|
|
Post by Warlord on Jul 9, 2019 16:14:52 GMT -5
Let's say a dungeon has more than one section, and you can easily get to one section without going through other sections. (I.e., you can get to section B without going through section A). If you have cleared out Section A without entering Section B at all, and then leave the dungeon, can you return to Section B which you have not touched at all, if you can get to it without going through Section A, without waiting seven days? Or is the entire dungeon considered one cohesive area for the purpose of the seven day rule, regardless of layout and access points? I believe this has been asked before, and I believe the answer was "yes, you can do Section B," but I couldn't find this addressed directly. Since it came up in a party, I thought I'd ask. Once you have visited the dungeon you may not return until seven days have passed, regardless of if you have left certain areas untouched. It is still the same dungeon, and you are bound by the dungeon visiting expectations of the server. Regardless of going left or right, it is still the same dungeon. The seven day rule applies. Veteran players who have visited more than once in that period were mistaken in believing it does not violate server expectations. It has one entrance. Some areas of the server are made to to be explored over a greater expanse of time than a single playthrough. Thanks you for being willing to ask for clarification rather than continuing a practice against the server expectations. Moving this response here since it'll likely become a discussion! Can we please consider the spirit of the rule vs. the literal rule? If a PC doesn't gain a mechanic benefit going through the dungeon again, then I'd argue it shouldn't violate the rule? I don't remember the North VR design much since it has changed. One or two rat spawns or minor things is also peanuts compared to the layout of the overland areas people are forced to go through to access other dungeons far apart. If I can piecemeal the dungeon with friends and not embellish on the mechanics then it just makes gaming more comfortable. We all got lives/jobs/kids/health to balance out. Why force a group to get more XP...sooner? I've been around long enough to know how to time a dungeon crawl, but I sympathize for people not veteran enough to have this sort of foresight. I have this mental clock advantage to see a dungeon entirely as long as a group has the time and we're balanced. By the way, I think the North VR Crypt, and a select one or two others, feels deliberately design to split and navigate, but I guess it can be revisited 7 days later. My one immediate concern is lower level starter dungeons when we hardball the rule to be more literal than in spirit. Attempting to complete the crypt dungeon on the hillside got a heck of a lot more winded...It may take as long as a standard "underdark run" at level 1 - 5 if you don't have a sizeable group to distribute the workload. That's a good example dungeon I personally piecemeal at lower levels, but then again, lower level dungeons don't often get as much scrutiny I suppose. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Jul 9, 2019 17:40:19 GMT -5
It's also on a daily, not weekly, timer at that level, so it's not as big a deal (IMO) to leave after finishing one side and then do the other the next day. Waiting a week to complete a dungeon feels a lot different.
|
|
|
|
Post by ID10Tango on Jul 10, 2019 0:01:53 GMT -5
I completely understand your position and agree with it to a large degree.
However, I don't think a minor inconvenience warrants a rule change or exception. Yes my lowbie alt has had some troubles but I've been able to RP and level him just fine under the existing rules.
I'd rather not create any gray areas in an otherwise black/white rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Jul 10, 2019 9:32:28 GMT -5
I completely understand your position and agree with it to a large degree. However, I don't think a minor inconvenience warrants a rule change or exception. Yes my lowbie alt has had some troubles but I've been able to RP and level him just fine under the existing rules. I'd rather not create any gray areas in an otherwise black/white rule. To me, it's not about the admittedly minor inconvenience of being expected to go find another place to continue adventuring if you step out through the door. It's about what seems to me an ever expanding burden on players to reconcile OOC and IC factors that don't make sense by accepting intrusion into the role play decisions of their characters, and by role playing their characters contrary to their character's motivation, for no reason but the fact someone said to, over matters that could easily be reconciled on the non-player side. In this case, the "role play decision" is whether to go back into the crypt to fight monsters the character knows haven't been fought yet, and may very well have every motivation in the world to go fight. The ruling asks players to role play their character contrary to this IC motivation, for no reason but an OOC rule covering for the fact that the monsters themselves break IC by returning to the dungeon 30 seconds after you transition off the map. And this could easily be reconciled on the non-player side by any of the following: 1 - Defining "farming" in terms of "encounters," as per the language of most of the actual printed farming rule, and not inserting the word "dungeon." 2 - Making a specific exception in this case. 3 - Breaking the VR crypt into more than one dungeon, so the point is moot. 4 - Setting monsters to respawn on a longer timer so that the monsters actually aren't there for a time, and characters have no gold or XP gain to go back for a while, and doing away with the repeat visit rule entirely. This would also remove the problem of characters potentially getting killed by fleeing through previously cleared areas by monsters that aren't supposed to be back for 7 days, killing more than one bird with one stone. 5 - A script that slows down XP gain if you gain more than a certain amount of XP in a certain amount of time, like other servers have, so it doesn't matter for XP if you repeat the same dungeons, and then do away with the rule entirely. I'm sure other people could come up with more ideas. I would love to see the non-player side of the table, whether builder, DM team, or anyone else, take up the burden for reconciling OOC expectations with IC character motivations and other IC factors on this one. As a step where the rule is now divorcing from its actual intent to stop people from repeat killing monsters, but now is just protecting the rule's language which could easily be trimmed slightly and accomplish the same effect, this feels to me like it's turned a corner to "rules for the sake of rules." |
|
|
|
Post by ID10Tango on Jul 10, 2019 23:32:38 GMT -5
I know youre probably tired of hearing my opinion on this, and I'm not sharing to upset you in any way. I just don't see the point in trying to fix something that's not really broken and that the DM Team has already ruled on. But as I said I do see the issue and have experienced it myself so I understand what you're saying.
I would note that *all* of the FRC Server Rules *are* OOC rules that govern actions in various scenarios, and I don't see IC RP as being a valid reason to not follow them. Players are expected to make their RP fit within the rules, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warlord on Jul 11, 2019 0:07:46 GMT -5
One thing's for sure, the DM's will not drop the guillotine or hammer without hearing a player's perspective. Rules are and have been a guiding resource, and with no genuine ill meant by a player...the team's a solid block of trust to barter and negotiate with.
Perhaps certain dungeons with "varying divisions that appear to be a whole new dungeon," might be reviewed and simply made ... into their own dungeon. Seems it'd satisfy the best of many needs.
If a design is meant to impart a sense of, "Come back later," that might be a bit too subjective? It makes sense hearing that but in practice that may be hard to perceive. Conveying a dungeon's intention for that needs to be accomplished in some rather crafty manner, or elsewise just keep it easy squeezy.
|
|
|
|
Post by shivers on Jul 11, 2019 5:17:15 GMT -5
an interesting discussion.
the vr crypts clearly have 2 separate dungeons that share an entrance.
seriously - is it really the end of the world to relax a bit? i dont understand this tenacity to add yet another rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Jul 11, 2019 11:15:40 GMT -5
What makes this rule different from other rules governing RP is that the other rules (griefing, theft, PVP, etc.) have no non-player involvement, and players are held responsible for situations of their own creation. But here, the whole issue arises from the fact that monsters respawn in dungeons implausibly. The issue arising from the non-player side of the table, players are asked to pick up the tab to cover it. To me, that should never have been in any form to begin with, in any rule on anything. This is a non-player issue to resolve. Honestly, I don't even really care what method is used to resolve it. I already gave five options off the top of my head in my previous post. Possibilities are out there. I would ask the builders and DM's to choose some way of taking responsibility for the plausibility of the setting into their own hands and resolving this one on their side of the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyingMidget on Jul 11, 2019 11:53:09 GMT -5
This is a non-player issue to resolve. Honestly, I don't even really care what method is used to resolve it. I already gave five options off the top of my head in my previous post. Possibilities are out there. I would ask the builders and DM's to choose some way of taking responsibility for the plausibility of the setting into their own hands and resolving this one on their side of the table. You mean, like a rule that encourages people to explore elsewhere, rather then revisiting a dungeon they've been to?
These dungeons with multiple paths, might be intended as they are to grant a greater replayibility over multiple revisits before they begin to feel like "I've done this a thousand times", they might also just be designed to give parties choices they have to make, do we go left down this quieter, yet spookier hall? do we go right? depending how large they are we might not be able to feasibly check the other later due to a lack of supplies, our spells wearing off, etc, etc.
Not all content needs to be done weekly, if you've been to a dungeon already that week and you missed a bit of content, that's alright, there's a lot of other dungeons on the server to explore and you can always do the other section next week with the same group or a different group.
|
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Jul 11, 2019 12:11:05 GMT -5
In particular with the North VR Crypt, the first room is a hub for 2 separate dungeons with 2 separate stories. No DM in their right mind is going to wack you for passing through the first room to get to the other dungeon. I don't think DMs operate in that way unless they're seeing a pattern of doing the same dungeons over and over and over in the same week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Jul 13, 2019 7:25:54 GMT -5
This is a non-player issue to resolve. Honestly, I don't even really care what method is used to resolve it. I already gave five options off the top of my head in my previous post. Possibilities are out there. I would ask the builders and DM's to choose some way of taking responsibility for the plausibility of the setting into their own hands and resolving this one on their side of the table. You mean, like a rule that encourages people to explore elsewhere, rather then revisiting a dungeon they've been to?
Before I say this, I want to be clear on a particular point. In no way, shape, or form do I mean to imply that anyone on staff is irresponsible in filling their role on FRC. When people are here to do what they do, they do an incredible job. The events the DM's put on here take a lot of planning, set up, and attention to detail while running them. The builders do an equally awesome job making adventuring areas. This isn't a generalized comment about the staff here on other points. But, when I suggested the DM team and builders take responsibility for the plausibility of the setting into their own hands, I was not envisioning a rule that puts responsibility onto the players and not the DM's or builders. That would be the opposite of what I was suggesting, and what I was suggesting they stop doing. The seven day rule constitutes an instance of using the ability to make rules to put one's own responsibility on someone else. As for exploring the rest of the server, I'd love to explore the rest of the server. In the case of the VR crypt, how would you feel about it if I make my own choice as to when to explore the rest of the server, and do it an hour from now, after I finish the crypt? |
|
