Exclusive Adventures for DnDAL

[skerritthegreen]

The point was that they couldn't experience the whole epic battle with all the cults (and defeating them) DDEX 2-14 was merely aftermath.

My whole point was that you should not add content that is not available to everyone in the world, especially not if they have some sort of major event in a over arcing plot line, since everyone wants to play that not just the people that happen to live in the US and can attend a con

EPIC2 has actually been run in several countries. Japan, Russian and Brazil all come to mind. Any convention can apply to get an epic and there are only a few minimal requirements.

 

[Ovinomancer1981]

there are only a few minimal requirements.

Which are these?

 

[skerritthegreen]

Which are these?

We would like a minimum number of tables to be run (usually 10, though we lower that number for non-US cons), it cannot be geographically/temporal close to some place else that ran the epic, and your con has to have a good reputation (for example if your con has been caught doing naughty things, we are not rewarding you with an epic).

 

[Steve_MND]

Edit: I just saw your reply Skerrit to another Poster RE the MyRealms concept. I will admit. I have been vocal in my oppositiion on Facebook to such a concept. I think it dilutes the story arcs being created, creates some ruling issues (despite best intentions) and creates some exclusivity (namely some dms who have the time to do such things and those that do not).

What exactly is "the MyRealms concept?"

 

[skerritthegreen]

What exactly is "the MyRealms concept?"

A template that gives a fixed gp/xp/item with some suggestions on possible plot that the local DM then invents their own adventure. Was used in Mark of Heroes, Xen'Drick Expeditions, and Living FR.

 

[Steve_MND]

A template that gives a fixed gp/xp/item with some suggestions on possible plot that the local DM then invents their own adventure. Was used in Mark of Heroes, Xen'Drick Expeditions, and Living FR.

Something along those lines, if set up correctly, would be amazingly nice to have.

As mentioned previously, one of the biggest drawback of a Living Campaign set up like AL is that it is incredibly impersonal. With very little exception, nothing the typical player does will have any real noticeable effect on the campaign as a whole, and the unfortunate-but-understandable reliance on the official mods means that there is comparatively little in the way of customization or tailoring of things to a particular character concept.

The first problem can be fixed somewhat with better/more expanded module reporting and longer reporting periods (seriously, one mod I think became open for public play with something like three days of reporting time left available for it). But being able to actually engage specific characters in such a limited scope has always been an issue for almost all Living Campaigns. With potentially tens of thousands of players all across the globe, having any sort of unique (or even localized) gameplay is almost impossible.

Living Greyhawk handled some of this problem by having a much more decentralized structure, with the various Triads controlling a regional area of real-world geography, being able to create their own local mods, etc. Heck, the Duchy of Geoff even had its own mailing list for roleplaying, which was an amazing godsend, because it allowed for characters all across the region to interact outside the limited scope of the mods, and more importantly, the Triads were monitoring and administering the mailing list, so what was happening there was actual "legal" and real for the region -- we had more than one event occur that caused issues and problems for the region, and some major regional (and some cross-regional!) plotpoints were developed without a single person ever actually sitting at a table and rolling a die. I cannot begin to tell you how so much more 'alive' that made the campaign feel.

AL can never be LG, of course, but anything that allows for that sort of engagement to be applied to AL play, I am 100% on board. A way for a local DM to customize an adventure to a certain player (within the proper limitations, etc.) would be amazing. Heck, LG had a process by which you could request the ability to write a special module for a specific player to engage in and complete a unique opportunity that would not be suitable or even possible in a global campaign. One of my characters got permission to have mission written for him to allow him to rescue the skull of a kinfolk from where it was being held as a trophy, and -- altho I was never able to write it before -- the campaign wrapped up, I had been given permission to write a special mission wherein another player in the campaign could have a bunch of his friends form a 'strike team' to venture into the Far Realm to recover his character's body for resurrection purposes.

Stuff like that can't happen in a widely-spread Living Play campaign like AL, but anything that might allow for something similar, I'd love to see. So if these Admin-only modules might potentially lead to something more down the line, I'm all for them.

 

[CahPahkah]

Final details aren't set, but would this help?

*) Admin creates and deploys adventure for whatever format is available -- convention, LGS, or other public play
*) 12 months after creation, RCs & LCs get access to run it at their events (as above)
*) 24 months after creation, becomes available for public consumption (any DM globally)

Admins can already take Expedition writing assignments and determine when adventures premiere. If you wanted to, you could even use the designer fee you receive to offset the cost of your attendance at the con where your adventure is premiering. You could even decide that you want to volunteer to run your adventure multiple times throughout that weekend.

So I guess my question is, if you can already achieve all of that under the existing system, what end is served by creating a new tier of exclusionary adventures?

The only difference I see between what you're suggesting and what's already in place is that we end up with official AL adventures that 99% of players don't have access to or only gain access to significantly after the fact. Am I missing something?

How does "I'm going to write DDEX5-8 and run a bunch of slots of its premiere at Winter Fantasy, which I will pay for from the proceeds of my writing agreement." not achieve the same ends, but with the added benefit of making content available to all AL players, regardless of their ability to pay to attend cons?

Is creating more exclusive AL content actually the goal?

 

[skerritthegreen]

If you wanted to, you could even use the designer fee you receive to offset the cost of your attendance at the con where your adventure is premiering.

I'm not sure you think how much you get for writing, but its not likely to cover the costs of going to the con. Add to it that some of us (like myself) are unemployed and I find it bordering on offensive that you think the admins should just pay for everything. (We already have paid for a number of the promotional items out of our own pockets, expecting more is pretty darn entitled.)

The only difference I see between what you're suggesting and what's already in place is that we end up with official AL adventures that 99% of players don't have access to or only gain access to significantly after the fact. Am I missing something?

Yes, see question 4 of the original discussion. The adventure would become playable by everyone after some period of time, and we were asking after what period you think is right.

Is creating more exclusive AL content actually the goal?

The goals are to A) create something that builds excitement in places where large numbers of gamers come together (build community through cons/stores); B) increase the amount of content without changing the budget (there is no pay for these adventures); C) Add value to stores or cons that invite Admins to their events (as the Baldman previous said, bringing out Admins costs money); D) Make sure there is a way to eventually have everyone to be able to access this content (thus the question about when they should be legal for everyone while still meeting the other goals).

 

[warfteiner]

CahPahkah, I don't think we're seeing eye-to-eye here. Hopefully this helps?

The example you're using in which a designer is paid to create content then pays to attend the convention so that they can run their adventure, isn't the model we're looking at. If we're gonna pay a designer, we want them to use that cash in a way that they will enjoy - if that involves funding a trip to a convention, fantastic, but more often than not we'd like to see them pay off some bills, maybe buy a good dinner, etc. We're not exactly rolling in cash after writing an adventure

We're aiming to create some more personal-feel content. We've talked long and hard about how the players and DMs are intrinsically responsible for the future of the campaign setting, and we've seen the results of their in-game decisions many times over (most recently, and most explosively, the end result of season 2 and the fate of Mulmaster). The Adventurers League is focused on public play and by default that does mean that we're going to look at ways to get people into stores and conventions before we evaluate home play and other private play options. By creating adventures run by the people that are actually running the campaign, it's our way of saying thanks - and provides us another way to get input from the gamers on where the campaign can and will go without tipping our hand on upcoming seasons, themes, and announcements. The admin adventures allow us to break away from the constraints of a season and its associated theme and explore other stuff (for example, although my adventure starts in Mulmaster it very quickly moves away from there and into more horrific territory in the surrounding lands).

The conventions that I've spoken with have been very keen on using these as a way to reward DMs, as well - as a thank you for their volunteer hours and participation, I've been asked to run this at a couple of upcoming shows for DMs first and foremost. I believe strongly in the fact that our DMs kick a lot of ass and I'm incredibly pleased (and flattered) that people want me to run games for them in return!

 

[Inxanity]

We would like a minimum number of tables to be run (usually 10, though we lower that number for non-US cons), it cannot be geographically/temporal close to some place else that ran the epic, and your con has to have a good reputation (for example if your con has been caught doing naughty things, we are not rewarding you with an epic).

Regarding the bolded part in quote, what is the limit of "close?" If a convention in Seattle, WA runs an Epic, does that prevent a convention in Portland, OR from running that same Epic or vice-versa?