Exclusive Adventures for DnDAL

[skerritthegreen]

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?

There is not a hard and fast on that (especially since some regions are not the same size). If the conventions in your example (about 3 hrs apart by car) wanted to run the same weekend then probably. If they were a few months apart, no. If a con in Seattle wanted to run the same weekend as a con in NY, they don't draw from the same pool (mostly), so that's not a conflict.

 

[CahPahkah]

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.

I didn't suggest that Admins should pay for anything, let alone everything. And unless your contributor agreement is substantively different than mine (which is certainly possible), I know how much we get paid for writing AL adventures. I'm sorry if suggesting that Hasbro pay you to attend a con is somehow offensive; that's not the intent. What I'm saying is that we have an existing channel in which content creators are paid to produce adventures for the AL community as a whole, and I find that preferable to devoting resources towards producing adventures for a very small subset of AL players.

To your own point, if con attendance costs so much that writing an AL adventure doesn't cover it (which is certainly true for some cons, depending on size and distance), we shouldn't be passing that financial burden on to players who want to experience AL content.

we were asking after what period you think is right.

I understand the question, and Day 1 is the period I think is right; I don't see any value to the broader AL player base in enforcing content-exclusivity behind a convention paywall.

Similarly, if we were to suggest "This adventure can only be run in Japan until January 1, 2018" or "This adventure can only be run at stores that have sold 50 copies of the SCAG" or "This adventure can only be run by DMs who are certified Level 3 by the Herald's Guild", I would say that this exclusivity feels artificial and intended for the benefit of someone other than AL players. And that's not awesome.

 

[Dracoprimus]

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?

I'm not sure how close is too close. But, I'd expect that...
ECCC and SakuraCon would be a definite no.(Same venue following weekends.)
ECCC and PAX West, maybe?(same venue but several months apart.)
PAX West and RCCC, maybe?(within about a month of each other, but, almost 200 miles apart.)
ECCC and RCCC, most likely.(almost 200 miles and several months apart. Would most likely be different Epics.).

Those are my guesses.

 

[Arksorn]

I am all for bringing in a MYREALMS type option (so moving as fast as we can to allow each DM to run exclusive content). The capability to use MYREALMS to adapt published adventures was great. There are so many classics to run. Slave Lords, Against the Giants, Age of Wyrms, etc.

 

[Dracoprimus]

I didn't suggest that Admins should pay for anything, let alone everything. And unless your contributor agreement is substantively different than mine (which is certainly possible), I know how much we get paid for writing AL adventures. I'm sorry if suggesting that Hasbro pay you to attend a con is somehow offensive; that's not the intent. What I'm saying is that we have an existing channel in which content creators are paid to produce adventures for the AL community as a whole, and I find that preferable to devoting resources towards producing adventures for a very small subset of AL players.

To your own point, if con attendance costs so much that writing an AL adventure doesn't cover it (which is certainly true for some cons, depending on size and distance), we shouldn't be passing that financial burden on to players who want to experience AL content.



I understand the question, and Day 1 is the period I think is right; I don't see any value to the broader AL player base in enforcing content-exclusivity behind a convention paywall.

Similarly, if we were to suggest "This adventure can only be run in Japan until January 1, 2018" or "This adventure can only be run at stores that have sold 50 copies of the SCAG" or "This adventure can only be run by DMs who are certified Level 3 by the Herald's Guild", I would say that this exclusivity feels artificial and intended for the benefit of someone other than AL players. And that's not awesome.

also, admin exclusive modules(and possibly RC and LC) are being looked at in terms of being a perk for us volunteers as well. AL has a very limited budget, and we(admins, RCs, and LCs) are all volunteers. When looking at ways of compensating, or rewarding, us for the time we put in, physical rewards are difficult to distribute to those outside the US. Allowing an exclusive module is something that could work as well for the volunteers in Europe as it does for the volunteers in the US. Actually, this could allow the players in Europe, or Asia, to play AL legal adventures that those of us in the US would NOT have access to. As opposed to everything being accessible in the US.

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

I am not in favor of allowing/creating a Myrealms setup for AL.

If it was done it would need to give out low exps, low gold and no magic items or consumables.

 

[Pauper]

Just a few quick-hits while I digest this thread:

- Baldman is exactly right when he talks about figuring out how to get the cool stuff paid for. Universal access and global simultaneity are great goals, but if you can't explain how to pay for your plans, you're just being an unrealistic utopian. I'll admit that the first admin-specific games being part of the new VIP program at Winter Fantasy probably rubs a few people the wrong way, but the reality is that the folks paying for those programs are stepping up with funds to make this cool stuff happen. Exclusivity, even if for a limited time, is part of the 'value' they are buying. If you're saying 'don't do this unless you can do it for everybody at the same time', then you're saying 'don't do this'.

- Please, please, please *don't* authorize a MyRealms-style adventure template for Adventurers League. I say this as someone who wrote a number of MyRealms adventures during Living Forgotten Realms, and played in a few others. The presumption is that a MyRealms-style adventure is good for local folks who want more specific content, but the reality is that the folks writing MyRealms adventures either can't or won't write AL-quality adventures. If you have a great idea for an adventure or a series of adventures, write them up and run them as a home game!

- The US/non-US divide is a real thing, and I have no insights on how to resolve that problem. I will point out, though, that a number of RPGA-style programs have developed organically from the fan-base rather than being imposed by the mothership. Of course, any potential Australian regionalization of AL will immediately run into the funding issues discussed in the first point above, so that may not be an answer, either.

--
Pauper

 

[Cascade]

I am also opposed to the MyRealms model.

The adventures become to "cut and paste". The stories are usually off topic. I can always buy a third party mod or home brew if I need more.

I'd certainly support a more regional flavor or flaire as was done in Living Greyhawk where regions had a local plot or story for cons and special events based upon geography. The admins / RC / LC would be the only ones to organize and run them. I routinely travel for something special; not so much for cookie cutter stuff.

Cas

 

[Anthraxus]

I am pro some-exclusivity for Cons, in a short term run by admins, then RC's and LC's, and then available to the general gaming populace(maybe 3-6 months in between exclusivity levels).

I am also very pro-Myrealms model for something different. I'm sure it could work with average to low XP/Gold rewards, and no permanent magic item. I'd love the opportunity to write a FR mod for whoever would like to play at the local gaming store. I don't even understand why people are so opposed to them. To be more clear- I've read the reasons others have listed already and still don't understand the opposition.

 

[CahPahkah]

Baldman is exactly right when he talks about figuring out how to get the cool stuff paid for. Universal access and global simultaneity are great goals, but if you can't explain how to pay for your plans, you're just being an unrealistic utopian.

Yes, Baldman is correct insofar as his events are concerned, but Baldman's objectives aren't the same as the objectives for the Adventurers League as a whole. That's not a criticism; it's totally appropriate for his concerns to be focused upon how to maximize value for the people attending his conventions. When that manifests in a form detrimental to the majority of AL players who are not attending the cons Baldman runs games at (which is what's really in question here), the "Does it make AL games at Gen Con cooler?" becomes a far less valuable question.

If you're saying 'don't do this unless you can do it for everybody at the same time', then you're saying 'don't do this'.

With the exception of Epics (which are limited by gameplay logistics) and one or two Expeditions a season (which are usually only delayed by a couple of weeks from their con premieres), all AL content is released to all players worldwide at the same time. We're already meeting the standard that you're saying is impossible to achieve; all I'm saying is "Let's maintain that philosophy as best we can."

If the core value proposition here is "We want to reward our overworked and under-compensated AL Admins.", then I'm totally on board. I just don't think adventure content exclusivity is a good way to do that.