Changes or No Changes

[skerritthegreen]

Reposting a discussion had under the Ravenloft news story since it is AL specific:

if AL features RL the whole being trapped aspect won't feature, as you can play AL mods in any order as long as you're in the correct Tier.

Not arguing it isn't or isn't Ravenloft for season 4, but why couldn't AL put in a blurb something like "This is a Ravenloft adventure and if you play it you cannot play any other adventures with that character except Ravenloft adventures until your character finds a way out?" Assuming AL was up front with such an idea and advertised (and instructed all DMs to make sure players knew), couldn't they change their rules?

I guess my question isn't Ravenloft specific, but more, if they did something before, are they required to do it that way in the future?



Focus less on Ravenloft, but more an the last question. Do players expect that we would never change the way things work, so never change certs, never do mini-campaigns, avoid new kinds of special events, etc...? I know that first year to year and half has had a fairly cut and dry formula, but do players actually want that (no changes)? Or, assuming ample warning/explanation, are occasional experiments good? (and if they don't work, don't do them anymore, but if they do, incorporate them).

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Sort of goes against the core mechanic of AL character portability. That's pretty important, IMHO. I like changes but I also like core concepts that stay constant.

I would be very circumspect as to which character would be placed in that situation and probably start a new one(s) instead of using existing characters. I would be uncomfortable with the possibility of consigning old favorites to exclusivity for an undetermined period.

My FLGS is just starting 3rd Season Expeditions even though OotA has been out for a while. However I've had PCs in both Season 3 Encounters and Expeditions (at cons) play already, as well as continued Season 2 Expeditions during the interim. If a PC had to stick with Season 4 play until they 'escape' it creates issues at the boundaries of that season (both going in and moving to the next) that may make it hard for players to deal with.

In the end it really depends on the limitations and the appeal of the setting. If it's super awesome and offers clear guidelines for jumping in/out of, then that's great. If it is more YAALR (Yet Another AL Ruling) that seems to cramp my enjoyment of AL play more than enhance it, then not so good.

 

[kalani]

While I know Ravenloft was moved to the Shadowfell in 4E (and remains there in 5E, as mentioned briefly on p51 of the DMG), it has always been a closed demiplane which is difficult to escape from. Personally, I am inclined to think that characters who become trapped in Ravenloft would be unable to play other AL adventures until they find an escape. To that end however, we should make at least 2 escape opportunities for characters (one in tier 2, and another in tier 3).

Alternatively, we could KIS (keep it simple) and say that characters can only find passage between worlds once per season (at a time of the characters choosing).
This option would refresh at the start of each season, and has the merit of allowing us to eventually expand to other worlds (Darksun, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, etc) without the strained verisimilitude of characters bouncing frequently between the various published worlds (as some players already have enough issues with characters bouncing between the Sword Coast and the Moonsea).

It also fits with the lore, as while Krynn is not as difficult to leave as the Demiplane of Dread: The gods of Dragonlance have made planar travel between Krynn and the rest of the multiverse difficult (mind you this was 1E-2E, so whether this still holds true in light of Takhissis' moving Krynn is anyones guess). This also holds true for a mini-campaign set in Sigil (as finding a portal and key can be an adventure in and of itself).

Failing that, we could just have an entire season set in another world
This would be refreshing, but might require characters to play only those seasons adventures for the length of the current season (at the end of which, the character is transported back to Faerun).

As far as changing up certificates, mini-campaigns, and the like - I think we should not fall into the trap of "sacred cows". Some mini-campaigns might be closed circuit (characters participating in this mini-campaign are prohibited from playing other adventures until such times as they complete said mini-campaign), some may be linear (requiring characters to complete the previous adventures before starting the next in the sequence), and others may be open-ended.

 

[skerritthegreen]

As far as changing up certificates, mini-campaigns, and the like - I think we should not fall into the trap of "sacred cows". Some mini-campaigns might be closed circuit (characters participating in this mini-campaign are prohibited from playing other adventures until such times as they complete said mini-campaign), some may be linear (requiring characters to complete the previous adventures before starting the next in the sequence), and others may be open-ended.

Less specifically Ravenloft, more this. I guess I am trying to figure out if there is anything that there is consensus on as being a sacred cow and can never be monkeyed with or if pretty much anything could be toyed with. Obviously things like we're using D&D 5e as the rules set are not changing, but what about the everything else. Maybe we open up the campaign to make PCs using any 5e rules source? Maybe we clamp down more. Maybe we do away with magic items in adventures and you just get to pick one of your choice every four levels? Maybe we do a season where you make a new PC that doesn't continue after that season, but we let you do crazy things like play dragons or start at 15th-level or something. Maybe we don't change anything ever and save us the trouble of updating the ALPG again.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I like your ideas, Greg. My concern is more about how amenable the community may be to embracing significant changes from season to season. We have lots of people 'coming back' to D&D in my neck of the woods who enjoy AL but are pretty casual about their understanding of current AL rules on their own.

Whatever course is taken I think Kalani nailed it with KIS. Only a small number of AL players really even know much about the rules of AL or what seasons entail what. Complexity is fun for those that want it and take the time to understand it, but simplicity keeps the AL ship on an even keel for casual players. It's a challenge to satisfy both.

 

[kalani]

Sacred cows are a trap. As long as the changes happen at the start of a season, and that we have a method by which existing characters can be ported over to the changes - it's all good. Any change (no matter how small) will upset some players, and make others happy. Allowing PCs to choose from a list of magic items, or any magic item of their choice every 4 levels would annoy those players who like the current MI system, but would inversely please those unhappy with the system. There will also be others who think that any change didn't go far enough, or went too far.

Ultimately, I am of the opinion that we should make changes (to the rules) only if we feel it improves the system and not for the sake of shaking things up. If we feel the MI system needs work, we can trial a few changes (perhaps even with a playtest group, while also providing polls to see what the global player base prefers) and tinker with things until we get it right (by which I mean that it runs smoothly with a minimum of complaints). The current MI system for example is passable, but has run into issues with things like wingwear and balloon packs which float the line between permanent and consumable items (I personally wish that wingwear recharged 1 charge/day, and recharged all charges at a node which would have fit within the AL ruleset, but alas such was not the case).

As far as making changes to said system, I don't think we should toss the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps we are being too harsh on the specific items being offered (and might perhaps allow the odd chase item such as +X plate, or a +X polearm through); perhaps we might offer players a choice between a small list of items (say 3 items), or perhaps we might revisit the item breakage rules (eg. allowing players the option of removing one item from their logsheet at the end of an adventure, but doing so forfeits their ability to contest the item/gain a magic item in its place); or the item trading rules (players might be allowed to swap non-certed items at the end of an adventure with characters participating in the same adventure); etc.

I don't think we should try a completely different MI system however, until such times as we have tweaked the one we have to see if it only needs a minor adjustment. Same goes for other aspects to the ruleset.

 

[rooneg]

How is it that we're ok with characters jumping from one time and place in the forgotten realms to another time and place in the forgotten realms (sometimes going back in time, if you're playing a Hoard of the Dragon Queen season expeditions adventure with a character who's just played in a Madness of Demons season one), but if it's jumping from the realms to Ravenloft and back we get weirded out? Why not just let people do what they will. For players who play regularly and enjoy the idea of their character being from a particular time/place they can have a character that's associated with a particular season, and for people who only play from time to time and just want to keep using that same character (because otherwise they'll never level up) they can say "well, I got sucked into ravenloft for an adventure or two, then found my way back". Chronology in organized play is by definition incredibly wishy washy, with many different characters replaying the same adventures completely out of order, so why bother having strict rules about it?

 

[Steve_MND]

Having some sort of restriction that requires mods be played in a certain order (or, heaven forbid, permanently locks a character away from ever playing again should the player be unfortunate enough to never get to play one of the 'escaping' mods') is a terrible idea, imho. One of the underlying pillars of Organized Play has always been the compartmentalized nature of the modules and scenarios -- indeed, that's one of the major draws. if you miss a mod because you never were able to make it to a table running it, fine; you can try and get it later. If you have to play a mod out of order because of scheduling issues, that's fine as well.

Regardless, I really, really feel that AL should avoid trying to shoehorn in the 'campaign twist of the week' unless it organically fits within the narrative itself. The entire 'madness' mechanic in Season Three, while interesting, doesn't work well for AL, because it was shoehorned into an existing campaign already well underway, is a momentary (and awkwardly-implemented) fad, and will fade away again at the end of its six-month run, never to be seen again -- much like wingwear and elemental nodes.

I'd hate to see a Ravenloft-like 'gimmick' wedged into the AL campaign as well for no other reason than for the fact that it might be a book or something. Same thing if a Spelljammer supplement came out (be still, my beating heart), or a Planescape supplement. A one-off mod along those lines? Sure, why not. But a whole campaign season devoted to it, with the mechanics clumsily duct-taped to the side? No thank you.

Now, a separate, unrelated AL-type organized play campaign based in Ravenloft? That might be something interesting (but never gonna happen at this rate, as WotC can barely keep one OP setup running smoothly with its current structure).

 

[Nagol]

All I can say is I've been thinking about potentially joining AL, but this type of discussion gives me pause. As a particularly casual player, if I were told if I play a particular adventure, that character would be gated and I would be prevented from further participation save a particular path I may or may not access, I just wouldn't bother. If an entire 'season' had that form of requirement, I'd find some other activity to fill my time rather than bother with AL.

 

[Anthraxus]

Personally, I'd rather not see people jumping in and out of Ravenloft, Willy-nilly. I'd probably rather see a separate side/mini-campaign completely set in Ravenloft instead. Or Planescape. Or Eberron. Or Darksun, whatever.

I'm sure there are some settings that could run contiguously with the Realms, being able to go in and out between adventures, but some campaigns are just too different. I wouldn't want to explain to newcomers, how the different campaign settings mesh mechanically with the FR/AL rules. Although, I imagine with my usual online announcements for next month's games could include "This month we will be using the new "X" system, so make sure you've read up on how those work", or at least be up for it.