Winter Fantasy 2016 and D&D AL

[Motorskills]

Why not randomize the magic items from a list of (say) ten possible items?


Edit: Of course, if the BBEGs are using the items that wouldn't work.

 

[Will Doyle]

Why not randomize the magic items from a list of (say) ten possible items?


Edit: Of course, if the BBEGs are using the items that wouldn't work.

I'm not sure how that would really be any different, unless you gave DMs (or players) the option to simply pick one from the list.

Also, note that adventure league writers do not chose which magic items are awarded in each adventure - they're given as part of the brief. That makes sense in the overall scope of the campaign.

 

[Alphastream]

There have been an incredible number of interactive events over the past 16+ years of organized play, with many takes on how to provide rewards. I haven't really seen one that makes everyone happy. I can go into some examples if it is helpful, but I think campaigns have to just vary what they offer each time. Sometimes it might be a list (which won't be perfect), sometimes story awards, sometimes just a few items, etc.

Challenge level is similar. When campaigns have tried to escalate challenge and keep up with strong tables, they still fall short. Worse, they create an arms race. And, consistently, the strongest tables cry foul when they get TPKed. An arms race is very hurtful to a campaign, turning new players away. New players are the lifeline of any campaign and as vital as the dedicated players who help bring them in. My recommendation to any author is this: don't ever compete with strong tables and never try to design for the current metagame. Write for the story. Write evocative material. The vast majority of players will respond to that, and so will the DMs running the event. If as a player you want a challenge (I do), talk to your DM and request that. Give them the free reign to create the challenge that will surprise you - but be fair and understanding if they go too far. When we go outside of the game's expected balance, strange things can happen. And, if the DM isn't comfortable with that, provide the challenge yourself - hold back on the insta-win stuff. We don't have to counterspell every strong spell. We can save it for the crucial moment when the fight is headed south. It isn't realistic to expect any RPG to provide a perfect challenge for our group when we are riding the metagame's wave.

(I'm not an admin, though I've written a few interactive events. I was a player for this one.)

 

[skerritthegreen]

If as a player you want a challenge (I do), talk to your DM and request that. Give them the free reign to create the challenge that will surprise you

This is probably the best suggestion yet! I know I have requested the same of BI DMs in multiple campaigns.

if the DM isn't comfortable with that

If your DM is comfortable with it and you know the players, another thing you can do is each take an encounter buff it up. One of my favorite PFS interactives was to have roughly six rounds each taking about an hour (with some time between for story and tabulation). The experienced table of friends I was at finished round 1 in 5 minutes and were sad to learn we now had a 55 minute break, and that the DM felt that was likely the most challenging fight we had just finished (only two characters got to act). So we asked him to beef it up and he said he wasn't good at that but was open to letting us do it. So we each took an encounter and penciled in what would actually challenge our level of play (we all played together a lot). It was a blast.

 

[kalani]

In AL however - the DM is not allowed to add encounters nor are they allowed to substitute enemies. However with that being said - between adjusting tactics, starting positioning and readiness, and monster numbers - I find I can scale the difficulty considerably.

 

[Eltab]

I guess the problem is, encounters 100% geared towards optimized groups run the risk of hosing other groups.

I played in two LFR BIs where the campaign felt like a grind-fest. Nobody had brought a DPR Striker ! (I had a status-effect Striker - a StarLock. But nobody could put down the enemies that I wrapped in marshmallow crème for a round.)
Lucky for my table, the rest of the group was winning more fights than they were losing. We came away feeling like we had earned a "Black-and-Blue Story Award".

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying 'we had no fun'. We DID have our moments*. What I took away was that there is a sense of satisfaction to be had in successfully enduring difficulties, not just when the Thrill of Victory is to be had.

* StarLock solo vs a half-dozen minions in a confined space, while the other PCs play a game of "plant the flag" on the other side of the map. We WON that one. (ouch)

 

[Eltab]

Put in a blurb that the enemy has seen the players coming and thus had time to buff up, all spell casters start greater invis, illusions everywhere to waste melee time running around, etc.

That could be a fun challenge for a normal table if Team Monster is low-DPR.
Similarly if their goal is to buy time for BBEG to do something somewhere else.

 

[Coredump]

In AL however - the DM is not allowed to add encounters nor are they allowed to substitute enemies. However with that being said - between adjusting tactics, starting positioning and readiness, and monster numbers - I find I can scale the difficulty considerably.

Y'know, people keep saying this.... but it sure isn't written anywhere. The AL website has a great article by Art S which covers a lot of useful ground, and doesn't agree with the above assertions. I realize there is a penchant to try and have a centralized control of the game, because sometimes people are afraid that things will go out of control otherwise. But that does not seem to match the actual AL approach as indicated in the ALPG, the AL website, and posts by the Admins.

In general terms, the mentioned article takes the same approach as the ALPG....to try and stick with the written adventure, but to make changes as needed to make sure it is fun for the players. There are actually very few things that must stay exactly the same.
In more specific terms, the article says you *are* allowed to add encounters, but to be "very careful" and "mindful of the time". Similarly, you are not limited to just 'more of the same monster' as keeps being asserted. It refers (in various places) about adding creatures of the same "type". That is *not* the same as the 'same creature'. 'Type' has a very specific definition in DnD, particularly when referring to monsters/creatures. They don't want you swapping out some fiends for undead, or dragons. But if there are basic skeletons, you are not limited to only more basic skeletons....

The AL clearly trusts its DMs to make the game fun for their players....the admins seem very consistent in this.

 

[kalani]

Please see Rise of Tiamat FAQ entry (which is perhaps the best example to use in this case, given the fact that the adventure lacks sufficient XP to reach the indicated levels, giving DMs strong impetus to add encounters to make up the deficit), as well as the following quote from Art's article.

[h=5]Rise of Tiamat does not include enough experience for characters to reach the anticipated levels for each episode and relies heavily on the milestone rule, which the D&D Adventurers League does not use, for advancement. It also leaves some treasure distribution to the Dungeon Master and to random die rolls. How should DMs handle these issues when running League games of Rise of Tiamat?[/h]

There are two solutions to the experience issue. First, DMs running Rise of Tiamat in the D&D Adventurers League should use the rules presented under the heading “Building Combat Encounters” in the Dungeon Master’s Basic Rules (pp. 56-58 in version 0.3) or under the heading “Creating a Combat Encounter” in the Dungeon Master’s Guide (pp. 81 to 85) to adjust foes to make them appropriate for the characters’ levels. However, DMs should not create new encounters to try to make up the experience deficit, nor should they use the milestone rule.

Alternately, or in conjunction with that solution, DMs may wish to wait to run some episodes of the adventure until characters reach the appropriate level and may want to run other adventures, such as D&D Expeditions, between episodes to help characters reach the appropriate level.

As far as treasure goes, DMs must only award magic items listed in the adventure and must not award random magic items. DMs may award appropriate consumable magic items, gold, gems, and art objects within the limits set by the tables on pages 136 to 139 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.​

DMing and DM Empowerment

Adding and Subtracting Foes: Do add or subtract foes of the same type from a combat to keep the challenge level appropriate to the group. Don’t add foes of a different type or switch out combat encounters entirely. Different types of foes have different abilities that can make combats much harder or much easier than substituting one foe for another of the same challenge rating may otherwise indicate. D&D Expeditions explicitly states which monsters can be added or subtracted for each encounter, however, D&D Encounters/Casual Games are a bit looser and rely on the DM to modify the encounters per the guidelines in the Dungeon Master’s Guide on encounter building.​

 

[Tyranthraxus]

Y'know, people keep saying this.... but it sure isn't written anywhere. The AL website has a great article by Art S which covers a lot of useful ground, and doesn't agree with the above assertions. I realize there is a penchant to try and have a centralized control of the game, because sometimes people are afraid that things will go out of control otherwise. But that does not seem to match the actual AL approach as indicated in the ALPG, the AL website, and posts by the Admins.

In general terms, the mentioned article takes the same approach as the ALPG....to try and stick with the written adventure, but to make changes as needed to make sure it is fun for the players. There are actually very few things that must stay exactly the same.
In more specific terms, the article says you *are* allowed to add encounters, but to be "very careful" and "mindful of the time". Similarly, you are not limited to just 'more of the same monster' as keeps being asserted. It refers (in various places) about adding creatures of the same "type". That is *not* the same as the 'same creature'. 'Type' has a very specific definition in DnD, particularly when referring to monsters/creatures. They don't want you swapping out some fiends for undead, or dragons. But if there are basic skeletons, you are not limited to only more basic skeletons....

The AL clearly trusts its DMs to make the game fun for their players....the admins seem very consistent in this.

AL trusts it's dms to follow the rules as have been stated. Kalani's post above should be all you need to know in that regard.