AL VS LFR of 4th and why I'm so disappointed

[Steve_MND]

Another issue we are also dealing with is trying to have the community see that there is value to having an Admin/RC/LC come to their convention. We've tried giving them certs and promo items and Fai Chen's but those things don't always seem to be enough, so at the moment as we playtest DDAO adventures as a concept, we are also having them run by those sorts of people only, to add to the coolness of having them around. We want people to see the volunteers as valuable.

I that really a concern, tho? I mean, I cannot realistically forsee any situation where -- if you're running a convention that includes AL -- you'd ever turn down the offer of having someone from the staff attend and run stuff. For that matter, I cannot realistically forsee any situation where anyone would turn down an offer of certs or Fai Chen's, either. Setting aside logistics and costs and other expenditures, purely as a concept, I can't see any downside to having such people participate at a convention. Have you actually had people say "Oh, you'd like to send a Campaign Coordinator to my con? No thanks!"

Or when you say 'value' do you really mean "you'll make more money in a revenue stream of increased attendees than it will cost you to put up said people in a hotel room, airfare, etc.?" That's fair (I certainly don't expect said individuals to come out to every random podunk convention on their own out-of-pocket dime), but if that's the case, I'd have to agree with Aarduini (on this one singular point) in that this sort of setup isn't a real good test of 'customized' types of adventures, as the limiting factor in that situation isn't the mods themselves, but the associated costs to a con for supporting 'another mouth to feed,' which wouldn't be the case in a myRealms setup, as I understand it.

I'm okay personally with the idea of it as a testbed of sorts on logistics or the like, but I'm not quite getting the 'value' argument here.

 

[aarduini]

Ah, good point. I'd not considered that, since that specific interpretation was undone in the Sundering -- Calimshan is back to its 3.5 era demographics (see the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide).

Pauper

I"m sure you wish this was true, but it is not. Page 9 of said book under "Toril and Its Lands" the part about Calimshan starts off with saying "This southern land has long been a battle ground for warring genies", and then goes on to describe how the humans slaves over threw the two Genie lords with the leadership of a human chosen. Nowhere does it mention a magical reboot from Sundering or the current demographics at all. For all we know Genasi may still comprise of over half the populations as described in the 4th edition players guide.

Oh, wow. This is so not going to end well for you.

Pauper

It actually is. I'm having a great time!

 

[Tyranthraxus]

Yeah Calimshan has had Genie issues for a long time, Djinni , Efreeti and so on. It dosnt surprise me that the elemental races there (Genasi) are relatively common for any point in the Realms. I remember reading about the Djinn back in 2e days.

 

[Dracoprimus]

I that really a concern, tho? I mean, I cannot realistically forsee any situation where -- if you're running a convention that includes AL -- you'd ever turn down the offer of having someone from the staff attend and run stuff. For that matter, I cannot realistically forsee any situation where anyone would turn down an offer of certs or Fai Chen's, either. Setting aside logistics and costs and other expenditures, purely as a concept, I can't see any downside to having such people participate at a convention. Have you actually had people say "Oh, you'd like to send a Campaign Coordinator to my con? No thanks!"

Or when you say 'value' do you really mean "you'll make more money in a revenue stream of increased attendees than it will cost you to put up said people in a hotel room, airfare, etc.?" That's fair (I certainly don't expect said individuals to come out to every random podunk convention on their own out-of-pocket dime), but if that's the case, I'd have to agree with Aarduini (on this one singular point) in that this sort of setup isn't a real good test of 'customized' types of adventures, as the limiting factor in that situation isn't the mods themselves, but the associated costs to a con for supporting 'another mouth to feed,' which wouldn't be the case in a myRealms setup, as I understand it.

I'm okay personally with the idea of it as a testbed of sorts on logistics or the like, but I'm not quite getting the 'value' argument here.

It's not a situation of turning down an offer. It's more that they are wanting convention organizers to pay the costs of bringing an Admin in to their event. By providing the admins with enough content, they are encouraging organizers to take the costs on themselves.

 

[Pauper]

Man, based on what's been said about me in this thread, I'm wondering why I don't have a cadre of scantily-clad slave-boys to fan me and feed me grapes. I will say, though, that this is *exactly* why I should never be asked to take an official role within the campaign.

I"m sure you wish this was true, but it is not. Page 9 of said book under "Toril and Its Lands" the part about Calimshan starts off with saying "This southern land has long been a battle ground for warring genies", and then goes on to describe how the humans slaves over threw the two Genie lords with the leadership of a human chosen. Nowhere does it mention a magical reboot from Sundering or the current demographics at all.

The prevalence of genasi during Fourth Edition was premised as a sudden influx of genasi from Abeir, Toril's sister world. The Sundering sent those things back to Abeir -- not only the genasi of Calimshan, but the dragonborn of Akanul as well.

'Ruled by genies' does not mean 'the genies had sex with every human woman in the country and now most people are genasi'. (That's actually pretty misogynistic, if you think about it.) Granted, you can say this was what happened in your own campaign, but officially, genasi are as prevalent in Calimshan these days as goliaths -- and you need to use the same sourcebook to play either in Adventurers League.

As far as 'the reboot isn't mentioned', that's facile -- look at the maps, look at the description of places like Halruaa, Elturgard, Anauroch, and yes, Calimshan. Compare them to the Fourth Edition FRCS, then to the Third Edition one. You'll see the 'reboot' created by the (technically second) Sundering everywhere. It gets particularly weird in the novels -- it rains nearly every day in Erin Evans's "Fire In the Blood", in order to justify the rising of the Sea of Fallen Stars.

You may not follow all the material, so it makes sense that you missed it. But if you want to argue canon, you've got to consider all the material that goes into canon. Just because you want Calimshan to have a plurality of genasi doesn't mean it does in the Adventurers League campaign. You can only decide that for your own campaign.

--
Pauper

 

[kalani]

The thing is however, that unless an adventure takes place in Calimshan (which at this time is unlikely outside of a DDAO adventure) - it matters little for Adventurers League what people believe. The hardcover adventures have and will continue to take place largely in the Sword Coast, the novels wherever the novels are set, and the DDAL adventures set in the Moonsea. This was by design so that the various facets of the IP would not interact with each other and cause canonicity issues should there be a conflict.

As is, we have minor issues with dates given that the novels seem to set the Rage of Demons story arc prior to the Tyranny of Dragons story arc, but that is easily handwaived in AL so that the RoD story arc may begin before the ToD story arc, but does not come to the attention of the factions until 1491 IIRC with the invasion of the underdark by the demon lords in the West, and their fire giant servants in the Moonsea.

 

[ArlenFrostlockes]

really really not trying to be a arse here - but is it not possible for female "genies" to have sex with human males as well? Kinda harsh to throw the "misogyny" word around for something as banal as attempting to clear up a lore disagreement.

 

[aarduini]

I will say, though, that this is *exactly* why I should never be asked to take an official role within the campaign.

I agree with this whole heartedly

The prevalence of genasi during Fourth Edition was premised as a sudden influx of genasi from Abeir, Toril's sister world. The Sundering sent those things back to Abeir -- not only the genasi of Calimshan, but the dragonborn of Akanul as well.

There are so many things wrong with this statement its not even funny. This thread started with you attacking me saying I'm making stuff up, and you were very condescending about it. I've countered your every statement with direct quotes from the rule books yet you still say i'm not following the material. Your theory doesn't work because 1) Dragonborn still exist in the realms and were not sent back to Abeir. There is a great novel that just came out that talks about that. You should read it. I have. 2) The influx of Genasi was not from the collision of Abeir. Perhaps if you read the book I quoted or the 4th edition campaign guide you would understand that. It doesn't get more canon than the officially released campaign guides.

'Ruled by genies' does not mean 'the genies had sex with every human woman in the country and now most people are genasi'. (That's actually pretty misogynistic, if you think about it.) Granted, you can say this was what happened in your own campaign, but officially, genasi are as prevalent in Calimshan these days as goliaths -- and you need to use the same sourcebook to play either in Adventurers League.

This is your interpretation. There is no material to support that interpretation; in fact, the material contradicts it. I was merely expressing my desire to make an AL Genasi character with a flavorful background, which is why I picked Calimshan, and I wanted him to be able to have a flaming sword attack or a thunder sword attack because it would be extremely cool! Not because I was min/maxing. My group laughed when that was said. I am the most pro story guy in the Bay Area i'll bet.

Had you chosen your words differently, you would not be getting the focused attention on this thread that you are. You called it constructive criticism earlier. There was nothing constructive about it. It was just hateful, condescending blather with no basis of truth, and THAT is why I thank the Admins for not counting you among their number.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Pauper]

The thing is however, that unless an adventure takes place in Calimshan (which at this time is unlikely outside of a DDAO adventure) - it matters little for Adventurers League what people believe.

Sure. An AL character can totally be a genasi from Calimshan, just as she can be a goliath from Waterdeep. Adventurers have always been considered exceptional, and nothing in the lore changes that.

Even if an adventure is set in Calimshan (Heck, there's a DDAO adventure set in Halruaa, which was destroyed in Fourth Edition continuity, so Calimshan wouldn't be a reach for a future adventure), it's unlikely the module writer will spend a lot of time detailing the demographics of the region, as it's unlikely to play a role in the story being told.

It's really only an issue if a player wants to insists that something in the Realms must be a certain way because they believe that's the way it is. Even then, AL has a response -- the DM is the final arbiter of these issues at the table. Just as with rules, the DM should use canon sources of information where available, but if those sources are not available, the DM makes a call, and that's the way it works at that table.

As is, we have minor issues with dates given that the novels seem to set the Rage of Demons story arc prior to the Tyranny of Dragons story arc, but that is easily handwaived in AL so that the RoD story arc may begin before the ToD story arc, but does not come to the attention of the factions until 1491 IIRC with the invasion of the underdark by the demon lords in the West, and their fire giant servants in the Moonsea.

I'd agree that's more of a campaign organization issue and one more germane to the communication between the volunteer admins and the WotC AL team. It does lend some credence to the theory that nobody at WotC really thought out all the changes from 4th to 5th Edition Forgotten Realms, and were just making ret-cons to try to get back to a Realms that pre-4th Edition players would recognize and appreciate, but the reality is that relatively few players are that savvy about canon that they'd find these sorts of inconsistencies a big enough stumbling block to keep them from enjoying the game.

With that said, if 'I can't play a genasi swordmage with Greenflame Blade' is the thing that stops someone from enjoying Adventurers League, may I suggest the problem isn't Adventurers League?

--
Pauper

 

[hoshisabi]

There's a phrase I'd like both of you to say to each other. "Your opinion has been noted."

Pauper, yeah, I get the desire to just ignore the person, but it's so much more effective when you don't announce it. Hehe. That is just short of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nyah nyah, I can't hear you." I mean, I get it, but just for future reference, easier to just do it and not say it.

Those of you advocating the mixture of SCAG and EE sources: Trust me, I think they understand your points. Unless you think you can restate it differently, I'm pretty sure you communicated your point, but I don't think there will be a change at the moment to resolve it the way you want it.

Sometimes we gotta deal with the limitations that are presented to us. For instance, the SCAG officially suggests non-elf bladesingers but they've ruled the more restrictive elf only route, so it just means that my Halfling bladesinger idea joins my death cleric and aarakokra characters firmly in the home game region. So, I'd say your genasi EK with greenflame blade would be a welcome addition to that party of characters.