Adventurers League, Home Play, and Public Play for Out of the Abyss characters

[Pauper]

I would very much like to focus on things that the AL could actually do something about and not what it can't (and thus my original post).

Sounds like a plan. Let's focus on those and see what we, as an organization, might do.

(T)he original poster brought up that he/she was having a difficult time at their store because:
a) They started the season late and characters are of various levels.

That's de rigueur for Encounters play, where people can enter and leave the game as they choose -- Encounters specifically allows this.

Point the OP toward the Organizers site that discusses how Encounters works. The campaign already knows it's not going to authorize starting at higher level with AL-legal characters.

b) The number of games being played is off. (and the DM seems to be running some games at his house for select players, advancing them faster than others)

This seems like it might be shady, but depending on the adventure, it might be totally legal -- if the DM is running Encounters at the store and the same hardcover adventure in a home game, then both games could be AL-legal.

Granted, the same character shouldn't be played in both games, but the OP doesn't provide any evidence of that, only suggestion, which might also be explained by the OP not being present for all the previous sessions, or by those players participating in Expeditions adventures the OP doesn't know about which, while frowned upon, is allowed under AL rules.

A reminder that a DM should verify that any PCs played in her Encounters or home game aren't being played simultaneously in another Encounters or home game might be useful.

c) The poster was not always allowed to play due to the number of players.

Again, this is allowable -- the ALPG specifically allows store organizers to limit the number of players at a table to best suit the venue. While many would support the idea that every player who shows up should get to play, that's not always the best solution for every venue.

The OP doesn't give any reason provided by the venue as to why he wasn't seated. We can either presume that there was no reason given (but why not say the store gave no reason), that the reason given was a bad one (but why not provide that reason), or that the reason given was one the OP didn't agree with but was otherwise reasonable. I know which I believe is most likely.

d) Only some people are allowed to DM by the store.

Also allowable and in fact encouraged -- especially if the store is compensating DMs with discounts or other perks, and super-especially given that the DM is going to end up representing the store at whatever table she runs. Again, the implication is that only the organizer's/owner's friends end up DMing, but if those are the best people to be DMing, I don't really see the problem with that. (I'd consider myself a friend of the owner of the store I used to organize AL for, as an example. I'd frankly be surprised if a sizable number of DMs aren't friends with the organizers/owners of their stores, as that's the obvious place to start looking for DMs.)

It should be noted that the OP was given the opportunity to DM, but got negative feedback and wasn't invited to DM again -- this seems much less problematic than simply not being allowed to DM at all. A store organizer/owner has just as much right to decide who gets to return to her store as a DM as she does to decide who gets to try to be a DM in her store in the first place.

e) The tables were using voting to determine if other players were violating the Code of Conduct (swearing).

This sounds weird as written, but goes to the point I first made to the OP -- he isn't the person who gets to interpret the Code of Conduct on behalf of the store. There's an odor of peer pressure that makes an open vote not seem like the best specific method of handling Code violations, but the principle seems solid to me -- it's the people in the store, collectively, who decide what the proper 'tone' is for the store. Some might choose to ban swearing, others might allow it in moderation. Some might nix sports talk as a distraction from the game, other's might embrace it as a celebration of the social nature of RPGs.

f) The store owner is not responsive to complaints

Unless we have other evidence (and the OP doesn't bother to name this supposedly problematic store), all we know is that the owner isn't responsive to the OP's complaints -- and given much of the asides and ensuing discussion, there's good reason to suspect that we're being presented with a biased, self-serving description of those complaints.

With that said, solely along those lines I think the discussion should have ended on page 1 when I and others suggested that the OP did the right thing by bringing the issues up here and also should address them to WotC Customer Service (though I hope the OP was at least willing to name the store to them, otherwise I doubt the feedback will be very useful).

I felt the need to point out to the OP that, just because he (I assume it's a 'he') didn't care for the store's environment, that didn't mean it was a bad environment. Heck, poly folk who aren't afraid to do a little swearing? Where do I sign up for a game?

; )

--
Pauper

 

[Steve_MND]

Dear god, this thread has turned into a train wreck.

I'll just say what I did before. Unless you're all friends or people that know each other and know each other's level of comfort with various topics, keep the non-gaming talk away from the gaming table, and have some common sense to reign in on any that does creep up.