D&D 5E State of D&D

[Echohawk]

My point stands: Creating this "you MUST run a PUBLIC game or you cannot see these adventures" rule is completely contrary to the spirit of D&D. It makes no sense. It does not align with what makes the hobby work.

So far, at least three of the AL adventures have been made available for free download via Dragon+:

• Harried in Hillsfar
• Shackles of Blood
• The Occupation of Szith Morcane

 

[DEFCON 1]

My point stands: Creating this "you MUST run a PUBLIC game or you cannot see these adventures" rule is completely contrary to the spirit of D&D. It makes no sense. It does not align with what makes the hobby work.

As opposed to the "you MUST spend MONEY or you cannot see these adventures" rule, which I guess is right in the spirit of D&D and which everyone's good with. That rule is one that aligns with the hobby to a T huh?

 

[Hussar]

It makes it possible for any person, ever, to derive value from their existence, instead of consigning them entirely to the trash heap forever, with no future possibility that anyone will enjoy them.

Well, anyone that didn't give up their bit of free time to run one game once in a six month period of time. All those that did give up their time have those modules. So, no, they are not consigned to the trash heap forever. Simply not available to you.

Not all of us live close enough to "the gaming store" to find that in any way relevant to our interests or goals. Furthermore, not all of us want to go to the gaming store.

Then run an online game. Again, it's a tiny time commitment for access to fifteen or so modules.

One of my friends went to an AL thing, which was indeed run by a new DM. He won't be back, ever, because it was an utterly horrible experience, because the new DM had no idea how to run the module or how to run an enjoyable game.

This doesn't sound like a good thing at all.

So, because one of your friends had a bad experience with D&D, you'll never even consider giving it a try? Really?

Maybe it's "not hard" for you. For me, it would be very hard.

And while I get your idea that they are there for one purpose and only one purpose... That makes them bad D&D, because the entire point of the system, the soul of the RPG, is that it has whatever purpose the players feel like having. You can run heroes. You can run villains. You can do politics, or kick-in-the-door combat, or you can do romance plots, or you can do intrigue, and whatever you want, you decide how to apply the gaming materials to the experience you want to have.

If your pitch here is "this is like D&D, but we want to actively insult anyone who doesn't want to use it for exactly this particular experience here and not ever for any other experience, and we will take steps to specifically prevent anyone from using this material to make other experiences", well, that sure does not sound appealing to me. That's not what made D&D a good idea in the first place.

Say what? It's not like you need these modules to run D&D. How in the world do you go from "These modules are only available to those who commit to running one public game" to an insult? How entitled do you think you are to these? In what world do you have any "right" to have these available to you?

Let's keep this straight shall we? These are MODULES. They are not needed to play D&D in any way, shape or form. They are 100% optional material that is completely not needed to play. Taking this as a personal insult that WotC is insisting that they are available only to those who want to give up their time to help the hobby by supporting the LGS and are more or less a reward for those who give up their time has exactly ZERO to do with you. You want nothing to do with AL? Fine and dandy. That's not a problem. But, that choice means that you don't get access to these modules. That's YOUR choice.

My point stands: Creating this "you MUST run a PUBLIC game or you cannot see these adventures" rule is completely contrary to the spirit of D&D. It makes no sense. It does not align with what makes the hobby work.

Again, say what? I have a pretty good feeling that you have no idea what makes the hobby work.

 

[Jester David]

You may not intend it, but you are very clearly sending the message that people who would only play with friends, not in organized play, are unwelcome in the D&D community, and that Wizards should actively exclude them from access to new content. That seems like a really bad message.

Everyone is welcome to the D&D community. But not everyone needs access to the D&D marketing material.

Adventurer's League adventures is content and material provided to support play in stores. It's advertising of the game, hence the public play restriction. It's the equivalent of cardboard standees, posters, and other promotional material.
Do you feel unwelcome because WotC is not providing your gaming group with free posters?

It's not as though this is a new concept for D&D; lots of classic 1E modules were originally tournament-play modules, which were then published later for home play, for the benefit of the large number of players who absolutely do not want to go to a public place and play with strangers, but who still want to see the modules or adapt them for their own use.

Very true. They were republished. After several years. The AL stuff has been out for just over a year. They're still being played in stores. It wouldn't do to have potential players be able to read the adventures and know what's coming.

Things are also slightly different. There's an actual promotional budget. Back when the old tournament modules were republished the company was still new and looking for revenue streams. It might have been trying to re-appropriate existing content to make quick money, to keep the company afloat while they worked on the new books.

Of course, there's also a wealth of 2nd Edition and later RPGA material that was never republished, including many tournament modules. The reprinting ceased early in the 1e era. To say nothing of the thousands of Living Greyhawk modules. Or even the WotC Free RPG Day stuff or other promotional adventures, such as the classic adventures updated to 4th Edition. It's pretty standard for WotC to not re-release that content.
As a Ravenloft collector, I would kill to have access to some of the 2e Ravenloft tournament adventures, but these are lost to history now.


I'm guessing you haven't seen an AL module. It's not exactly professional. It's not something people would be expected to pay money for. There's no art and the maps look like something you'd draw at home. It's hastily edited and typos are not uncommon, and there's limited polish and playtesting. They're good... for a free product. Not something they could sell.

 

[Morrus]

You may not intend it, but you are very clearly sending the message that people who would only play with friends, not in organized play, are unwelcome in the D&D community, and that Wizards should actively exclude them from access to new content. That seems like a really bad message.

You are in the D&D community. Right here.

The D&D community predates DDAL. It predates WotC. It predates EN World.

You're in it! Don't ever let anyone tell you you're not; there are no gatekeepers.

 

[bedir than]

My point stands: Creating this "you MUST run a PUBLIC game or you cannot see these adventures" rule is completely contrary to the spirit of D&D. It makes no sense. It does not align with what makes the hobby work.

What's the spirit of DnD that this runs contrary to?

I know I was an evangelist and am an evangelist for the hobby. I've never used organized play to do it, but I know that I always looked to introduce new people, because through their ideas I found new stories. Otherwise it would be the same four friends sitting in a basement running the same mega-dungeon with the same half-elf ranger, the same dwarven cleric, and the same elven fighter-mage and the same halfing fighter. We'd never evolve.

Instead we found new ways to find new players. We campaigned in cities, dungeons, wilderness and space. We played two different homebrews, the Realms, DragonLance, and Spelljammer. New races entered our games; new classes entered our games. We played sandboxes, railroads, all-combat, mystery, political intrigue, horror, exploration.

Our games grew because new people joined - not because of TSR. Our games improved not because of a few dozen and a corporation. They grew because of people with which we interacted. New books and modules were neat. New novels and other periphery stuff were interesting.

But what was most interesting was finding out that there were dozens of people just like me. They'd put aside various clicks and social conventions, pick up a sheet of paper and some dice. Together we'd create legends - dragons would die, princesses would be saved, spells would be cast and heroes emerge.

That's the spirit of D&D - the creation of new legends by a group of people who may only have polyhedral dice and a love of mutual storytelling. Stores help, modules help, ENWorld helps, blogs help, online tools help, but in the end if you don't find the people to do it with you don't have the game.

Organized play is about introducing more people to the game. It's about helping brick & mortar stores remain a viable outlet. And it is entirely within the Spirit of D&D.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

When an option to get access to something exists and the only reason it doesn't work for you is because you choose to not use it, that's really on you.

Whether it is that friend that is completely okay with you borrowing their tools if you come and pick them up, that family member that will feed and clothe you if you visit them, or that role-playing game producer that will give you numerous adventures if you actually run them in circumstances more likely to grow the fan base and/or sales at local game shops.

 

[Rhenny]

What's the spirit of DnD that this runs contrary to?

I know I was an evangelist and am an evangelist for the hobby. I've never used organized play to do it, but I know that I always looked to introduce new people, because through their ideas I found new stories. Otherwise it would be the same four friends sitting in a basement running the same mega-dungeon with the same half-elf ranger, the same dwarven cleric, and the same elven fighter-mage and the same halfing fighter. We'd never evolve.

Instead we found new ways to find new players. We campaigned in cities, dungeons, wilderness and space. We played two different homebrews, the Realms, DragonLance, and Spelljammer. New races entered our games; new classes entered our games. We played sandboxes, railroads, all-combat, mystery, political intrigue, horror, exploration.

Our games grew because new people joined - not because of TSR. Our games improved not because of a few dozen and a corporation. They grew because of people with which we interacted. New books and modules were neat. New novels and other periphery stuff were interesting.

But what was most interesting was finding out that there were dozens of people just like me. They'd put aside various clicks and social conventions, pick up a sheet of paper and some dice. Together we'd create legends - dragons would die, princesses would be saved, spells would be cast and heroes emerge.

That's the spirit of D&D - the creation of new legends by a group of people who may only have polyhedral dice and a love of mutual storytelling. Stores help, modules help, ENWorld helps, blogs help, online tools help, but in the end if you don't find the people to do it with you don't have the game.

Organized play is about introducing more people to the game. It's about helping brick & mortar stores remain a viable outlet. And it is entirely within the Spirit of D&D.

I have to agree with this. To encourage more public gaming is a great goal, and keeping material exclusively for that seems like a good strategy.

I never really thought about it, and to be honest, I have only just recently (over the past 3 years) even experienced what it is like to game with people I never knew before. It is amazing.

Prior to the D&DNext Playtest, I mostly played with a stable of the same players over a 30 year period. We started in High School...played a little through college, took long breaks, came back to D&D in the 3e/3.5e period and did a little in the 4e period.

During the playtest, I hooked up with a number of people online via WotC Community and while playtesting (as DM and player) I felt the excitement of gaming with others who I didn't know. Being able to do that proved to me the strength and spirit of D&D. I have not yet gone to my local store to play or DM on Wednesday nights, but perhaps that will happen in the future.

Public games and convention games/tournaments is completely part of the spirit of D&D, and if providing exclusive content for those venues keeps D&D Expeditions and Adventurer's League growing, I'm totally up for that.

 

[Remathilis]

You may not intend it, but you are very clearly sending the message that people who would only play with friends, not in organized play, are unwelcome in the D&D community, and that Wizards should actively exclude them from access to new content. That seems like a really bad message.

Every Hobby has its exclusives. Magic has special promo cards you can only get by attending tournaments or Friday Night Magic. Star Wars has dozens of rare figures never sold in the stores but only made for convention goers. Name a hobby and somewhere there is a rare item or option you can't buy (or buy cheaply on the second hand market) but that doesn't mean you're not a part of the community.

 

[Staffan]

Sorry but your analogy isn't correct because I don't refer to WoTc as the restaurant. I refer WoTc as the new new cooks who decided to change the menu and D&D as the restaurant.

It's been 18 years since Wizards bought TSR. We're not quite yet at the point where D&D's been owned by Wizards for longer than it was owned by TSR (that'll be in 2020), but we're close. I think we can stop referring to Wizards as "the new cooks".