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

[Steve_MND]

Aaaand there we go. It certainly seems from your description that the folks at this store are jerks, but then again this comment makes it seem as though their behavior toward you might be explainable, if not justified. You've read the Player's Handbook, right? Especially this part?

Well, to be fair, we don't know anything about the specifics. Regardless of the orientations, most people I suspect would feel that discussions about one's real-world sexual escapades is not something suitable for a public gaming table. One can be inclusive about a topic and at the same time not accepting of it being discussed inappropriately.

Regardless, that PHB section is something about being inclusive in the game world. Trying to validate or invalidate someone's real-world beliefs on this sort of stuff is a powderkeg that AL and D&D definitely does NOT want to mess with. We should move right along from pursuing this angle of discussion, IMHO.

 

[Pauper]

Well, to be fair, we don't know anything about the specifics. Regardless of the orientations, most people I suspect would feel that discussions about one's real-world sexual escapades is not something suitable for a public gaming table. One can be inclusive about a topic and at the same time not accepting of it being discussed inappropriately.

You're right, we know nothing about the specifics except what the original poster has provided. That said, the correct determinant for what kind of discussion is 'appropriate' for a game store is the person in charge of the game store, not a person who just walked in a couple of weeks ago. If the folks there feel comfortable discussing certain topics, it's likely because those topics are deemed 'OK' for that environment.

Regardless, that PHB section is something about being inclusive in the game world. Trying to validate or invalidate someone's real-world beliefs on this sort of stuff is a powderkeg that AL and D&D definitely does NOT want to mess with. We should move right along from pursuing this angle of discussion, IMHO.

Except that AL does involve itself directly with those sorts of topics via the Code of Conduct. My main point is that, just as AL doesn't allow players to browbeat DMs with printed-out copies of Sage Advice or other rules discussions, AL shouldn't allow players to browbeat store owners and organizers with the Code of Conduct -- just because I or you or the original poster might consider something a violation doesn't make it so, because it's up to the folks in charge of that space to decide what is allowable conduct in that space. Now, if enough people complain to WotC Customer Service about a particular store, then maybe the problem is with the store and not with the people complaining; I'm not saying every store environment is defensible as long as everyone in the store agrees. But given that the only information we have about the store is from the person who is admitting he's not happy with it, I'm loath to assume that the story we're getting is entirely unbiased.

And, of course, since I have no official credentials with Adventurers League, if the original poster isn't happy with my comments, he can just lump me in with those jerks ruining his fun; he can still find a group that fits him better and enjoy the game just fine, or he can give up the game entirely if he chooses to.

--
Pauper

 

[Eltab]

Michael,

I know a game store in Ft Wayne IN whose primary D&D group may have to split in two because it's so big. Would you like to check us out? We'll likely have room for you shortly.

BRJN
Tiamat DM, PotA player

 

[Asatania_GM]

Well, to be fair, we don't know anything about the specifics. Regardless of the orientations, most people I suspect would feel that discussions about one's real-world sexual escapades is not something suitable for a public gaming table. One can be inclusive about a topic and at the same time not accepting of it being discussed inappropriately.

Also to be fair, discussion of polyamory may have nothing to do with sexual escapades. If you ask me if I'm married, I'm going to say "yes." If I'm polyamorous, I'll probably say something to that effect. There's a lot of room to discuss life and love without delving into truly private issues.

As marginalized as many gamers are for their hobbies, we should be more accepting of people that don't fit the narrow confines of "normal."

 

[Tyranthraxus]

Hi, Im due to start running this, this coming Wednesday. Ive got my npcs cards, and maps laminated and ready to go.

However unlike Princes there are no boxes to give me an approx of when each character shoud 'level up'. (which was very useful)

Can someone provide a list level by level of when their character majority hit levels?

Thanks

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

Aaaand there we go.

It certainly seems from your description that the folks at this store are jerks, but then again this comment makes it seem as though their behavior toward you might be explainable, if not justified.

You've read the Player's Handbook, right? Especially this part?

"You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide." (Player's Handbook, p.121)

This is a pretty explicit statement of inclusiveness and tolerance when it comes to gender and sexuality, and there was an entire thread here in the ENWorld 5e boards that was discussing the degree to which that phrase was serving as motivation and invitation for gamers who identify as trans-gender, as poly-amorous, or even as asexual that the game acknowledges that they exist and might want to engage in some of this 'role play' stuff that's been around for decades. Sadly, that thread got derailed and it was shut down. (Note: this is not an invitation to start up that discussion again in this thread, merely a point illustrative to the original poster.)

The Adventurers League has a goal of being inclusive and welcoming, but it's a two-way street; the people being included must be welcoming as well. Walking into an existing game and insisting that the game be run according to your personal rules of decency and organization is simply not going to end well for you, regardless of the nobility of your intentions.



This seems a bit excessive -- you'd be better served finding a different group that matches your outlook than in giving up the game completely. But it's ultimately your call what you want to do with your time.

--
Pauper

I'm poly. I also game with my partners - sometimes together at the same AL table. If personal conversation happens - and it will, because human beings are human beings and we talk about our lives when we're getting sheets and dice out and breaking for snacks and stiff - someone's going to ask how we know each other, and we're certainly not going to lie.

So... maybe the OP is in fact the primary problem here.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hi, Im due to start running this, this coming Wednesday. Ive got my npcs cards, and maps laminated and ready to go.

However unlike Princes there are no boxes to give me an approx of when each character shoud 'level up'. (which was very useful)

Can someone provide a list level by level of when their character majority hit levels?

Thanks

There isn't one, since there is no set order in which the chapters 2-7 are to be played.

A very rough estimate?

Gain one level for each chapter.

Possibly excepting the most "talky" of chapters (the ones you find challenged the players the least)

Consider the number of chapters and you'll see what I mean. It is only slightly higher than 15, the expected end level.

(And if your players aren't super-optimizing min-maxers, it won't hurt if the players end up level 17 to be honest)

PS. Could I ask you to take the polyamory subdiscussion elsewhere? It's severely off-topic. Thanks.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

PS. Could I ask you to take the polyamory subdiscussion elsewhere? It's severely off-topic. Thanks.

I'm not planning on talking much more about it. But the OP brought up two topics - he felt the game was being run improperly, and he was offended by some of the table talk. Since the only specific bit of table talk he brought up being offended by was finding out that someone else at the table was poly, "poly people happen and if you're at a table with some you'll likely find out" seems germane to the thread.

 

[skerritthegreen]

I think his point is that specifics of that sub-discussion are not especially relevant to the discussion overall, even if it was brought up.

 

[IlluminatedSeraph]

I think his point is that specifics of that sub-discussion are not especially relevant to the discussion overall, even if it was brought up.

With due respect, given the context of how it was brought up and the high degree of relevance to the OP's attitude toward the thread topic, pointing out that the OP is putting an extremely biased and frankly nasty spin on an aspect of his GM's identity seems highly relevant. I think that Asatania_GM and Tia Nadiezja have been very reasonable and to-the-point in their statements, especially Tia's relation of personal experience that's quite relevant to having a poly person (or people) at your table, and CapnZapp's treatment of it as some sort of off-topic diatribe about subjects best not talked about smacks heavily of erasure.

The fact is that the OP's primary complaint ("most grievous of all") is that other people at the table used language at the table of which he did not approve, which given his later comment about polyamory we can quite easily read to mean casual conversation about a personal identity he doesn't approve of the existence of. We can certainly go on with discussing table limits and how to work properly with the Organizer system, and that's to the good, but calling "specifics of that sub-discussion" (could you be any more squeamish about writing around it, by the way?) not really relevant to the discussion over all seems like a very odd reading of the OP's original and subsequent posts in this thread.