Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
AL VS LFR of 4th and why I'm so disappointed
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Steve_MND" data-source="post: 6814475" data-attributes="member: 6801314"><p>Which is why they are <em>not </em>relying on Wizards, because we know Wizards will end up going back on that the first time they feel they can make more money off of not bothering to stick with that, whether it be an intentional decision, or unintentionally just by not playtesting/editing as throughly as they had been. D&D has had literally decades of that same cycle, and I see no reason to think it'll just magically stop now. I agree it's annoying you can't have the oft-referenced genasi green-flame-blader in the campaign, but on the other hand, if you see a particular character idea as <em>literally </em>only viable with a single, solitary trick, you have bigger design questions to ask yourself when creating your character.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I'll agree with you on the Boots of Flying bit. AL has let two or three really, really broken items into the campaign, and the Boots are definitely one of them. Which also shows perfectly why a myRealms sort of blanket access to a range -- even a restricted one -- is not a good idea. But otherwise, I'm not seeing anything especially broken about your fighter-paladin-roque build. It's <em>very </em>costly to multiclass into to that with the point buy in place, meaning while you <em>can </em>do it, you're definitely stripping your potential in other spots.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, in a very real sense, the Admins/WotC DO know better (remember that an awful lot -- much more than I had originally anticipated -- of how AL has been run on decrees from WotC). That's because they have access to more information and material than we do. They have records and survey results and firsthand-experience on how other large-scale campaigns worked or didn't work (from the <em>admin </em>side of things, not the player side of things, which is important because those two tend to be <em>terribly </em>different). Not to say they can't make mistakes -- they are only human, after all. You can't please everyone, and to even try is sheer folly. Best you can do is ply a middle ground that works best for as many people as possible, knowing that you're going to lose some outliers on both ends of the spectrum.</p><p></p><p>And I'm okay with that. I personally don't like about half the decisions made by the AL campaign, and I think other approaches would have done better. But I also understand that those changes would also, coincidently, make it much more along the lines of what I <em>personally </em>would like to see in an OP campaign, which automatically makes it suspect that I'm not looking at it completely objectively.</p><p></p><p>Any OP-style campaign is about two things -- first, pleasing the corporate masters, because without them, there's no campaign to offer to the players in the first place. But after that, it's about the player base, because without them, there's no point to the campaign either.</p><p></p><p>But the player base isn't about you. And it isn't about me. It's not about Pauper, it's not about Kalani, and it's not about any of us individually. Rather, it's about the player base as a whole. Individually, we'll all have issues we don't agree with. But the goal is get something that works collectively, even with the individual disagreements factored in. Not an easy task even in the best of situations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Steve_MND, post: 6814475, member: 6801314"] Which is why they are [I]not [/I]relying on Wizards, because we know Wizards will end up going back on that the first time they feel they can make more money off of not bothering to stick with that, whether it be an intentional decision, or unintentionally just by not playtesting/editing as throughly as they had been. D&D has had literally decades of that same cycle, and I see no reason to think it'll just magically stop now. I agree it's annoying you can't have the oft-referenced genasi green-flame-blader in the campaign, but on the other hand, if you see a particular character idea as [I]literally [/I]only viable with a single, solitary trick, you have bigger design questions to ask yourself when creating your character. Well, I'll agree with you on the Boots of Flying bit. AL has let two or three really, really broken items into the campaign, and the Boots are definitely one of them. Which also shows perfectly why a myRealms sort of blanket access to a range -- even a restricted one -- is not a good idea. But otherwise, I'm not seeing anything especially broken about your fighter-paladin-roque build. It's [I]very [/I]costly to multiclass into to that with the point buy in place, meaning while you [I]can [/I]do it, you're definitely stripping your potential in other spots. Well, in a very real sense, the Admins/WotC DO know better (remember that an awful lot -- much more than I had originally anticipated -- of how AL has been run on decrees from WotC). That's because they have access to more information and material than we do. They have records and survey results and firsthand-experience on how other large-scale campaigns worked or didn't work (from the [I]admin [/I]side of things, not the player side of things, which is important because those two tend to be [I]terribly [/I]different). Not to say they can't make mistakes -- they are only human, after all. You can't please everyone, and to even try is sheer folly. Best you can do is ply a middle ground that works best for as many people as possible, knowing that you're going to lose some outliers on both ends of the spectrum. And I'm okay with that. I personally don't like about half the decisions made by the AL campaign, and I think other approaches would have done better. But I also understand that those changes would also, coincidently, make it much more along the lines of what I [I]personally [/I]would like to see in an OP campaign, which automatically makes it suspect that I'm not looking at it completely objectively. Any OP-style campaign is about two things -- first, pleasing the corporate masters, because without them, there's no campaign to offer to the players in the first place. But after that, it's about the player base, because without them, there's no point to the campaign either. But the player base isn't about you. And it isn't about me. It's not about Pauper, it's not about Kalani, and it's not about any of us individually. Rather, it's about the player base as a whole. Individually, we'll all have issues we don't agree with. But the goal is get something that works collectively, even with the individual disagreements factored in. Not an easy task even in the best of situations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
AL VS LFR of 4th and why I'm so disappointed
Top