The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => Ask A Gamemaster => Topic started by: Rowana on September 02, 2013, 10:29:26 pm
-
Use this thread to discuss and ask about Layonara's rules and policies. For convenience: http://forums.layonara.com/layonara-server/225632-updated-world-policies-effective-23-april-2009-a.html
-
Well let me be first to say thank you for taking the time to revamp these policies.
Next I have one question about Graceful Pleas. Does this mean that a player can go back over old requests that were turned down for whatever reason and ask for them to be approved as a Graceful Plea? Of course knowing that there are only three such requests allowed per PC.
-
Well let me be first to say thank you for taking the time to revamp these policies.
Next I have one question about Graceful Pleas. Does this mean that a player can go back over old requests that were turned down for whatever reason and ask for them to be approved as a Graceful Plea? Of course knowing that there are only three such requests allowed per PC.
Yes sir.
-
Does this mean we could ask to get a SS back, even if standard policy would not allow it, at the cost of a GP?
-
Aasimars and teiflings are no longer playable races period? (as in, they are not in the same perdicament as Half-critters?)
-
Does this mean we could ask to get a SS back, even if standard policy would not allow it, at the cost of a GP?
Yes.
Aasimars and teiflings are no longer playable races period? (as in, they are not in the same perdicament as Half-critters?)
They are no longer submittable. People with Aasimar and Tiefling characters may continue to play them.
-
Does this mean we could ask to get a SS back, even if standard policy would not allow it, at the cost of a GP?
Yes, most legitimate excuses that before could not be corroborated and thus had to be denied can now have a plea used to have the strand returned. It could be that your power went out or your 3 year old stole your mouse or you had to run to the door...All acceptable usages of pleas to have strands returned. But for example "I want my strand back because I shouldn't have challenged that dragon." would not be an acceptable plea.
-
When will we be able to use the 3 dt free (with pleas of course)?
-
Whenever you like, really. These changes are effective immediately.
-
Pleas vs creation alignment:
Can one be used to reverse a decision about alignment that was denied at creation?
-
I hope I did those right :) thanks guys!
-
Pleas vs creation alignment:
Can one be used to reverse a decision about alignment that was denied at creation?
The approval process of characters remains ultimately in the hands of the CA staff. Graceful pleas cannot be used to override their decisions regarding what is approvable or not. You will notice that the Graceful Pleas are only usable in the grievance forum, and that should be a fairly good indicator of what they can be used on and what they cannot.
~row
-
Ah hadn't seen that part, thank row.
-
Yes, most legitimate excuses that before could not be corroborated and thus had to be denied can now have a plea used to have the strand returned. It could be that your power went out or your 3 year old stole your mouse or you had to run to the door...All acceptable usages of pleas to have strands returned. But for example "I want my strand back because I shouldn't have challenged that dragon." would not be an acceptable plea.
So asking for the SS back Tyra lost because she was dazed last night doesn't count? *grins and hides*
-
Would like to ask. Can you plea for a wizard to become a specialist when they are a generalist.
Only grievance would be that when the character was made the player was too unfamiliar with the speciality restrictions with Layo and didn't want to hamstring the character before it even got going. So user ignorance/fear was the only things that prevented it from happening. Said character to my knowledge has not cast one spell from the school that would be prohibited in 8ish levels and the speciality school of choice would fit his character.
On a related question. Can a CDQ be taken for the same effects. Can a character have a CDQ run to demonstrate their pursuit, focus and dedication now forming for one school at the exclusion of its oppostie? I asked one or two DM's they had opinions but did nto feel comfortable with a final answer. And said I should ask on the boards. So I figured might as well tie both these up in one post.
Thank you kindly,
~D
-
wait where is the link to this nice thing
and does that mean i can revive my feral?
-
hmmm after reading it looks very nice and all, but drogo didnt have fancy things to pay for favors, what do you do then
?
the only thing he had special was from the keeper and hed rather be dead then give those up
-
Read closer. :)
The player will be given a choice between one of the following:[LIST=1]
- The character may sacrifice one or more magic or enchanted items with a combined lens value of at least 100,000 True, and sacrifice XP equivalent to 2 character levels (with resulting loss of character levels). This reduction will put the character at the same relative place between levels, based on the XP difference between levels (http://forums.layonara.com/../redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Flore.layonara.com%2FExperienceTable). For example, if the character is half way between level 22 and 23 when this option is exercised, the character will be half way between levels 20 and 21 after the reduction is made. The item(s) sacrificed in this option must be on the PC at the time of death.
- The character may sacrifice XP equivalent to 5 character levels (with resulting loss of character levels). This reduction will put the character at the same relative place between levels, based on the XP difference between levels (http://forums.layonara.com/../redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Flore.layonara.com%2FExperienceTable). For example, if the character is half way between level 22 and 23 when this option is exercised, the character will be half way between levels 17 and 18 after the reduction is made.
-
ahh ok
well i went to check drogo anyhow and now hes been wiped from lore to even think about it
so no matter but thanks dorg
-
First off I would like to say thanks for the changes. The one question I have is about the last soul strand returned that requires 2 levels of exp and 100,000 true in items from your person. The value of the items will be determined how? The reason I ask is that Layo prices are different then the NWN prices you get from the lens.
-
Read closer. :)
The player will be given a choice between one of the following:[LIST=1]
- The character may sacrifice one or more magic or enchanted items with a combined lens value of at least 100,000 True, and sacrifice XP equivalent to 2 character levels (with resulting loss of character levels). This reduction will put the character at the same relative place between levels, based on the XP difference between levels (http://forums.layonara.com/../redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Flore.layonara.com%2FExperienceTable). For example, if the character is half way between level 22 and 23 when this option is exercised, the character will be half way between levels 20 and 21 after the reduction is made. The item(s) sacrificed in this option must be on the PC at the time of death.
[/COLOR][/LIST](emphasis added)
-
woohoo ok i read and then i had to check and with droppin two level had to change some armor and then has true value
now just to figure out how to write it
-
Shadowdancer is missing from the list of PrC requirements in the new policy information.
-
Shadowdancer is missing from the list of PrC requirements in the new policy information.
So it was! Oversight corrected.
~row
-
ahh ok
well i went to check drogo anyhow and now hes been wiped from lore to even think about it
so no matter but thanks dorg
[LORE]Drogo[/LORE]?
-
Will the Purple Dragon of Cormyr PRC be open for submission now? Renamed something like Knight of the Land.
If the Purple Dragon of Cormyr is allowed will paladins be able to freely multiclass with it?
-
I was thinking about that Prestige class myself. And I think that finally the knights of the Wyrm of Rofirein could get a "class" per se.
Just my two cents..
They already are Knights of a Dragon, just switch the purple for golden and there you go.
-
i think i could see a knight right off the bat with this PrC when Erilyn was restored
-
Will the Purple Dragon of Cormyr PRC be open for submission now? Renamed something like Knight of the Land.
If the Purple Dragon of Cormyr is allowed will paladins be able to freely multiclass with it?
Well if for reason they do, I really hope they modify the PrC some... It's a bit lacking in skills (Heal as crossclass? WTH?)... Could use a little more umph, and they might need to axe some of the Pre-Reqs for the Class itself...
-
i think i could see a knight right off the bat with this PrC when Erilyn was restored
While it sounds attractive, a Knight of Erilyn still would remain something as a WL achievement I think as the lore would not fit for King Briant to be knighting adventurers to be off killing things not in defense of Erilyn. The only current Knight of Erilyn not a NPC is WL Honora who is a councillor to the Knights and holds the title both due to service to the realm (Her WL Quest) and a family connection to the knights.
A reworking of Mistone Scout could however with a CDQ be turned into agents for the kingdom.
-
I was thinking about that Prestige class myself. And I think that finally the knights of the Wyrm of Rofirein could get a "class" per se.
Kinda sorta. Maybe. As long as it weren't required that any Knight of the Wyrm character take the class, I couldn't complain. But then, if it isn't going to be required and thus fully and intimately associated with the Knights of the Wyrm, why make it the Knight of the Wyrm PrC?
Instead of a KotW PrC, it seems like it would get better play if it were made part of a specific military training institution of some sort, something nondenominational that hasn't been invented yet.
-
Instead of a KotW PrC, it seems like it would get better play if it were made part of a specific military training institution of some sort, something nondenominational that hasn't been invented yet.
This is probably the track I'd suggest. Things that are overly specific to one denomination, be it a clergy, city, kingdom, class... whatever - these tend to be a poor use of space when the end goal is availability of diversity.
-
Discussions on the Purple Dragon Knight PRC are under way, stay tuned!
-
In all honesty, I completely missed the addition of the PrC to 1.69, as my attention was focused elsewhere. So on seeing this, I started a discussion in our GM forums.
As Ed said, stay tuned.
-
In all honesty, I completely missed the addition of the PrC to 1.69, as my attention was focused elsewhere. So on seeing this, I started a discussion in our GM forums.
As Ed said, stay tuned.
Make it into an elite unit of Gold Dragon Knights, the Order of Ozlo. It's only fitting.
A sect of Rofirienite paladins that began during the time of the Dragon-Called. Surely that religion in particular saw this as a miraculous omen! They mourn him as a martyr, and aim to uphold his memory in word and deed.
Leave Red Dragon Disciple for the Pyrtechites.
-
Make it into an elite unit of Gold Dragon Knights, the Order of Ozlo. It's only fitting.
A sect of Rofirienite paladins that began during the time of the Dragon-Called. Surely that religion in particular saw this as a miraculous omen! They mourn him as a martyr, and aim to uphold his memory in word and deed.
Leave Red Dragon Disciple for the Pyrtechites.
Ya that sounds awesome!
-
Would like to ask. Can you plea for a wizard to become a specialist when they are a generalist.
Only grievance would be that when the character was made the player was too unfamiliar with the speciality restrictions with Layo and didn't want to hamstring the character before it even got going. So user ignorance/fear was the only things that prevented it from happening. Said character to my knowledge has not cast one spell from the school that would be prohibited in 8ish levels and the speciality school of choice would fit his character.
On a related question. Can a CDQ be taken for the same effects. Can a character have a CDQ run to demonstrate their pursuit, focus and dedication now forming for one school at the exclusion of its oppostie? I asked one or two DM's they had opinions but did nto feel comfortable with a final answer. And said I should ask on the boards. So I figured might as well tie both these up in one post.
Thank you kindly,
~D
Apologies for the delay in response on this. I don't have a solid answer to give as we will still take each rebuild request on a case-by-case basis. The reason for this is simple: The Graceful Plea system is not intended to be an avenue to remake their character entirely because they don't like it now 10, 15, 20 or more levels later. So to prevent a flood of requests of people wishing to start from scratch and re-sculpt their characters with their ideal progression, we'll just need to handle them as they come.
To describe this in another way, there have been requests in the past for re-levels that, while worthy reasons, were past our time and XP thresholds and were therefore denied. With Graceful Pleas, a player could circumvent the normal thresholds if all else was in line.
Graceful Pleas should not be seen as an auto-approval for anything, but rather an optional relaxation of normal requirements.
Anyway, getting back to the specific request above, my suggestion is to make the request, if you wish to pursue this angle. In so doing, we will get all the relevant information needed to decide on your specific case.
-
Because this has come up, and will probably come up again, I have added the following under the Special note regarding the loss of a character's final Soul Strand:
For the purposes of this contingency, if items are to be sacrificed as part of returning a permed character to life, an item will qualify to be counted if it is:
- A +2 or greater item, or has a lens value of 10,000 True or greater, AND...
- the item can be equipped, AND...
- the item is not some form of ammunition
So this means things like +2 or better armors and weapons, +2 or better stat jewelry, cloaks, bracers and other such equipable items will qualify, but infused gems, Enhancement Rods and other similar things, regardless of lens value, will not be considered.
-
Given this is the case:
The Graceful Plea system is not intended to be an avenue to remake their character entirely because they don't like it now 10, 15, 20 or more levels later. So to prevent a flood of requests of people wishing to start from scratch and re-sculpt their characters with their ideal progression, we'll just need to handle them as they come.
To describe this in another way, there have been requests in the past for re-levels that, while worthy reasons, were past our time and XP thresholds and were therefore denied. With Graceful Pleas, a player could circumvent the normal thresholds if all else was in line.
Graceful Pleas should not be seen as an auto-approval for anything, but rather an optional relaxation of normal requirements.
I suggest this:
Graceful Pleas can be used for things such as (but not limited to):
- Any other request denied for any reason
needs some rewording, because it would seem to suggest that you can apply a Graceful Plea to any denied request, including a rebuild which doesn't fit the normal criteria, to get it allowed.
Regards,
Script Wrecked.
-
I understand your point and don't wish to be argumentative, but as we were refactoring these policies, we didn't want to have half a dozen lines of "you can" and three pages of "you can't". It is our hope with this new option and the relaxation of many policies overall, that our community would in turn understand our intent and display some mature judgment in the requests they make.
I am not saying Aerimor's request is not a mature or worthy request. I am, however, speaking in generalities.
In answering his question, I wished to give a broader answer that didn't simply apply to his one specific case but a much wider range of possibilities. It is not unreasonable for us to deny a request for a full rebuild "just because" someone wants to resculpt their character to a more ideal build. Similarly, it's not unreasonable for us to deny a request for a character to receive a +9 Sword of Everything Smiting, with 3d6 extra fire, acid, divine and sonic damage, Keen and a DC 40 Vorpal property, or an Armor of Near invulnerability with +10 AC, 50/- DR, +10 Regeneration and some juicy OnHit properties. Yet all these things technically fall under the "any other request" clause, which was put in there to cover reasonable requests that we might not have considered up front. And yes, I know that these are clearly outlandish requests, but they serve to prove a point.
-
No, no, that all makes sense; a bit of illustration of what was intended goes a long way towards clarification.
-
Q. Are creatures continuing to whale on you after you had stabilised (somewhere between -1 to -9 HPs) a valid reason to consider a SS reimbursement using a Graceful Plea?
-
I was just looking at Abigail's GP request:
http://forums.layonara.com/disputes-grievances-request-reimbursements/228742-graceful-plea-request-abi-firesteed-pending.html
It seems that what Row is saying is that if you want to make a request on your last SS it must be under the "Special note regarding the loss of a character's final Soul Strand" section. But what if your last SS is due to some technical issue that would let you use a GP only to get it back? So there would be no loss of levels or items.
This sentence seems to say that if you have not enacted the regular GP as in the final death was a "clean kill" then you can use the special note section.
When a character loses his or her final Soul Strand, the player will be given a one-time choice to request a reconsideration of this final death, given that the above criteria have not already been enacted for the event in question.
Thoughts?
-
If a final death is due to a "bug" or other OOC technical issue then it should always be brought forth immediately so we can look into it. This is something we have done in the past as a courtesy to the community so that people don't have to worry overly about losing their final strand to something beyond anyone's control. We have reviewed such cases in the past and in some we have also been lenient on returning the final strand under such circumstances.
So to answer...
Come to us right away and we may just hand the strand back for "free", but wait months and anything we could possbly hope to check or verify about the circumstances would be long gone, and the only avenue remaining is the Graceful Plea.
-
@dorg understood about how it should work moving forward. But what about retroactively? Since the GPs just came into being and old requests are now being considered and approved under the new GP program. What about old requests that had some glitch that caused a last SS to be lost and were reviewed and denied due to not fitting the rules at the time? It may be simple to say old perms are out side of this but we will allow you to use the "bring back from the dead clause" as a courtesy.
-
Three things:
1) The "old rules" as you described them allowed for a much more lenient review of the last death, and I have personally investigated several such requests for any reasonable way to show mercy and to return that last strand so that the death could be meaningful and not just the result of something fully out of anyone's control. We've done this, in fact, though not every such request was automatically granted. I typically threw out most of the usual criteria, such as GM/WL witnessing for such things. This has long been an avenue for people, not just with the advent of Graceful Pleas. So "fitting the rules at the time" often didn't apply to the final strand, if the player bothered to request a review. Some did, some didn't. I seem to recall scrutinizing Abigail's circumstances rather closely when they occurred. I really did look for a justifiable way to give the strand back to her.
2) Yes, it is true that we are allowing reconsideration of old or even unsubmitted requests through the Graceful Plea system. This is allowing a return of Soul Strands with a much more lax standard, though of course with a limited usage. As you have probably seen, plenty of people are taking advantage of this. However...
3) EdTheKet specifically expressed the requirement that no one be allowed to un-perm without making one of the "last chance"choices, assuming that one of the other usual criteria (including a deep scrutiny of the event just after that particular death) have been evaluated and deemed unfitting. I believe his primary motivation here was for lore and continuity reasons, the latter being important for everyone's RP, as in some cases, the characters were considered really and truly dead for years...even decades.
So that is a much longer answer that I could not give earlier. As for wording, I didn't think it necessary to distinguish between old perms and new perms, as the policy was written as a return from perma-death, which to me says it applies to everyone, old or new.
In any case, good question. As we're really still shaking down these policies, or rather the execution of them, there may be come clarifying language added to the policies, but I'm highly hesitant to start getting down to specific sorts of situations, because then what we get is a policy document that is 10x longer than it needs to be, and it just gets either too oppressive to read or too confusing because the one situation that wasn't covered explicitly comes up...and then it's just a mess.
-
Not sure if this is the thread to discuss .. but it's certainly -a- thread!
I love the new system where a PC can influence the prices from NPC merchants through using one of their 'persuasion' type skills. I think it's great. My thought however was that the variable factor in this determination, a d100 roll, was too great relative to the fixed factor, the PC's skill score. To my mind a PC with huge bonus to bluff, intimidate, whatever (the realm of the epics?) should have that weigh more heavily than the vagaries of how that NPC merchant was feeling at that precise moment.
Maybe a d50 roll + skill score vs DC of d50 roll instead?
Just a thought. :)
-
I don't agree, even with my chars with high cha high persuade, intimidate etc, still fail more than half the time their "persuasion" attempts so for an hour it cost them more to buy things. Interestingly enough, Feh has a good deal of success, with no charisma there for very little "persuasion" skill.
-
Ummmm, aren't you saying exactly the same thing? O.o
-
" Returning of a previously permed character that has not been deleted from our server vault (see special note below) "
Does this mean that deleted characters can not be returned ?
Or can they be returned using the LORE page and testimonies off others collaborating on the main items in their gear/ inventories ?
-
" Returning of a previously permed character that has not been deleted from our server vault (see special note below) "
Does this mean that deleted characters can not be returned ?
Or can they be returned using the LORE page and testimonies off others collaborating on the main items in their gear/ inventories ?
At this point, no. It has long been our policy to not restore deleted characters for any reason. This is something we've stated even with LORE in place.
Character deletion is a player choice, and that choice is essentially "I don't want to play this character here any longer." People do it for various reasons, but it has long been portrayed as a rather permanent choice.
IF (and right now, it's only an "if") it was decided that the data in LORE could be used to restore a previously deleted character, it is rather certain that we would not consider the testimonies of others for any other equipment.
Again, the handling of deleted characters is nothing new, and as they currently stand, the new policies do not override the way we handle them.
-
Ummmm, aren't you saying exactly the same thing? O.o
No you were saying that to prevent uber chars with uber persuasion to win all the time against the npc , the dc of the player should be made at 50 instead of the 100. While I am saying that with the current system, my personal observation is that, my ubber chars with high persuade, fails almost all the time, vs my chars with no persuade type skills.
-
Ummmm, you may wish to read and digest my post again. O.o
-
Ummmm, you may wish to read and digest my post again. O.o
I love it when Earl with no charisma or social skills intimidates a merchant for a discount, when Farros gets his price hiked with +46 persuade check. Makes little sense, but it's still really really funny. Of course Earl has had his prices hiked often as well, because people think he's a redneck jerk in the marketplace.
Please feel free to call the guards on him if you see him shaking down the poor halflings in Hempstead. ;)
-
At this point, no. It has long been our policy to not restore deleted characters for any reason. This is something we've stated even with LORE in place.
Character deletion is a player choice, and that choice is essentially "I don't want to play this character here any longer." People do it for various reasons, but it has long been portrayed as a rather permanent choice.
IF (and right now, it's only an "if") it was decided that the data in LORE could be used to restore a previously deleted character, it is rather certain that we would not consider the testimonies of others for any other equipment.
Again, the handling of deleted characters is nothing new, and as they currently stand, the new policies do not override the way we handle them.
Understood
But if the reasons to leave this world would be directly linked to the rules / handling off the rules , then i can understand that people would like to dig up their chars now that the rules have changed .
The need to have a WL/GM in your party / online , to get a SS loss reimbursed is now gone .
The party lvl restrictions are gone , giving people more slack to travel with characters , so the fear of a reprimand when showing around others is lessened .
Those changes - for me anyway - have made it interesting again to give the world a new try .
The thought of needing to start from scratch ( no matter how interesting to others ) is not something i'm looking forward too though .
So just thought i'd ask if its possible to return with a char that technically hasn't permed and who's body was never found .
-
Didn't like my thought (http://forums.layonara.com/1303962-post47.html)?
If you have the time (and inclination) can you tell me why you distinguish between a known bioware bug and a known layonara code bug with regard to reimbursement considerations?
Cheers!
-
Didn't like my thought (http://forums.layonara.com/1303962-post47.html)?
Like all suggestions, it is taken into consideration. It's also a frightfully low priority. That's neither a positive or negative review on the idea, just a statement of fact.
If you have the time (and inclination) can you tell me why you distinguish between a known bioware bug and a known layonara code bug with regard to reimbursement considerations?
Cheers!
Because Bioware bugs like Invis, G. Sanc., resting with low HPs and CON buffs active, etc. are beyond our direct control. For bugs we create, however unintentionally, it is our responsibility to ensure that they do not ultimately produce a strongly negative impact on players or their enjoyment of the game. They are also things that we can generally verify and reproduce most easily.
Those sorts of Bioware-related bugs I mentioned above could be very easily abused and given as an excuse for every Soul Strand loss. We'd have no way to verify that, as Invisibility does not necessarily behave consistently when creatures see through it. As such, we simply can't automatically accept something like this for a "free" reimbursement.
Using Invisibility, G. Sanc, etc. or some other system that is known to have its little quirks within the NWN engine itself is considered to be a "calculated risk" of playing, and as such is no different than going and adventuring somewhere which stands a 5-10% chance of causing your character to die.
By contrast, if we inadvertently cause some sort of bug that is deadly, find out that it is in fact a problem with the way we have programmed or built something, then by all means, we take responsibility for that and reimburse any losses that come as a result.
Or to put it more concisely, we take responsibility for our own mistakes, not someone else's.
-
Discussions on the Purple Dragon Knight PRC are under way, stay tuned!
Any word on this? Can't recall now why I was re-reading this ol' thread.
-
The "Purple Dragon Knight" is not very lore-friendly, considering its name and all.
However!.....*dramatic pause*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Stay tuned. ;)