AL setting hopping

[Jester David]

If the purpose of Adventurer's League is to give everyone everywhere a chance to play and have fun with new people in an organized and universal field of pick-up games at stores and conventions, then I say yes. But maybe I misunderstand the purpose of organized play.

...

How does setting hopping help with that mission statement?

 

[MiraMels]

Those poll questions are a tad biased in tone, but no - i'd really prefer not to have to accommodate for Eberron's particular flavor in a game i'm running that's set in the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Blue]

Considering how they have pushed that all the D&D multiverses are connected, I would be really surprised if they don't allow it.

That's not an endorsement nor a condemnation - just that we may be getting passionate on guesses for something they have already multiple times telegraphed as the standard.

 

[Charles Ocenasek]

No. It is already bad enough that players can use the same character in different Season adventures and in random chapters out of the hard cover adventures with no penalty. With this mix and match approach, a character can go through several adventures back to back that are hundreds of miles apart with no downtime loss or no limit on the number of adventures that can be played in a calendar year based of character travel time. Bouncing back and forth between two different worlds with no penalty would be even worse. The good thing about the Ravenloft season was that once you started into it with a character, you had to finish it with that character or wait til the AL rules let your character escape.

So sorry, but some of us have a family and work so we are unable to play through a season. If I had to start a new character at one each time I would not get above 4. But you do you.

 

[jasper]

NO. Insert fowl language in front of and in back of the first sentence. Eberron is a whole different power and flavor vs regular Adventure League. Ravenloft was not a different setting but a mini campaign with some FU modifiers by the module. Yes I know after I6 the module grew into its own world but I barfed on it.

 

[neogod22]

If the purpose of Adventurer's League is to give everyone everywhere a chance to play and have fun with new people in an organized and universal field of pick-up games at stores and conventions, then I say yes. But maybe I misunderstand the purpose of organized play.

AL already said that Eborron characters weren't going to be legal. I understand people want to play in campaigns and AL, but I think they should have different characters for both. I have no problem with people playing adventures from different seasons because AL has no timeline anyway, and everything is happening around the same area. Plus it's all stand alone. When you get to tier 3 and 4, there aren't many adventures, so you'll be playing the same adventures with different characters anyway.

 

[guachi]

So sorry, but some of us have a family and work so we are unable to play through a season. If I had to start a new character at one each time I would not get above 4. But you do you.

Nice dig at someone by implying he's unemployed with no children, family, or other responsibilities.

 

[Mallus]

I voted 'yes', but not for the reason stated in the poll.

Allowing PCs to cross between campaigns set in radically different settings is something the people who created the game did. My impression is this was fairly common back in the earliest days of the D&D scene. For example, M.A.R. Barker and Dave Arneson sent PCs back and forth between Blackmoor and Tekumel.

While precedent alone isn't a compelling reason to do/permit something, I really dig the vibe behind it. Don't get hung up on notions like 'setting integrity' or 'genre fidelity' (not even when you're M.A.R. Barker, creator of one of the most unique, detailed, and immersive settings in all of gaming history).

Just make a character, an alternate you, then take them into a fictional world (or two or three) and do something.

It cuts right to the spirit of these kinds of games.

 

[Tallifer]

I voted 'yes', but not for the reason stated in the poll.

Allowing PCs to cross between campaigns set in radically different settings is something the people who created the game did. My impression is this was fairly common back in the earliest days of the D&D scene. For example, M.A.R. Barker and Dave Arneson sent PCs back and forth between Blackmoor and Tekumel.

While precedent alone isn't a compelling reason to do/permit something, I really dig the vibe behind it. Don't get hung up on notions like 'setting integrity' or 'genre fidelity' (not even when you're M.A.R. Barker, creator of one of the most unique, detailed, and immersive settings in all of gaming history).

Just make a character, an alternate you, then take them into a fictional world (or two or three) and do something.

It cuts right to the spirit of these kinds of games.

Forsooth. There is an entire OSR (Old School renaissance) community called Flail Snails which recreates that vibe. It was mostly organized through Google+ and word of mouth, but I think it has dwindled these days. Here is an explanation from 2011:

http://jrients.blogspot.com/2011/08/flailsnails-conventions.html

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Nice dig at someone by implying he's unemployed with no children, family, or other responsibilities.

Since he is probably just the alt or sockpuppet account of someone here who has ignored me with their main account, I was not bothering to reply to him. I do not have time for people like him.

But so you know you are not defending incorrect information, I work full time and have not had time for AL play in well over a year because work schedule and available local game schedules do not match up.