Learn about D&D organized play options

Mirtek said:

Then you don't need AL

Click to expand...

That's my real concern. I was Triad in LG and Admin in LFR, I played almost every weekend for 7 years straight. If AL isn't for me, then why isn't it? Why was it designed to not appeal to those who love OP.

Mirtek said:

Yes. Or those that don't have a DM or frieds who play D&D with them. There are people who simply do not have the luxury of a home game going on. For them the monthly visit to the local store is the only chance to play D&D. E.g. during LG times I had no chance to play D&D regularily. I played 3-4 LG adventures per year and that was all the D&D play I had. Yet due to the nature of D&D even that little play was at least all part of a continuous campaign and allowed me to proceed up to level 7 with my rarely played character.

Click to expand...

Here's the deal, though. From my experience playing LG, people like that were in the severe minority. I'd constantly try to convince new people to join our campaign and the common answer was "I already have a home game? Why would I play LG? It takes up a lot of time, my character doesn't feel unique because nothing he does lasts beyond the end of an adventure. I keep running into other people who have done the exact same things I have, and my character doesn't seem to be able to keep the same friends longer than a day at a time. Meanwhile, I have to deal with generic rewards at the end of an adventure with capped gold rewards and I have to wait 6 months or a year for the sequel to the adventure I just played to come out so I can see what happens."

I would tell people, "Sure, there's a bunch of things you kind of have to overlook in order to play LG, but in exchange for overlooking those things, you get the benefit of people able to skip weeks, show up only when you want, and travel with your character to other cities or countries in order to find new an interesting play experiences elsewhere and come back with tales to tell."

For most of the people I spoke to, however, they didn't WANT to skip weeks. They wanted to show up EVERY week. They also didn't have the time or motivation to travel. So, for them, a home game just seemed better in every way.

Our LG group had about 20 regulars who showed up every week and about 5 more people who showed up periodically. With another 5 who showed up extremely rarely.

If this campaign is now designed to cater to the 5 people who show up periodically instead of the 20 people who show up regularly, then it will be completely impossible to schedule games.

Mirtek said:

Actually I think that this is the plan. They just won't have them ready at launch. LG and LFR also came out with only a few adventures at launch and they needed time to build up a bigger pool of adventures

Click to expand...

They've said their goal is to have 10 adventures by the end of the year. And that they don't play on putting out very many adventures total. If they keep that same pace, let's assume about 2 a month for the entire campaign.

However, my faith that adventures will get done at the rate they've suggested they will is near 0. So, I'm going to assume the actual rate is about 1 a month instead.

This means that if we get together weekly and play 2 adventures a week like we did during LG and LFR, we will have to repeat adventures 7 weekends out of 8. Even if they can put 24 out in a year, that still means we are repeating adventures 3 out of 4 weekends.

Either that or I need to arrange 2 conventions a year in order to run all the adventures that come out.

Many good points. On number of adventures, keep in mind that for most of the regions you had 8 in-region adventures per calendar year. That's what most players were playing each year, plus a few cores. The truly vested were usually playing all the cores and then traveling. You could average an adventure or two a week that way.

But, the core experience was usually those 8 in-region adventures. I think many organized play campaigns can provide a great experience with an adventure a month or even less. Organized Play doesn't have to be everything a player plays. I think that's especially true when you have a great story of which you feel you are a part. Like a TV show that takes a break, you can pause and come back for the next season.

It's also about workload. The campaign needs to choose the right amount of output for the input it is willing to make. It's easy to say "we need more adventures" but far harder to produce greater output with excellent quality. From my end, there is no way we could have released more than 9 Ashes of Athas adventures a year and maintained quality and sanity. Undoubtedly, other admins are made of sterner stuff, know different tricks, or can make do with lower quality consistency/oversight.

Majoru Oakheart said:

If AL isn't for me, then why isn't it?

Click to expand...

It offering your as much as anyone else. You are just so fortunate that you already have something better, so the offer doesn't appeal to you as much as to those who are less fortunate in regards to their D&D opportunities.

Majoru Oakheart said:

Why was it designed to not appeal to those who love OP.

Click to expand...

I love OP. It's the only thing that kept me playing D&D for years and I look forward to Expeditions. I was afraid they would abandon this model in far of "reset every x weeks encounters play"

Majoru Oakheart said:

They've said their goal is to have 10 adventures by the end of the year. And that they don't play on putting out very many adventures total. If they keep that same pace, let's assume about 2 a month for the entire campaign.

Click to expand...

The heyday of D&D play I could get the last years it was the monthly LFR day where we meet for two-three tables in two slots. I attened every time (or at least at 95% of times and when I couldn't make it a month, than meant 2 month without any D&D play for me) and that meant I could get 2 games per month (if I didn't DM in one slot, than I could only play 1 game per month). OK, occassionly I could sneak in an online game at WotC's game table, but that was rare since they were mostly done during the week at US time prime time (and that meant for me 1 am to 5 am) We came together from a 100km radius around the store and while some had their home games and only used LFR as an additional opportunity, there were many of us who, like me, only got to play at this one day per month.

Majoru Oakheart said:

This means that if we get together weekly and play 2 adventures a week like we did during LG and LFR,

Click to expand...

Well, it's obviously below your rapid pace (for which I seriously envy you, I wish I had the opportunity to play that often), but for me it's just enough. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind at all if WotC would churn out 5 adventures per month. The more vibrant D&D Expeditions turn out, the better for my meager chances to get the occasional game.

Alphastream said:

Many good points. On number of adventures, keep in mind that for most of the regions you had 8 in-region adventures per calendar year. That's what most players were playing each year, plus a few cores. The truly vested were usually playing all the cores and then traveling. You could average an adventure or two a week that way.

Click to expand...

Yeah, between regionals, metaregionals, and cores for the last couple of years, we always had things to run. We repeated adventures, as well, with low level characters when there weren't enough high level characters to play or there were new people who had no high level characters. Our primary goal was making sure everyone got to sit down and play. Plus, trying out new classes and having more than one character at higher levels was fun too.

But the only reason we were willing to put up with repeating adventures was that the rules prevented the new players from creating characters at higher levels. So, we resigned ourselves to replaying things for their benefit. Though I don't think anyone really LIKED replaying adventures. We just did it to make sure we had a game every week.

Alphastream said:

But, the core experience was usually those 8 in-region adventures. I think many organized play campaigns can provide a great experience with an adventure a month or even less. Organized Play doesn't have to be everything a player plays. I think that's especially true when you have a great story of which you feel you are a part. Like a TV show that takes a break, you can pause and come back for the next season.

Click to expand...

I don't think I was ever actually impressed with ANY of the storylines to come out of any OP campaigns. I probably have high standards. I watch TV shows written by professional writers and acted by people who can really sell a story.

The storyline in D&D games is interesting and some of the good ones have hooked me enough that I've said "That was interesting, I'd love to play the sequel". However, I played the sequel because I had adventures to occupy me in the meantime not because the plot was so good that I had to come back.

Just like TV, really. I've gone through phases where there was nothing good on. So, after a while of having nothing to watch, I stopped checking if there was anything good coming out.

I'm the one in our group who likes the plot the MOST. When my friends found out that LG was ending, I suggested we get together and play the last couple of adventures in the Ket region in order to experience the end of the storyline. I was outvoted by everyone else who said that if the campaign was ending, there was no point in playing because the XP and rewards for the adventure were just going to vanish when the campaign ended anyways. I appealed to them saying "Don't you want to know how it ends?" and everyone told me "No, we don't care."

Which made me feel great as one of the Triads of that region.

Alphastream said:

It's also about workload. The campaign needs to choose the right amount of output for the input it is willing to make. It's easy to say "we need more adventures" but far harder to produce greater output with excellent quality. From my end, there is no way we could have released more than 9 Ashes of Athas adventures a year and maintained quality and sanity. Undoubtedly, other admins are made of sterner stuff, know different tricks, or can make do with lower quality consistency/oversight.

Click to expand...

The key was to have lots and lots of writers that you know you can trust. Or in the case of our region, just having Stephen Baker around.

Still, I am under the belief that "bad" adventures aren't as bad as everyone thinks they are. We played a lot of adventures and we know some were much worse than others. However, I don't think we ever walked away from a table actively saying "I wish we had never played that, it was horrible and a waste of our time." Well, maybe once or twice. However, LG managed to keep a minimum standard despite having about 100 writers across the whole campaign. The key is to allow as many volunteers as possible to run the campaign so that much work can get done.

However, I am aware that currently WOTC doesn't want to give up that much control of the campaign. They want to tie the adventures more closely into a product in the store that they can sell to you. They believe that careful control over the adventures that go out also makes them higher quality. I'm not entirely sure of that.

Mirtek said:

It offering your as much as anyone else. You are just so fortunate that you already have something better, so the offer doesn't appeal to you as much as to those who are less fortunate in regards to their D&D opportunities.

Click to expand...

Here's the deal: That means the campaign isn't for me.

They've chosen to offer me something I can't use. It's like offering a taxi service to someone who already owns a car. They aren't going to use it. But it isn't designed for them. This campaign isn't designed for me...on purpose it would seem. My question is: Why not? If they have divided the campaign into sections, each appealing to a different segment of the audience...where is the section designed for players like me and my LG group of friends? Where is the campaign designed to appeal to those people who abandoned us for Pathfinder Society?

Mirtek said:

I love OP. It's the only thing that kept me playing D&D for years and I look forward to Expeditions. I was afraid they would abandon this model in far of "reset every x weeks encounters play"

Click to expand...

I was afraid of this as well. AL appears to be playable. And I'm not entirely convinced that I don't have a place in it. We still haven't seen everything about the campaign. Adventures might come out faster than I think. Factions might make for an interesting addition to the adventures that make them very fun to play. We might get so many people interested that I'm running the adventures over and over to keep up with the demand.

However, my point wasn't that you were not an OP fan, but that you were not OP's core audience. The core audience were the people who showed up to play at the 3 or 4 conventions we had in Toronto every year because they really wanted to get more XP for their fighter. The same ones who traveled to Gen Con every year and crossed the border to Michigan once a year to play in a con there.

That core audience seems to be left out in the cold.

Mirtek said:

Well, it's obviously below your rapid pace (for which I seriously envy you, I wish I had the opportunity to play that often), but for me it's just enough. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind at all if WotC would churn out 5 adventures per month. The more vibrant D&D Expeditions turn out, the better for my meager chances to get the occasional game.

Click to expand...

I've been told by WOTC that if they churned out adventures at the rate of 5 per month no one will play in the campaign. I had this discussion during LFR's early formation. They wouldn't let us add more adventures to our calender even if we could find the authors to do so. They said that people complained in LG that too many adventures were coming out and players felt they had to play all of them and there just wasn't enough time for them to do so.

When players realized they couldn't play all of them, they decided not to participate in the campaign at all. So they were losing customers because of that. They said they did some market research that says the majority of their customers don't want to play that often.

Which is precisely why there are so few adventures in AL.

I am less troubled by the supposed paucity of Expeditions style adventures than I am feeling that I must play Encounters every week to be fully invested in the storyline. I would actually love to play Encounters every week, but unfortunately my job and geographic location just don't allow for it.

That said, I am not as downhearted over all this as I was originally. I am going to try to participate in AL as much as real life allows. I suspect-- much like I did with 4E/LFR-- I will play it side by side with Pathfinder Society.

I'm a big fan of playing multiple organized play programs! Each program scratches a slightly different itch. In the end, it is all gamings and RPGs and a fun time.

Alphastream said:

I'm a big fan of playing multiple organized play programs! Each program scratches a slightly different itch. In the end, it is all gamings and RPGs and a fun time.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and how cool would it be if Wizards somehow found a way to support fan-run OP campaigns. Like on set it, oh, I don't know, Dark Sun? Now if only there was an experienced OP content designer with experience in running an OP campaign in that setting already . . . hmmmm.

I would love a return to the RPGA olden days with opportunities to play in settings like Living City, Living Jungle, Living Death, etc. Of course, I would also love to have the time to play in all of these campaigns.

smerwin29 said:

Yeah, and how cool would it be if Wizards somehow found a way to support fan-run OP campaigns. Like on set it, oh, I don't know, Dark Sun? Now if only there was an experienced OP content designer with experience in running an OP campaign in that setting already . . . hmmmm.

Click to expand...

That sounds really cool. I want to play in that campaign, and for you to run it for me! ;-)

In all seriousness, I think gamers are better off with Wizards running one primary campaign and from time to time sprinkling in a smaller and shorter-running side campaign that is fairly different. Other RPGs can then offer additional different experiences. Running or even overseeing a handful of campaigns is, I think, too much and ends up with mixed quality and confusion for players.

While I did really like what we did with Ashes across three years, I also could see gamers benefiting from a side campaign that runs for just one calendar year. For example, a 2015-only Eberron campaign with deep story, 9 adventures total releasing in chapters of 3, available first at cons and then for stores, at the end of the year sold through DnDClassics. It could serve three purposes: give an option to gamers who want something else or who want more, provide a taste of a different setting, and leave behind playable content that supports that setting for the edition.