05, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

The way the combat turned out was a deliberate choice of the GM. It was expected that it would work out this way. It is a way of allowing certain characters to have their moment in the sun, otherwise it would always be Sabrina who was the shining star, since she is much tougher than the other characters (i.e. no fun for the second string fighters). This way, Sabrina is knobbled and someone else gets to step in and save the day. The choice of abilities (and the contraints applied to those abilities) was designed to cripple some players and allow others to shine. Blame or praise the GM for this, not really the items (although without the items it clearly would have taken longer, but one presumes the encounter would have been rebalanced to achieve the same result in a different way without the items).

Items/special abilities have *always* been the defining thing in DQ, and have *always* made the difference between what characters can contribute to the game. This is not a new phenomenon, it is just happening more rapidly than it used to (case in point, how much of what Sabrina does is due to exp and time applied to stuff out of the rulebook, and how much are abilities and items?). I know for sure that most of the stuff that Saydar does in combat is due to modifications/abilities/items that are not part of the standard rules.... and that has *always* been the case. Characters that play by the rules have always been very weak.

I suspect that everything will continue the way it is now, and it will not be a major source of problems. There will be characters with vastly different levels of ability on the same game. Some people will feel overwhelmed by other characters and will struggle to contribute. Really, this is no different to the way it has always been :) The only difference now is that the superiority of the older characters is being challenged by new upstarts. Fine with me.

A GM that feels differently and wants to "even out" a party or return a character to a lower level of power has many options to do it :)

Andrew 12:59, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Hi Andrew,

I get your points, and in most cases I agree with you. There is no question Sabrina is tougher because of items and abilities I have accrued over time. I can also fully understand being 'knobbled' to lower my impact on game, especially one where the GM has chosen to involve lower level characters and is trying to level the playing field. To have the inanity of +100 on my dice is patently ridiculous. It reduces my involvement to zero, as I cannot even roll a dice to achieve anything. For the same reason it reduces my enjoyment to negatives, hence my frustration. Meanwhile, the outcome would not have changed either way, whether I was involved or not. Mebh would still have done what she did, winning the games for herself in the process. I certainly voted for her. The sad fact is that a first adventure virgin with enough ranks in an A class sword to hit a 50 defence Senator could have done the same thing. There are abilities and items that 'add' to a character, and such things outside of the rules have always existed, and will always exist, I agree. However, there is a new level of items and abilities coming into play which 'become' the character. Give the Sword of Ascron to a 2 adventure character with 4 ranks in Hand and a Half, and they become a monster, whose sole actions will be to try and tap the bad guys with his boom stick. I think such items should not even exist in high level characters hands, and more and more of them seem to be appearing.

--Dean 14:15, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Guys the sword of Ascron is a short sword. consquently it's base chance is low even in the hands of a Warrior.

--Mebh 19:12, 30 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Hi, I just wanted to say to you all that players have a choice. Nikola didn't take the item that she was given because it didn't fit with her character (she was given the ruby lips item). She wouldn't wear anything that makes your lips red, especially at night. As a player you can decide not to take magic items that you are given. Also during treasure splits you often pass by items that would be extremely cool in terms of pumping up your character, but is something that just wouldn't fit with your character.

What would really make it fun was if players could make their own magic items, then we could write up something that would enhance our roleplaying :)

We knew that the Lunar Empire does not like pacted people of any description. We knew that although you could bring pacted characters, they would find it more difficult and they did. Pacted characters would not normally be allowed to set foot in the Lunar Empire.

Part of the trials we were put through was that we had to fight in various senerios. We knew that we were all going to be stripped of our buffs in the final fight as the GMs asked us to create 2 character sheets, one buffed and one without buffs.

William, Jon and Jono worked really hard to make a very interesting game for us. It was alot of fun for us and quite hard work for them. I liked the part where the cards got flipped and you got points for different types of attacks.

As a player sometimes it is relaxing to go on a Jono game where you get to beat things up alot and sometimes it is alot of fun to go on the deap thinking kind of games.

Bridget

In a game with the longevity of DQ I think it is alright to have some characters which are significalty tougher than others. After all some people do have characters with 20 years experience. I find myself incredulous whenever I think or say that, but it is true.

The very idea that you should be able to fast track people to play in high level games by twinking them is stupid. Why does it need to be that way? Is that so some new character can play with people they want to play with? How about go the other way, encourage older players to start new characters. That was the way it used to work ten years ago, people had characters at multiple levels so they could do that.

Most of these items seem to be pure power items. I would agree with Andrews comment that that is where they seem to be aimed. And trying to make up for other GMs handing out fewer items is also silly, it simplifies the ecosystem. What it means is then people who go on Jono, et al's adventures get lots of items... and keep going on them. Then they can only go on them. You get some sort of item oligarchy come in.

IMHO I feel that this would split the game. Years ago people put the time in to balance stuff and keep the reward level down. That way people as well as characters can feel a motivation to continue adventuring.

Plus, 93 pages of items!! I find it hard enough to think up and write one, let alone 100 times that! Dont you guys have jobs, families and lives :)

--Dan 08:21, 29 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Dan in regard to number of items - yes the document has 93 pages. It was a large event with 15 players in the games, and some support characters (3 to 5 players?). Some of the items are items that have a use by date, some are items that players do not have the option of taking (Items that will stay with the Lunar Games), and some are minor. The level of the game (Extreme). I think (and only a gut feeling) that some of the characters used up more stuff than they are getting (FYI), so as far as the balance of number of items goes more are leaving DQ than are coming into DQ.

I guess the best and most important thing is that people - both GMs and Players had a very enjoyable time on the games and it was seen/enjoyed as reasonable and yet very hard game within the context of the Lunar Games.

Thank you for your comments.

--Jono Bean 10:35, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

In response to a couple of comments above... The level for this mission was never 'Extreme'. I signed up for the Lunar Games, a combat based bit of frivolity. We have 15 people involved, 6 of which are med or lower, so I am sure they did not sign up for Extreme. I enjoyed the opening combats, other than the contrived events which we had no control over. The Fantastical games became more contrived, to the point were I felt uninvolved in the storyline any further, I was merely a pawn in the 'story'. The fact that the final fight was so ridiculous, was only won due to item use, and that you felt the need to make the obnoxious comment to the fact that 'I expected you all to die permanently', made the game distinctly NOT enjoyable.

--Dean 12:40, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

I was not on the game, but I *seriously* doubt that more items are leaving DQ than entering. I *seriously* doubt that players are leaving this game weaker than they came in. I have no problem with the loot, but there is no point trying to disguise the raw amount of power that is being introduced.

Andrew 13:06, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Hi Dean,

" obnoxious comment to the fact that 'I expected you all to die permanently', made the game distinctly NOT enjoyable."

I am sorry if you felt my comments was obnoxious. I was saying at the time that I felt looking at the first pulse when half the characters had fallen, that I fully expected you to all die. None of you died. I am disappointed that you felt uninvolved in the storyline or game. I found it noticeable more difficult to run the game/storyline given that we had to work with two other groups.

The fact that you as Sabrina did not find the game extreme is a surprise to me. Other players did find it Extreme. It was clearly intended as such. I am sorry you did not enjoy yourself as much as the other players/characters.

--Jono Bean 13:01, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Hi Jono,

I am sorry if you misunderstood. I was saying that I did not sign up for an Extreme game. Nor I think did most of the characters. The fight against the Kraken was nearly impossible, the fight against the Senators was impossible (purely from my, and my parties, perspective), so clearly it was very Extreme once in the games. I do not think anyone realised that losing the last fight would have meant permanent loss of characters. I certainly was still in the 'Arena' mentality, where death is on the line, but not to that level.

--Dean 1:13, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

But the upshot is clear, you did not have a good time or enjoy the game, and for that I am disappointed and sorry.

--Jono Bean 13:31, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

For anyone that thinks you should be able to play in high end games immediately you're playing the wrong game. Go play a game like Champions where you get to be a super hero from the start. Otherwise, what's the point in having experience costs? Just give every new person max rank in everything and go and bother those gods.

Items have always been major part of characters but they should be balanced with the level of the recipient. There are some pretty insane items in that loot list but if they were given out to top end characters then that'd be more reasonable. (apart from a couple which would still be insane)

All I can say is if this is how DQ is going in NZ then I'm glad I'm playing it on the other side of the planet in safety.

--adamtennant

As indicated there are still two sides to the coin, not everyone is handing out a torrent of items and rushing people into the extreme category. You will still be able to play should you return :-)

Mandos 08:39, 29 Aug 2006 (NZST)

That is some unbelievable amount of loot; both quantity and quality!

Personally i think characters should be defined mostly by their college with odd and unique items or abilities fleshing them out to be unique from every other adept of the same college. Blitkrieg and Sabrina are the toughest characters i've been out with, and they are still (generally) specialised in a few areas, and have weaknesses. Vast loot and abilities, but earned over a period of time. As a player i would feel a little confused if an item mimiced my abilities i had spent years accumulating and their game time was far less. So yes, you could say items define ones character, but there should be a recognisable adept underneath it - not (effectively) a multicollege uber-fighter/blast/utility character with an answer to every situation.

I have always considered that characters should have strengths and weaknesses and should not be able to do everything themselves, otherwise it invalidates the need for a party (except increased firepower). So the point about getting permanant items which another college would normally have to spend quite a bit of time and xp should be rare. For example rings which make you immune to hypothermia, a seemingly minor normal environmental effect, yet an Air or Ice mage has to rank Resist Cold to 11, which is not small amount of time and xp. An item like that would normally be rare as it would be a Shaped item requiring some skill to make. When you go up to rank 20 strength of stones, which effect many more base rules in DQ they should be more rare as that is normally the realm of great focus for an Earth mage to attain. If the level of power of the adventure is such that a character in the group would not normally have the base spell at that rank then the items should never be given out to invalidate needing such an adept. Save or die spells were toned down in the Colleges to reduce their binary effects, so items adding that effect back in should be very rare, limited use and have downsides. Free xp, time or ranks i thought were discouraged, but maybe allowing new characters to be given 100,000 or 500,000xp to allow people that want to jump straight into that level of gaming should be an option; especially if they already have a character of that level?

This comes down to where players and GMs see the game, and maybe some decision is needed as to the vision of DQs future if low levels characters are getting (in what IMO are) Extreme level items. Isnt the GMs meetings there to fix the world and keep things reasonbly balanced no matter what game you go on? If an upping of power is deemed the way to play then GMs that give out too little should be encouraged and advised as to how to hand out more, but those handing out too many or too powerful should still be reigned in. If two camps deemed best, then dont allow cross-over characters and/or items.

Zane Hembest

Zane there is no and has never been any way for GM's to regulate their own. The only way for this to occur is for the GM's to vote and give some type of 'regulatory power' to a group of nominated GM's who can effectively 'police' the game. I am sure none of the GM's will allow someone to tell them "you aren't allowed to give that item out", "that's too much Exp for that PC on your game" or any other such thing. The only thing that makes most GM's play within accepted norms is personal sense of 'DQ correctness' and when it comes to the end time of the game some GM's send writeups and Exp to other trusted GM's to assess appropriateness.

When personal prohibitions against destroying a game that has gone on for so long fail then there is no recourse but for GMs to either refuse entry to their Games to certain PC's (unless they agree to leave certain items 'at home') or for players to choose to go on certain games run by like minded GM's who don't mind all the items and build a game to cater for them.. As Mandos has said some people play on some games and some don't.

Anyway DQ has evolved a lot over the last 25 years and has had bumpy rides before. It's hard working in a multi GM environment (with all the rules imposed on GM conduct ;) but its the world we have. We have a lot of GM's with a wide range of games played under their belts in a number of game systems and some styles are different to others and then we have teh influence of other games such as online MMORPG games. We all play to enjoy the game and often the social aspect of the game more than anything else. We may vastly disagree with a GM's actions or opinions but still like them as a person and that's life and being grownups.

-- User:Chris

Picking up on appropriate level items for characters...

A High level item in the hands of a low level character is not doing them any favours. That character no longer fits on low level adventures because their item unbalances the party, and they don't fit on medium or high adventures because they don't have the skills and abilities to contribute - sure your sword can come but you should stay with the pack horses.

Some of the items given out that are based on ranks in skills or spells, or enhance existing abilities are great because they don't overpower a low level but they will grow with the character as they work on their skills/spells. The more absolute items and effects are the ones that unbalance low characters.

This adventure included a wide range of character levels and a lot of effort was put in to allow the low levels to contribute as much or more than the highs. And there are a range of level of items given out too. But the way loot splitting in DQ works it is almost pure luck as to who ends up with what. In a game like this it is almost inevitable that some characters will end up with items inappropriate for their level.

In hind sight (always easier) I would suggest that the general loot was kept to low level or level related items. But that each character was given a personalised 'gift' from the emperor that could be appropriate to the character and adventure.

Stephen 08:41, 29 Aug 2006 (NZST)

I knew the Lunar Games was going to be tough but I signed up my PC (Basalic) cause I figured it would be good experience and an oppotunity to learn stuff from the other Guild PCs. Sure it was tough, but once we got our team more co-ordinated and worked together .. it went better .. and that's what I think DQ is all about .. teamwork between a group of individuals with differing abilities. As far as items go .. they should complement a character's abilities (I agree with much with what Zane said). Basalic is item poor compared to some, one reason cause I'm a bit picky about stuff. But yeah ... it's all about teamwork. Just my two cents worth.

--Keith

I had mixed feelings. Some sessions of the Lunar Games I enjoyed immensely... others I found disappointing - I felt for the low level PCs who were getting killed - sometimes repeatedly. One of the problems of a mixed level game like this is that the lower level PCs are very vulnerable, and yet in order to challenge higher level PCs it HAS to be tough.

I concur that the loot list is enormous... but realistically there isn't a lot of stuff in there that as Starflower I have much use for. Certainly the chokers everyone has ARE very useful, but not in a game-breaking way. And there's a lot of weapons in there, and one can only only use one weapon and a shield or at the most two weapons at the same time after all. There's also a large number of limited use items. Yes, it's a LOT of loot, but it's for fifteen players. My main concern is the valuing of items as "Quest" which makes it difficult to estimate the total loot value. Without that, one can't really tell if the list really is excessive or not.

--Jacqui

A number of people have commented that the lot is to be split between 15 people.....

81 individual items, several of which have multiple copies. Almost 6 unique items per player. Half that would be considered a damn good haul.

It wasn't until I had gone through the items to add values that I realised just how ludicrous this loot is.

Mandos 16:13, 29 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Andrew V Mandos

Adding header and moving convo just so I can find the damn conversation ;-)

I disgree Andrew, for a significant portion of the Guild items are not the defining thing and never have been.

Roleplaying, characterisation and a sence of history are the things I think define games, items until recently have generally played second fiddle to Roleplaying and the standard abilities of characters.

These things define games, but not the contribution of characters to combat (and often not to what happens between combat). At low levels, most characters are bulk-standard out of the rulebook, but this changes a lot as characters advance to the higher levels. Dramus is a medium-level character (because you have chosen to keep him that way), but even so, how much of what you do in combat situations is bulk standard *unmodified* from the rulebook?

About 75% standard. My college is virtually unchanged with the exception of Necrosis which was depowered and agony being used as a single target spell. Normal combat spells being Spectoral Warrior, Spectral Weapon and Wall of Bones :-)

In the case of high-level characters like Vychan, the items/abilities etc. are what makes him a high-level character... without them, characters can't move beyond medium. Roleplaying defines the character, but items/writeups are what we rely on to contribute in the higher level games (and this has been the case for at least 10 years, at least for the games I have played in). Andrew 08:27, 30 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Just as a question how many different GM's have you played with in the past few years?

I didn't play for about 5 years and have only been playing again for about a year. Since I returned to playing DQ, I played in games run by Noel, Callum, Jon Mc, Julia Mc and Jason. However, my comments apply mostly to my experience before I took a break, which is the period from say 95 - 00 in which I played with a range of other GMs. Andrew 09:51, 30 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Dean's point stands, we have two distinct groups within DQ, the question is whether we need to fix things so that these groups can co-exist.

Being a GM on the opposite end of the spectrum it is a simple case as a GM to not take any of the characters I consider broken on my games, (given that these characters are mostly members of the Jono fan club makes it easier as they are unlikely to want to play on my games), thus the impact is minimal. But I think for those GM's between the extremes there are significant issues presented by both sides of this issue.

If you run a low-level game, then you will get low-level characters. If you run a medium-level game then medium characters. A character that has a "Sword of Doom and Destruction" with 200% SC, always does END hits for D+20 damage will (by virtue of the sword) be a high-level character and will not play in your games. If they sign up for a medium level game, then one can only presume that the items will be of medium level and not unbalance anything. Andrew 08:27, 30 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Pretending the problem doesn't exist won't help to minimise the problems people encounter. Different people like different games and both styles have their place in the game but there should be respect on both sides of the fence.

Mandos 14:27, 28 Aug 2006 (NZST)

I suspect if you are willing to drastically increase the amount of loot that you give out in your games... perhaps agree to guidelines that set the *minimum* loot given out, then perhaps Jono will be willing to agree to a *maximum* :) Respect goes both ways here, and there are people who believe that giving out too little loot is as damaging to the game as too much. That is not a discussion I want to be involved in, since it is not something that interests me greatly.

How much should I give out? In general I hand out 1-3 items/abilities per player per game? Should this go to 4 5 6 or 20? This has been a standard since I started playing DQ and has never been a huge problem for either GM's or players. Is it suddenly not enough?

I am not actually suggesting that we have a *minimum* loot amount, and I don't want you to change what you think is reasonable. This was however, the counter to people suggesting that Jono change his approach :) Andrew 09:51, 30 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Jono appears to be combating a percieved issue rather than a real one.

Could be, although it might just be about play style. I have not played in any of Jono's games for about 15 years. However, his players seem (with the occasional exception) to enjoy his games and GMing style a great deal. I may not agree with particular decisions he makes, but I will defend his right to run the kind of game he wants to run, just as I will defend your right to do the same. Andrew 09:51, 30 Aug 2006 (NZST)

While I concour with the theory, in a multi-GM game there needs to be reasonable standards so that GM's don't ruin things for other GM's. If I was doing something that harmed the game I would hope that someone would let me know so that I could at least be aware of the issue. I think the amount of debate on this page shows that a large number of people are disturbed by the volumes of loot from the Lunar Games and are informing Jono that they believe this may harm the game in the long run. No one can change the style of game he wants to run, and as you say people are enjoying them which is fantastic, however Jono needs to be aware of two things. 1. People are concerned about the amount of loot he is giving out and the nature of those items. People have a right to let him know their concerns. He can accept or ignore those concerns as he sees fit, but people have a right to discuss what they see as an issue. 2. If he is realistically doing this to counter GM's who don't give out loot, thats a bloody silly reason. If players were not happy with people who apparently don't give out loot, then noone would play on their games, Jono thinks I don't give out enough but my games are booked out over a year in advance. Mandos 10:16, 30 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Speaking for myself and taking the conversation on a quick detour - I am signed up in advance on your adventures out of a desire for a period of consistent storyline and character-world interaction. Levels of loot and xp were not part of the decision. In ascending order of impact/importance to me:

Loot is the least important of the adventure rewards - new toys are always cool but you don't need them. NB Further to this, I'm a packrat, once I have a new toy I'm loathe to give it up even if I don't need it and rarely use it, it's still mine now and I wants it! Better not to have it than to have it and then lose it. :-)
Cash is next, sometimes you need it to pay for training, buy the next spell, and maintain appropriate character lifestyle. If you have enough for those then it's not important, if you don't and have a cash poor adventure at the wrong time then it's frustrating.
XP - I like a steady progression in skills and magic so that after each adventure my characters will be better at the things they are working on. Occasional high xp games help to push through expensive ranks and often leave left overs for rounding the character out a bit more. Low xp games slow development down, if I'm playing a character once or twice a year and have a couple of low xp games then it is easy for a character to feel stagnant. A year later they can do exactly the same as they did last year but with 6% higher base chances - a decent greater would have had more effect.
Enjoyment - Enjoying the game as it goes along, feeling good about it at the end, that is the most important reward. And that is influenced by the above 3, the GM, the other players, the story, the feeling of immersion in the world, the quality of wine that was consumed, ...

Detour ends. -- Stephen 11:36, 30 Aug 2006 (NZST)

I am, however, suggesting that we try not to dictate how other people choose to play and let people play the game that they want to play. As long as low-level characters go on low-level games, medium on medium and high on high then it shouldn't be a problem that we have to manage at all! Having tough items will make the characters tougher and they will have to play on higher level games. Players that don't want to push their characters into the higher levels can choose not to take items, or can give them away (I understand that there are many characters in the guild who are kept at lower levels than their age might suggest through this very mechanism). I can't see the problem here :) Andrew 08:27, 30 Aug 2006 (NZST)

---

I find that comment about the "jono fan club" very insulting as someone who played on all 3 games in Jono's lastest campaign, I am hoping that you haven't thought it through and that you didn't mean to insult me and jon and William and Bridget and Hamish and Craig and surfboard etc etc by insinuating that we are all bad roleplayers who only play for loot.

--Mebh 19:54, 30 Aug 2006 (NZST)

Interesting that you assume the term "Jono fan Club" to mean people who don't roleplay and only go for the items? I didn't, I intended it to be those players who play on a lot of Jono games. Jono happens to give out a lot of items, however he also runs excellent games from the reports I have had and the few sessions I have experienced personally and I presume in most cases this is the reason people go on his games. Mandos 07:48, 31 Aug 2006 (NZST)

---

I think Andrew's point about trying to solve perceived problems versus real ones. DQ is in interesting social experiment and a lesson in collaboration as much as it is a game. As Chris pointed out there are no real regulatory mechanisms to stop GMs running ragged, only social mechanisms. The fact that the game has gone of for 25 years without any major schisms or revolutions is a testament to the success of that.

There are two factors beign discussed here as I can see it. Speed of advancement, and therefore access to high level games. Also magic items as a way to twink characters, and thus speed this up.

When I started DQ advancement was slow. I think this is necessary for a game with any longevity, and it also provides a great motivational tool for players. You want to keep coming back for more just to get the one further step up. If advancement is given too easy then it is devalued and stops providing that incentive. A very good parallel can be seen int eh world of MMORPGs where leveling and amount of play are carefully watched. The game designers and researchers understand the imporance of this motivation and that if these things are achieved too easily plays leave. Strange but true, making things hard for people keeps them going. Easy advancement lowers the barrier to entry, but in the long run decreases loyalty and personal reward. Treat em mean, keep em keen.

I think on the item front that it is very easy to blame characters being high level on a few good items or funky special skills, but in the large part most of the high level people I've adventured with are there because of the sheer amount of XP they have, gained through a lot of play. There are a few looney things out there that make or break a character, but what makes a good high level character are the things like 150k spent on stats and pile of high level spells and skills.

There have been crazy items given out in the past and in some cases these have been taken off people, voluntarily given up or rewritten at a later date. I speak from personal experience :)

Characters/players with a burining desire to play at high level games should be left with that. That motivation is a more valuable item than save or die swords.

--Dan 20:06, 30 Aug 2006 (NZST)

I don't see the problem Mandos. I play on Jono games cause there Fast, scary, enable me to role play my characters and fun.

Jono has also given me some mad items. once character has a mace which is save 2x successfully or die. another character (giant) was given sword +20dmg +35sc +20iv can be weapon spelled ignores armour. The mace is unusable in any game, I have had Jono re-write the sword to remove the ignors armour and can be weapon spelled components - yep its still very nice, and yes my giant is high level but then he was MED+ on adventure 2 anyway.

We all play this game for fun. It is no fun in anybodys book to be indestructerable. PLAYERS SELF MONOTOR WHAT EVER YOU GIVE THEM.. and Andrew is right you can not take high level players on low games - it would be no fun.

The main use of items is character flavour I played for 5 years and had 1 character with one item which created character flavour (not a jono item). I found the pace of development very very slow. To be honset i was board some evenings on most games (an out of character explanation for some of GoK's problems). Thats only saying much about my personallity - but i would have stopped playing if not for jono type games (did stop for 6 mths). I even took GoK on high games when he was arguably not high because i wanted to speed development up a bit - even then it did not much at all.

Many powerful items jono have a 2 year time span. thats good cause you get to be tuff a particular way for 2 years then not. mostly they have bad down sides, my giant has armour which gets him disabled regualrly but its really tuff in other ways (who really needs more than 13MR)

Also I used to hord one use gold bricks (even one use items are few and far between on many GMs games). On one fight in the luna games (spider queen) my character used 6000sp worth of gold bricks, had i not done this we would probably all be dead - if one very really gets gold bricks one is stingy at using them (GoK had a few horeded for 4 years and failed to get a warrior master work because he did not think to use a gold brick - he was not in the habit).

If they are given out a bit more freely they add a lot of flavour to the game and actually get used. I would either be unwilling to use any gold bricks i might have on a game where I am unlikly to get at least 1 replacement/new thingy, or i would have to then go on a game where i would expect to build up a little stash again.

When I played on your high level game Mandos I did enjoy your GMing style imensely (a lot). You also skited about removing many more items from the game than you put in, you even had a thick pile of write-ups to prove it. I got one, 1 use, return to the guild when in danger item as loot. I'm not complaining - just pointing out that some one crating balance is not too much of a suprise.

Fianlly - IF some one gets a character which can not longer be played cause they are too powerfull presumably they roll up a new character or accidently loose some of their items?? If one player likes taking 20 years over their character development and another 5 years whats the problem? presumably players can work out what they enjoy - the gods should not be trying to work out what will make player keep playing - if one size did fit all we would have all of auckland in our guild.

Hamish

I think you might have missed my point Hamish :-)

I agree items belong in the game. I enjoy both writing and recieving items as you can probably tell from the long lists of items I have added to the Wiki. However the issue raised by lots of people on here is the volumes and value of the loot being handed out and the level of characters they are being handed out to.

For characters like Andrews who only plays on Extreme games, there is no problem with large volumes of items. Once the game gets to that kind of 'Superhero' level you need bucketloads of cool tough items because the game rules were never really designed to go to that level so items provide the ability to go there, which is great. However for other characters large volumes of items become a crutch that in my opinion stunts roleplaying and the games tend to take on a more technical, what can we use to make this happen style of game. Abilities that a character has raised through EP seem to provide the opposite driver.

The upshot is that I think too many items harm the game, and in the case we are discussing 10.5 items per player with an average value of ~150,000sp is too much and from the comments around the Wiki from a number of players, I am not the only one who is worried by it.

By the same token, removing items from players also promotes better roleplaying. Loss is an emotional response and emotion is something that helps define a character. There is no way I could possibly take more items off players that I hand out, but I do probably take more than other GM's.

The other problem I have with lots of items is that in order to be different from other items out there many GM's will make their items just a little bit tougher which promotes an inflation of both damage and the amounts of armour. 10 years ago I did a sword that was +15 against demons only and at the time thought it might be a bit too much, most weapons only doing +2 or +3 over normal. Now as you mention a character is carrying a D+20 sword around and lots of the items these days are in the +5 to +10 range. The greater the volume of items the greater the inflation, which in turn means that items become even more important as bad guys get tougher to provide challenges for those with the gear.

I think 1-4 items per player per game is reasonable with the occasional big haul, but 10-11 is too much unless the characters are at the 'superhero' level of game.

Mandos 08:32, 1 Sep 2006 (NZST)

Yes I agree about Inflation problems in a sense. I like your point about emotional involvement and i think GM's being tuff to create this is very good. however you have not really responded to my post Mandos.

Really I am suggesting a quite different set of ways of thinking about the game. We know DQ only works within certian limits, that it is a bit broken at the extream end. I think that players arnt only interested in becoming more powerful and that GM's don't need to worry so much about players stopping playing because of this.

I see the game more as a co-operative endevour between players and GM's. I often hear players and GM's discussing how an item or ability can be better balanced to create more flavor and not turn the player into a superhero. I am pointing out that players know that just becomming maddly powerful gets old quickly. Players who have played for a few years generally know what brings enjoyment for them from playing.

Maybe some people need to experience getting super-powerfull quickly once or twice to realise that it is not the main envent in our game and that it gets old. If these players don't get to experience this then they are likly to feel frustrated and not move past it to other enjoyment. (lets face it if people want to cheet in ranking or what ever they probably can)

The inflation thing is a secondary thing because we know that the game is broken over a certian level and that once players reach this level they need to retire or change tack. really i am suggesting (with Andrew I think) that so long as GM's and players are awear of ruffly what level the PC is and what the item will do to this level then there is no problem. It is up to the player to decide if they want a slow development or a quick one.

The thing is (and i think you agree with this though I have suggested you could be more generous) that with out GM's creating items and special (or wacky) abilities PC are undifferentiated except through the persona they develop for their character. 2 med level "warrior earth mages" are likly to be quite similer if they have no items or unusual abilities (and unlikly to get much higher than med too). Items differentiate PC's a lot and create many more hooks to hang role playing on. Take GoK he was a wear vampire, lay micholine with a holy elven sword. only the sword added much to his level but together these GM given things created a roleplaying manic. With out them he was a run of the mill shadow mage warrior, roleplayed in an idocyncratic manner.

regarding a d+15 sword against deamons being tuff. My giant with giant Axe started at d+10 and was D+13 after 4 or 5 adventures (rk5 weapons smith axe plus skills) and would have eventually maxed out at D+15 without any magic or GM involvement (probably 10 adventures). Thats D+23 with a rk20 weaponspell. so D+20 is nice for a high level giant its the +20IV that makes it really nice.

hamish 1 Sept 2006

I didn't respond to it because it makes perfect sence and there is no argument. At all. I refocusses on the issue that people are concerned about which you didn't.

Flat out the lunar games loot is over the top in terms of volume and value and the feeling amongst many GM's is that that level of loot and items is damaging to the game as a whole particularly for characters looking to play with a range of GM's.

Mandos 10:24, 1 Sep 2006 (NZST)

OK... I have attempted to put a point of view forward. I have attacked you a bit so i'm sorry about that.

I guess what i want to say is that if not for the GM's playing a heroic style of game i would not still be playing. I like other sorts of adventures too and have played with most of the GM's.

I have told Jono that he gives out a bit too much loot - but for the reasons stated I don't think its that big an issue. Perhaps we need some way to excluede players playing below their level??

hamish 10:41 1 sept 2006

I think we fundamentally agree, so all is well with the world.

I didn't feel attacked by the way :) Every time I get accused of being stingy I look through the directory of loot I have given out and worry more that my signature is on too much stuff :-) Mandos 11:24, 1 Sep 2006 (NZST)

I like that some players do say this item is to too much or whatever other words (kudos to them) but the fact is that a lot don't and just like the nice, powerful shiny things which is the crux of the discussion here.

I've played a number of games recently and gotten about 1 or 2 items an adventure (if that) but what I have gotten is the opportunity to rank skills, see different places and accumulate information my PC has been looking for. I get Exp from the game and I get to build more background and personality etc into my PC which is great.

The value of loot handed out in the Lunar Games contravenes the guidelines as set out in the GM guide, pure and simple.

A GM shouldn't be acting to counter the effects of other GM's as thats not an appropriate role for them. I'm sure a GM wouldn't like another GM to create an item which specifically destroys 'an item' or range of items they created just as a 'counter balance' as that would just be childish. Each GM operates in their own fashion and style. If PC's don't like what GM's do then don't go on those games.

The item or game 'exclusions' will be handled by GM's who book you onto their games, they can say whether or not you can attend (with reasons)and whether or not you can use X item or Y item etc. This way players can play on whichever games will take em with whatever items they have.

Chris 11:08am 1 Sep 2006 (NZST)

The standard way that characters are signed up to games at the moment is that you be one of the first 6 or 7 to reach the GM at the guild meeting. My experience of such things is that I try to identify the first 7 who are on as fast as possible so that the others have plenty of time to mob another GM. Player name & email/phone, character name, college and level, are the things that I get to take note of. If I stopped to do a full audit of their ranking and writeups before signing them up then we'd all be there till midnight.

Most of the time the players have a clue and know their true level, but some don't. Sometimes they want to go on the adventure anyway so fudge their level a bit, or they think that it won't be unbalancing that they have Rk20 Hellfire or a D+20 boom stick on a low-medium adventure because their perception is only 15 and all their other ranks are low.

The players have to be aware of what their characters level is and what impact they have on a game. By the time the GM finds out they are on the game and probably won't appreciate being asked to leave or having their favourite toy taken away from them.

Stephen 12:20, 1 Sep 2006 (NZST)

Tis one of the reasons I prefer Wiki sign-ups. It gives me plenty of time to vet the party prior to play. Mandos 12:37, 1 Sep 2006 (NZST)

Chris said:
"The value of loot handed out in the Lunar Games contravenes the guidelines as set out in the GM guide, pure and simple."
The items gained from the Lunar Winter Games do not contravene any guidelines.

--Jono Bean 16:34, 1 Sep 2006 (NZST)

Hi Mandos,

Mandos your posts have just been directly rude. I was hoping you would try to be more helpful and respect others. We have taken the time to add values, as some people pointed out the benefit of adding them. I do not agree with your views or ideas on the values you give to the items. Your numbers are best just flat out wrong, and at worst pointedly inflated aiming at creating division.

I was aiming at gaining assistance and feedback, you have clearly been aiming at offending people, being rude and divisive. If this was not your intention, then why are so many people taking offence at how you have chosen to write what you have said.

I do not intend this to be a rude post but a direct one. I do feel I have a clear point which is I wanted assistance and you have effectively 'high jacked' this to the point where it is almost worthless.

--Jono Bean 17:45, 1 Sep 2006 (NZST)

My apologies Jono I had not seen the revised list and was going off the original list of loot. I retract the comment.

As to being rude the only people to mention having taken offence are yourself and Julia, who misinterpreted a comment that was intended to be favourable to yourself.

As to the valuations I think you will find my valuations were often significantly lower than other guestimates by others who took the time to help you out with their recommended valuations, however I will simply assume that comment to be directed to all those who helped with suggested valuations rather than being a pointless personal attack.

Mandos 19:37, 1 Sep 2006 (NZST)

New item write-ups

Hi all,

Thanks to those that have put in lots of effort on these couple of pages. I have changed/re-writen some of the items from the LWG. I have removed some items and replaced them almost totaly. I have tried to make some of the items clearer and more understandable (such as the shields).

The new items pdf file can be found on the main page Winter Games.

Kind regards, --Jono Bean 15:42, 1 Sep 2006 (NZST)

Dean your comments about the last encounter of the Winter Games, are one sided, for the most part untrue, and rude to the other players and characters. I can only think that since you did not shine in the last encounter (which you could have but your actions prevented), you did not enjoy it. Your views are clearly from a players view, and did not take into account any of the better parts of what we where doing. As a fair review of the encounter I would have expected more and a better quality.

In short a your post is a waste of time, which is simple untrue and clearly not anything to do with the game we ran, and at best a personal attack on the game and GMing style that we used.

--Jono Bean 11:21, 20 Sep 2006 (NZST)

Jono, I feel one particually unfortunate aspect of the discussion on this page is the timing of your response to Chris. Chris, as part of a longer point, said "The value of loot handed out in the Lunar Games contravenes the guidelines as set out in the GM guide, pure and simple." at 11:08am 1 Sep 2006 (NZST). You added a link to the revised item list (in a new section at the bottom of this Talk page) at 15:42, 1 Sep 2006 (NZST). You extracted the sentence above from Chris's longer point, and responded with "The items gained from the Lunar Winter Games do not contravene any guidelines." at 16:34, 1 Sep 2006 (NZST).
This response, with no direct indication that you were (presumably) refering to the revised list, and no support for your statement (e.g. a link to your comments on the 'helpful feedback..' page would have been very useful), got strongly worded responses (perhaps too strongly) from a couple of people who didn't realise a revised list was out. It probably didn't help that you gave limited responses (one 'this is being re-written' and two 'I will check details with another GM' AFAICT) to feedback on specific items, and I don't think gave any indication that the LWG GMs were doing significant re-writes in response to the feedback.
I bring up these comments (since deleted by their authors as being obsolete) as they didn't help the tone of the page (although were understandable in context), and could have been avoided with better communication - especially remembering the various ways that the Wiki is a different method of sharing information than an e-mail list.
I think that this trap is an easy one to fall into, and something we all need to bear in mind.
--Errol 12:51, 20 Sep 2006 (NZST)

I apologise for the comments I made about Dean. For the most part they are a well stewed over, knee jerk reaction to someone publicly reviewing a game I was GMing at the time. Other's (including Dean) hi-jacked, the page to talk about "philosophical game balance" when I was directly seeking advice and assistance from others.

After putting in the large amount of effort to balance the game for multi-level (Low and Extreme level characters in the same group) I was totally gutted to find a review like Deans and Jacqui's. When a GM (like myself) fails at something new in a game, they see it fail, and normally know it has failed, but then have it taken apart in public and has been the most demoralising experience of DM. I did not invite a review but one happened anyway.

I retract my comments (dated: 11:21, 20 Sep 2006 (NZST)) about Dean's comments and I will leave it at that, other than I am gutted.

--Jono Bean 14:08, 25 Sep 2006 (NZST)

Talk:Winter Games

Lunar Loot

Andrew V Mandos

New item write-ups

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Tools