AL VS LFR of 4th and why I'm so disappointed

Cascade · Jan 29, 2016

Steve_MND said:
Maybe I'm way out of the loop here, but the fact that apparently so many large-scale decisions have actually come about as a result of the 'official reports' is rather a bit of a shock, as I had seen little to no evidence of that so far. Having the storyline develop as a result of player actions is amazing, but if we never know about those consequences, it's as if it didn't happen.

Many of the critical events certainly seem to be "lead" by the mod. I try to play them before I run them and in many cases, there really wasn't a choice.

I do like mods where there are multiple paths which can certainly affect the method of getting the deed done...in that I think those mods are great. Bane of the tradeways comes to mind as a good event with plenty of reply-ability and optional outcomes.

Pauper · Jan 29, 2016

aarduini said:
The hardback mods are part of AL yes, but I am addressing what was expeditions here.

So again, you're cherry-picking one specific thing to criticize when there are other options available within the program that fix precisely what you say the problem is.

i don't thin I'm exaggerating at all. There are probably close to 200 AL players if not more in the Bay Area alone, and that is just one metropolitan area. AL is world wide. Not all that play AL are in the system.

There are 381 Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States. If we take a generous estimate and say that the Bay Area is at the high end of average, that gives us roughly 75,000 players in the US. The real number is almost certainly lower. And while AL is played in other areas around the world, it would be a stretch for me to say that over twice as many players exist outside the US as within it, as much of the material for AL is only available in English.

Besides, the great question isn't 'how many people are playing AL', but 'how many people aren't playing AL who would if it were available to them'. If WotC is going to spend resources on the program, they're going to most effectively spend it increasing the reach and scope of the program, not by catering to the least satisfied people already in it.

You just pinpointed the biggest issue I have with the way things are done. Why ask us to travel 1500 miles for DND!?. Why are we catering to these megacons?

Skerrit has addressed this point, which hasn't been true since Season 2. Again, you seem to be arguing from a position of changing the program to suit you rather than changing it to suit the largest number of current and potential players.

Once again, who is Skerrit that flying him out is tied to being able to play a mod that you are not even sure is good?

Well, I played DDEX 1-10, Tyranny in Phlan. On the title page, it reads: "Adventure Design: Greg Marks", whom if you don't know is Skerrit. If you're interested in the Melisande sub-plot, then you probably also played DDEX 1-3, Shadows Over the Moonsea, also designed by Skerrit. I've played DDEX 2-6, Breath of the Yellow Rose repeatedly -- at least three different characters in my stable have that one on their log, as it was a blast. I haven't yet played DDEX 2-11, Oubliette of Fort Iron, but I've heard good things. It's possible DDAO-3 isn't very good, but based on the other mods I've played by the same author, I wouldn't expect that. Would I play it if it was run at a con near me? Sure, even though the subject doesn't really excite me.

The fact that you don't know the answer to that question means you are not much into the lore.

Oh, wow. This is so not going to end well for you.

Calimsham and Memmnon are very Genasi heavy regions that were once ruled by Djinn and Efreeties.

Here's the population breakdown of Calimshan, from the 3rd Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, the first FR setting in which genasi were a playable race:

Human 94%
Half-Orcs 2%
Halflings 2%
Half-Elves 1%
Others 1%

There are literally over twice as many half-orcs in Calimshan as there are genasi. The specifics may have changed over the intervening editions, but the point of Calimshan is that the elemental races enslaved the humans living there -- which was the entire arc of the Living Forgotten Realms Calimshan story area, where the human ruler of Calimport tried to set the other two cities against each other in order to weaken them to the point where his armies could free their human slaves.

Why would I use a half-elf?

Because there are also way more half-elves in Calimshan than there are genasi, maybe?

LFR expanded on this region a lot and it is still fresh in my mind. Its a flavor option I can't use because of blanketed rules.

Yes, the specific 'genasi with Greenflame Blade' is an option you can't use. You can be a genasi, or you can have Greenflame Blade, but you can't have both. Sorry you feel that breaks immersion.

And thanks for confirming that the version of Calimshan you're referring to is the one that only exists in your own mind.

Once again, I'm not saying don't restrict. I'm saying don't restrict so broadly. Find the problem and then act. Don't act on something that MIGHT be a problem without ever analyzing it.

Who is going to do that analysis? Who has the time to comb through, playtest all the material with all the other material that already exists, and then decide which of it is broken and which isn't? Doing things the way you want to do them would either mean we couldn't play with the SCAG for a year or two after release because it would still be 'in testing', or there would be tons of broken stuff that would slip through the cracks, which we know would happen because that's exactly what happened in LFR.

I'm not claiming the current system is perfect, but it does what it's set out to do without needlessly holding up the ability of players to access the new material. If you don't see how that's a far better solution than LFR (created by a lot of people who have first-hand knowledge of how LFR broke), then I don't see how I'm going to be able to convince you.

The method is already created with 4th edition my-realms.

Now I know you're trolling me. The 'magic item distribution method' in MyRealms season 3 was 'Bundle X', the infamous, 'choose any item you want that matches your character level and isn't rare'. Incorporating that into Adventurers League would wholly break the current treasure distribution system, as all the items the admins have kept out of the system via treasure in existing modules would come flowing in via the MyRealms option. This is a TERRIBLE idea.

I disagree with you that my realms caused magic item farming in 4e. They were very restricted.

Season 1 MyRealms was somewhat restricted, in that you could only take an item of your level from one of the Player's Handbook books (PH, PH2, PH3). In Season 3, they opened up Bundle X and the floodgates opened. Though technically, you're right in the sense that you had no need to 'farm' MyRealms to get bundle X, because it was in every mod, but the ability to play two or even three farm-designed MyRealms in the same time as you played a single regular mod meant that you could do some serious farming. Just because you didn't do it doesn't mean it wasn't done, believe me.

And, of course, if you want to confirm the things I'm saying about MyRealms, the Season 1 and 2 MyRealms packs, as well as the Season 3 and 4 packs, are still available online. Because, y'know, actually looking stuff up works a whole lot better than just pulling stuff out of your butt.

--
Pauper

aarduini · Jan 29, 2016

Pauper. It doesn't matter who Skerrit is. You missed my point. The mods should be made available at all cons. Not just cherry picked ones. Now I was upset because I thought his mod was the origin story of Elisande. He cleared that up and stated it will be in one of the next published mods.

Pauper said:
Oh, wow. This is so not going to end well for you.

Anytime you want to get into a realms lore debate. I'll go there with you. You are quoting the population of Calimshan two editions ago. Things changed dramatically in 4e. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that the lore of the region is very Genasi heavy.

Pauper said:
Because there are also way more half-elves in Calimshan than there are genasi, maybe?

If I wanted to play a half-elf and delve into half-elf lore, I would look to Algarond.

Pauper said:
Yes, the specific 'genasi with Greenflame Blade' is an option you can't use. You can be a genasi, or you can have Greenflame Blade, but you can't have both. Sorry you feel that breaks immersion.

And thanks for confirming that the version of Calimshan you're referring to is the one that only exists in your own mind.

Yes, I'm upset i can't have my desired character concept because i don't see any reason why I shouldn't, and your condescending attitude is pissing me off!

Pauper said:
Now I know you're trolling me. The 'magic item distribution method' in MyRealms season 3 was 'Bundle X', the infamous, 'choose any item you want that matches your character level and isn't rare'. Incorporating that into Adventurers League would wholly break the current treasure distribution system, as all the items the admins have kept out of the system via treasure in existing modules would come flowing in via the MyRealms option. This is a TERRIBLE idea.

Nobody is trolling you. This is MY thread. You are replying to ME. If anybody is trolling its you. Everytime someone says something that is against the status quo, you jump in waving your WOTC flag and start a personal crusade. This conversation was friendly, but you had to make it personal.

In summary this is what I learned form this thread.

Admins didn't have any control over the regions - I didn't know that.
Elissandi's story wasn't hijacked - Good
Epics are opened up to more cons - Not good enough. the requirements are too high. There is no reason for a requirement of 10-15 tables. They aren't that hard to run. The responsibility to provide a good experience should rest of the convention organizer not the AL admin.
Season 4 will be different that the past 3. I don't think it will be in the manner that matters according to what we know about the content coming out.
I still think Admin only mods idea is a bad choice and cultivates an elitist culture.
Pauper needs to stop replying to my threads.
I still say that preventing magic item farming to a degree that matters could easily be avoided with a properly written my realms template.

Oh! I learned that Greg Marks is skerrit. I didn't know that. Not that it matters because it doesn't.
No offense Skerrit.
--

tila · Jan 29, 2016

aarduini said:
Anytime you want to get into a realms lore debate. I'll go there with you. You are quoting the population of Calimshan two editions ago. Things changed dramatically in 4e. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that the lore of the region is very Genasi heavy. --

Another VERY IMPORTANT thing you needed to take from my post is that NOTHING that happened in LFR is canon. So if you are going by LFR for lore, you are not going by canon lore. Granted, the Genasi were included in the Forgotten Realms Player's guide. So they are canon. However, the bulk of their population came from the merging of Toril and Abier. Now that they are no longer merged, I expect the population of genasi to have decreased dramatically. However, there has been no published campaign setting beside Sword Coast which doesn't cover the region in question.

What a would REALLY love to see is a addendum to The History of the Realms. I would like to see the timeline of events in one place.

skerritthegreen · Jan 29, 2016

aarduini said:
Epics are opened up to more cons - Not good enough. the requirements are too high. There is no reason for a requirement of 10-15 tables. They aren't that hard to run. The responsibility to provide a good experience should rest of the convention organizer not the AL admin.

I still think Admin only mods idea is a bad choice and cultivates an elitist culture.

I think for these we're going to have to disagree. We are specifically trying to write epics to be longer/more difficult now. If you don't have 10 tables, it becomes very difficult to run (though we have allowed it in several cases for out of country cons which tend to be smaller). Say you run it at your store with a T1 and a T2 table. That means there's no PCs to save the T3 threat, that totally fails, the T1 and T2 become harder, potentially killing several characters or making them spend additional resources/items (and thus not fair). We write them assuming a minimum number of tables and do the math based on that. From my experience writing/playing Epics/Interactives since 2e (LC, LG, XE, LA, LFR, and several others) the playablity breaks down significantly if you drop below the minimum (or you could instead write for the small number of tables, but then they are not really playable at big cons). I have created/developed just short of 100 interactives for the RPGA/WPN so trust me when I tell you that I have some experience in this.

The D&D Author Only adventures are, as I said earlier, an experiment to see if a MyRealms type adventure might work. As previously announced publically, if it does, we'll expand it to RCs, then maybe LCs, then maybe DMs somehow, but if its a disaster, well then not too many people were impacted. Since you say you are completely against the DDAO adventures, I will put you done as against MyRealms adventures. I'm not sure why of course, since you said you were also in favor of them in LFR, but hey its super elitist apparently, so got it, not MyRealms ever under any circumstances.

Pauper · Jan 29, 2016

aarduini said:
Anytime you want to get into a realms lore debate. I'll go there with you. You are quoting the population of Calimshan two editions ago. Things changed dramatically in 4e. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that the lore of the region is very Genasi heavy.

Except it isn't -- genasi were introduced in Planescape and shoe-horned into the Realms in Third Edition. And as tila notes, pretty much every Fourth Edition change has been reversed by the Sundering, making most things from LFR irrelevant to the current edition.

Genasi swordmages with Greenflame blade are GONE. Maybe not forever, but certainly for now.

If I wanted to play a half-elf and delve into half-elf lore, I would look to Algarond.

Not a bad pick, especially since Aglarond hasn't had much official development in adventures.

Since AL is working more in the western areas of the continent, I might choose the Silver Marches (Luruar), so that I could connect more easily with the actual events of the campaign, but that's a question of personal taste.

Yes, I'm upset i can't have my desired character concept because i don't see any reason why I shouldn't, and your condescending attitude is pissing me off!

It's nothing personal. You just don't seem to understand that your 'desired character concept' opens the door to breaking the campaign. In that sense, I'm OK melting a few 'special snowflakes' so that the water of the campaign stays fresh.

Nobody is trolling you. This is MY thread. You are replying to ME. If anybody is trolling its you.

Excuse me -- allow me to rephrase.

You appear to have created this thread to have an excuse to whine about problems that either don't exist, are already being addressed, or exist for a good reason. In that sense, the entire thread is an attempt to 'troll' the AL community, and you're right -- I probably just should have ignored it completely.

I'm fine engaging with well-thought-out criticism and commentary -- see your comment on Aglarond above as an example -- but there's precious little of that in your original two posts. Your original argument seems to boil down to 'I want AL to be more like LFR in all the ways that LFR sucked." That's not a great argument.

Everytime someone says something that is against the status quo, you jump in waving your WOTC flag and start a personal crusade. This conversation was friendly, but you had to make it personal.

Whoa, I have a WotC flag? Somebody should be paying me for that advertising space!

What I learned from this thread:

- I have a WotC flag!
- Haters gonna hate.
- Some people have a very difficult time distinguishing between criticism of their argument and criticism of their self. This is not a problem for the critic.

--
Pauper

aarduini · Jan 29, 2016

skerritthegreen said:
The D&D Author Only adventures are, as I said earlier, an experiment to see if a MyRealms type adventure might work.

I totally missed this part. Sorry about that.

skerritthegreen said:
Since you say you are completely against the DDAO adventures

Good job taking my statements out of context. I don't see how DDAO is anyway shape or form a good avenue for a MyRealms playtest since its the Admins doing the writing. Also, I think you guys are missing the point of My Realms. It is not, so the masses can make AL mods that become available to everyone. It is so local DMs can make AL mods to customize their own AL experience without breaking characters. You could make a my realms that just did nothing but issue a magic item and it wouldn't break the game if the magic item limitations were done right. All you have to do is limit magics items to uncommon tier 2 rare tier 3 and very rare tier 4. Done. All the legal issues and restrictions for copywriting can be copied over from 4e my realms.

Steve_MND · Jan 29, 2016

aarduini said:
Epics are opened up to more cons - Not good enough. the requirements are too high. There is no reason for a requirement of 10-15 tables. They aren't that hard to run.

With all due respect Aarduini, and in all seriousness: have you actually run an Epic before, be it Living Greyhawk, AL, etc.? Because they are in fact very much not simple to run. The entire point of an Epic scenario is that it is intended to be a large-scale adventure, with numerous table operating at the same time and all influencing and playing off of each other. You cannot get that kind of interplay with just a small handful of tables running, so the minimum requirements are there for a reason.

aarduini said:
I still think Admin only mods idea is a bad choice and cultivates an elitist culture.

I can understand that feeling, but, well, look at it this way instead: The AL gets, say 14 mods per year. Would you like it to be only the 14 (or however many) mods per year -- because that's as much as WotC will allow/support -- or would you prefer to have those 14 or so mods per year, and the Admins also get to run a few of their own creations where and when they can get around, thereby opening up additional gameplay opportunities for folks that are able to attend? Would you deny the fun of others that might be able to make it to a con or location just because you yourself cannot?

They've asked for feedback on whether those sorts of admin-only modules should be opened up to the general public, and if so, when, so there isn't any sort of set-in-stone decree of keeping them permanently exclusive forever and ever or anything. They have also said that the admin-only mods are something of a test run, to see how well the idea would work before possibly expanding the idea to additional 'non-centralized' avenues for additional gameplay -- including, possibly down the road, such things as another iteration of your greatly-lauded myRealms concept.

Also, keep in mind, many of these ideas were set in motion before the DMGuild was announced/established. Things may well change with that new item thrown into the mix, but we'll have to see in time.

I personally would love to see something along the lines of a myRealms setup in AL. But AL has also learned a lot of harsh lessons from earlier campaigns, and what worked in them, and -- more importantly -- what didn't work in them, and what started to work for them, but ultimately collapse once a certain point was reached. They are erring on the side of caution when it comes to allowing stuff (be that character options or material) into the campaign, and while it may be frustrating to some (including me in spots), if ultimately it helps preserve the long-term health of the campaign by curtailing some short-term 'impulse' decisions, I'm okay with that.

aarduini said:
All you have to do is limit magics items to uncommon tier 2 rare tier 3 and very rare tier 4. Done.

The fact that you think that such blanket categories would be sufficient to curtail potential problems is a bit worrisome. Heck, there are some seemingly-minor items that have already been introduced into the campaign through official mods that have been proven to be disruptive in spots, much less with any sort of categorical ala-carte system.

Not saying it couldn't be done, carefully, just that it certainly wouldn't be that simple.

skerritthegreen · Jan 29, 2016

aarduini said:
Good job taking my statements out of context.

My response is based on the lack of response to my earlier comments about DDAO adventures. It appeared and perhaps you didn't read them, that you were ignoring my comments in favor of arguing against something that I already stated wasn't true.

aarduini said:
Also, I think you guys are missing the point of My Realms.

I think it might be helpful to point out (as I alluded to above), I'm old. I've been around. I worked on the Mark of Heroes campaign when the DM's Mark (the original MyRealms) was invented by Chris Tulach. I was also on the campaign staff of Xen'Drik Expeditions when we refined and continued it. I was also on the campaign staff of LFR when we refined and continued it again. So trust me, I get the point of MyRealms style adventures. I helped invent them. That said, there were imperfections in the systems we previously used but we want to potentially bring them back or maybe have some version of it that serves the old goals and maybe some new ones. So we are trying the DDAO version now (I know this is old hat for those who follow all the postings, but just making sure we're all up to speed). We have a list of goals for AL, and so we need to make sure we meet those goals with any program we put out, and we also want to make sure we learn from the past (all of which I was there for, most of which as an Admin for one campaign or another). Let me say MyRealms were not all sunshine and roses. there were problems and abuses and just letting a local DM do anything they want without any guidance and give out any item they want under a certain rarity is not the solution. It possible there might not be a solution and we won't do any more. For every "MyRealms are the solution to all problems" I also get a "MyRealms are everything that is wrong with the campaign and why no one should every play this." I tend to tune out such absolutes as we try to walk a middle ground that meets the needs of the campaign while added a positive experience for the player base as a whole.

aarduini · Jan 29, 2016

Steve_MND said:
With all due respect Aarduini, and in all seriousness: have you actually run an Epic before, be it Living Greyhawk, AL, etc.? Because they are in fact very much not simple to run. The entire point of an Epic scenario is that it is intended to be a large-scale adventure, with numerous table operating at the same time and all influencing and playing off of each other. You cannot get that kind of interplay with just a small handful of tables running, so the minimum requirements are there for a reason.

I have participated as a DM in the battle interactives of 4e that had 16-20 tables. The coordinator for those interactives was a close friend of mine and I discussed the challenges with him a lot. I find it hard to believe that Epics are very much different then the battle interactives of 4th edition. If one would come to my area, I would love to participate.

Steve_MND said:
I can understand that feeling, but, well, look at it this way instead: The AL gets, say 14 mods per year. Would you like it to be only the 14 (or however many) mods per year -- because that's as much as WotC will allow/support -- or would you prefer to have those 14 or so mods per year, and the Admins also get to run a few of their own creations where and when they can get around, thereby opening up additional gameplay opportunities for folks that are able to attend? Would you deny the fun of others that might be able to make it to a con or location just because you yourself cannot?

You guys keep thrown the limitations of Wizards in my face. I don't have access to those limitations, so I can't comment on them. AL is my avenue for communication. It is the admins responsibility (and I believe that they have a close relationship with the staff at wizards) to forward my feedback to wizards.

I am fighting for access for all. Screw this idea of exclusive content. I don't know who this benefits. Certainly not the majority of the people who play the game. If it has to be Con exclusive, make exclusive to all cons not just mega cons. loosen the restrictions a bit. You'd be surprised what the local coordinators can pull off if given the chance. Its not just people in the US that play Dnd. This is globally enjoyed game. This is why the logo is so valuable I would imagine. local cons it where you should be focusing for exclusive content. It shouldn't be how can you make it, so you have to have a mega con run it. It should be how you can make it, so it can be run at a local con. If the con can't support it. Its on them. Their con will suck. The experience is not responsibility of the admin. It is the responsibility of the con organizer.

Content. Noting other than maybe wings (I say maybe because we already got boots of flying) is broken in 5e that isn't already available. Your restrictions are too broad.

Thank you guys for the replying. I know my comments aren't taken well, and I'm sorry. I just get so frustrated with the decisions I see coming down the pipe, and I'm not alone in my community.