[AL] Are Season 8's New Rules an Improvement?

darjr · Nov 2, 2018

I love the changes, in large part because I can really just run along and not railroad the players, I could do that before but these rules help me do that.

Warmaster Horus · Nov 2, 2018

Treasure rules in AL and open play in general has always been problematic. I don't think the Season 8 changes has been much of an improvement. The concept of riches and rewards are so abstracted now that it feels like treasure has just become set dressing.

Warmaster Horus · Nov 2, 2018

darjr said:
I love the changes, in large part because I can really just run along and not railroad the players, I could do that before but these rules help me do that.

I have to agree with this. Moving from xp to advancement points is a good thing for AL. I think it's a powerful tool in enabling the DM and players to explore many kinds of resolutions to a scenario beyond fighting.

77IM · Nov 2, 2018

XP changes: Good. Nobody really likes tracking massive numbers of points, and the new system makes advancement more uniform for characters of different level.
Gold changes: Bad. Getting gold is fun, and gold is mostly useless, so there's no harm in letting PCs earn lots of it. And for the few things gold is useful for (scribing spells into a spellbook, and buying plate armor), the amounts characters earn is pathetic.
Magic item changes: Mixed. I agree that some adventures gave out way too many magic items, or way too powerful items. But this was the wrong way to solve that problem. The point system here feels unnatural and gamey. But I can't think of a better solution that doesn't involve time-travel.

rczarnec · Nov 2, 2018

Warmaster Horus said:
I have to agree with this. Moving from xp to advancement points is a good thing for AL. I think it's a powerful tool in enabling the DM and players to explore many kinds of resolutions to a scenario beyond fighting.

That was always an option, these rule changes do not change that in the least.

pogre · Nov 2, 2018

Something I wish they would bring back is formal surveys/ grading of DMs. Not necessarily for public consumption, but to better inform GMs of what folks really enjoy and what the GM should work on.

I am super comfortable with my skills overall, but sometimes I wonder what experience absolute strangers are looking for at my table.

It could be different for other players, and I have no real way of knowing except individual comments I receive. Those comments are always complimentary, but I really want to hear from folks who think it was less of a positive experience than they were hoping for. The old rating sheets were an easy way for people to share those criticisms.

Warmaster Horus · Nov 3, 2018

rczarnec said:
That was always an option, these rule changes do not change that in the least.

I've heard this before. The truth is that it is simpler for a DM to feel justified in providing ascribed xp for defeating monsters than saying they earned it via other methods. Therefore they know they are good if they give the xp for combat but might feel less inclined to provide the equivalent amount for solutions not involving fighting. Yes, it's been an option, but a more fuzzy one than just awarding xp for stomping monsters.

Lastly, I ran ToA for a year and had to think of lots of extra encounters to present to my players to provide them necessary advancement because the AL allowance for 'roleplaying xp' was downright paltry. Now it's just hours played, straight and simple (provided I feel the story is being served/advanced).

rczarnec · Nov 3, 2018

Warmaster Horus said:
I've heard this before. The truth is that it is simpler for a DM to feel justified in providing ascribed xp for defeating monsters than saying they earned it via other methods. Therefore they know they are good if they give the xp for combat but might feel less inclined to provide the equivalent amount for solutions not involving fighting. Yes, it's been an option, but a more fuzzy one than just awarding xp for stomping monsters.

Lastly, I ran ToA for a year and had to think of lots of extra encounters to present to my players to provide them necessary advancement because the AL allowance for 'roleplaying xp' was downright paltry. Now it's just hours played, straight and simple (provided I feel the story is being served/advanced).

You say that providing XP for overcoming encounters is a "fuzzy" option, but then say that the new method is better because you can award AP based on whether or not you feel that the story is being served/advanced. That is much fuzzier than overcoming encounters. There is no criteria at all for this, merely that you "feel" that they deserve it.

Warmaster Horus · Nov 3, 2018

rczarnec said:
You say that providing XP for overcoming encounters is a "fuzzy" option, but then say that the new method is better because you can award AP based on whether or not you feel that the story is being served/advanced. That is much fuzzier than overcoming encounters. There is no criteria at all for this, merely that you "feel" that they deserve it.

Yep. Fuzzy isn't all bad, but can effect someone's decision to use non-combat xp awards if they think they'll get 'official' criticism for doing so. Since APs are all fuzzy; no harm, no foul in awarding them as you decide as a DM. If you think the party was engaged in the game, having fun, etc and met any mod objective criteria regardless of how they achieved that, then it's all good.

Oofta · Nov 4, 2018

I understand the need for the change of direction. Previous living campaigns solved it by having custom modules which had prescribed rewards. However, I do think they're too stingy on gold. Along with wizards, any PC that relies on heavy armor is SOL - you're pretty much going to have to wait until you can get that magical plate before you upgrade from what you got at level 1. That, and I don't see an issue with having more gold as long as there isn't a magic mart. Would it really hurt if some people have a bunch of potions or scrolls?