TOPIC: Pay-to-Win?

Druegar wrote: Under current rules, the entire group runs at the same difficulty level.

Of course. I wouldn't suggest anyone do it unilaterally.

DM's have enough to worry about, asking them to manage multiple difficulty levels within a single party is not reasonable. (That's an understatement!)

In my experience, there is no difference in handling NL vs normal. In all respects, the module, stats, and damage are the same for the two levels. The only difference (rez between rooms) is managed by the players, not the DM. I would not advocate allowing NL players in hardcore or nightmare runs. That's crazy talk.

And if the newbie NL player is "taking all the risks," so much the better. That means they get to have more interaction with the puzzles and whatnot. If they "die" they still have to sit out the rest of the room. It's not like they're totally invulnerable.

If you're concerned about abuse, you could say this option was only available to players level 1 or 2.

Anyway, all I'm saying is it would address some newbie issues without penalizing any normal PUGs they join, and as far as I can see, wouldn't add to volunteers' workloads. We are all sensitive to that last bit.

Brad Mortensen wrote: there is no difference in handling NL vs normal.

Agreed. However, there is a HUGE difference in handling more than one difficulty mode if one of the modes includes HC or NM.

If TD allows mixed mode parties with NL and N, I assure you there will be people who not only expect they will be afforded the ability to run as mixed mode with the higher difficulty levels, they will become completely butt-hurt when told they may not do so.

Druegar wrote: If TD allows mixed mode parties with NL and N, I assure you there will be people who not only expect they will be afforded the ability to run as mixed mode with the higher difficulty levels, they will become completely butt-hurt when told they may not do so.

Well this would trigger the existing rule that all players need to agree to a higher difficulty or it defaults to normal. Making them no longer butt-hurt. Now the people who want to run NM or HC might be butt-hurt but this is not a change to how the system currently works.

mattnaik wrote: Well this would trigger the existing rule that all players need to agree to a higher difficulty or it defaults to normal.

Are we talking about the same thing? Because if we are, I'm definitely not understanding your argument.

mattnaik wrote:

Druegar wrote: If TD allows mixed mode parties with NL and N, I assure you there will be people who not only expect they will be afforded the ability to run as mixed mode with the higher difficulty levels, they will become completely butt-hurt when told they may not do so.

Well this would trigger the existing rule that all players need to agree to a higher difficulty or it defaults to normal. Making them no longer butt-hurt. Now the people who want to run NM or HC might be butt-hurt but this is not a change to how the system currently works.

The existing rule mandates unanimous consent to change up or down.

I'm well aware of that. What I don't understand is how allowing mixed groups would somehow "trigger the existing rule that all players need to agree to a higher difficulty or it defaults to normal."

Druegar wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: there is no difference in handling NL vs normal.

Agreed. However, there is a HUGE difference in handling more than one difficulty mode if one of the modes includes HC or NM.

Absolutely. I don't even think it's possible. How do you say a monster has 250 HP for two people and 400 for the rest? Just... no.

I believe we are in violent agreement.

Wow, all this talk. I think normal should be default unless all agree to play non-lethal. Non-lethal should have less experience points than normal. If a beginner dies in normal then so be it. Unless in the last room I doubt the death was the result of only one hit or one failed save, remember, you’re running normal. You are playing DnD silly, there are chances of death. If you cannot survive on normal on your current tokens, buy more and better luck next run.

Brad Mortensen wrote: I believe we are in violent agreement.

cheers!

Donald Rients wrote: If you cannot survive on normal on your current tokens, buy more and better luck next run.

I was in total agreement with you until that last line, at which point it became partial agreement. It's absolutely possible one's survival issues may be token-related. It's also possible—if not probable in a PUG—that the issue was party behavior. I have seen was part of a PUG that was equipped to the nines that absolutely sucked because they couldn't develop any form of group cohesion. In TD, party chaos = failure and no amount of tokens can counter that.

I suggest a new strategy, Let the wookie win.

Druegar wrote: I'm well aware of that. What I don't understand is how allowing mixed groups would somehow "trigger the existing rule that all players need to agree to a higher difficulty or it defaults to normal."

Sorry, I suck at explaining. Here are the possible scenarios:

- Everyone agrees to run NM
- Everyone agrees to run HC
- If at least one person wants to run something other than one of the above options, you run normal. Now that normal level is decided, people have the option to run at NL at a reduced XP.

So if you had 9 people who want to run HC and one that wants to run NL, by rule you would all be running Normal. Just by this change that is being discussed, that person could still run NL and everyone else would be running Normal