Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Greg Leeds talks about D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MechaPilot" data-source="post: 6764235" data-attributes="member: 82779"><p>A more accurate statement might be that DMs have no control for Adventurers League, because as I understand it DMs have other restrictions on their preferences than simply being forced to accept what is legal, and that if they want to control everything they should DM for a non-AL game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If that's the case then the approval process should be done by the DMs as a group, and that's a kink that should be worked out as part of agreement to round-robin DM. The agreement can require a majority or unanimity, but some kind of agreement should be reached.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because the design experts are also not experts? If the experts are actual experts and if there is a proper process for review, then any problems that arise should be limited to being minor in nature. It only becomes an issue if there is no proper review, perhaps because the company is rushing the book to the shelves.</p><p></p><p>With regard to taking an option back, yes, it is naturally harder to do once someone has chosen it because you then rely on the maturity of that person and the persuasiveness of your reasoning for removing the option. However, the notion that something in the future that is published affects the previously-allowed option in a way detrimental to the campaign assumes that the DM doesn't also assess the future material before integrating it (or that the DM didn't do a thorough job of doing so). As far as developments in a campaign causing a problem, that can happen even with the existing options and is not a reason to not have them available for those who want them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sounds like an excuse for shoehorning too much new material into resources that fans of older material want to use. just because you create a duelist class or subclass doesn't mean you have to shove a duelist NPC into an adventure. You can suggest the possibility of changing that NPC into a duelist, but the NPC should work just fine and have the appropriate flavor even if you are not using the dueslist option or the book that it comes in. Paizo's failure to recognize that you don't have to shove new options down people's throats is not a valid excuse for not creating more options, it's a flaw in the execution of their products.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MechaPilot, post: 6764235, member: 82779"] A more accurate statement might be that DMs have no control for Adventurers League, because as I understand it DMs have other restrictions on their preferences than simply being forced to accept what is legal, and that if they want to control everything they should DM for a non-AL game. If that's the case then the approval process should be done by the DMs as a group, and that's a kink that should be worked out as part of agreement to round-robin DM. The agreement can require a majority or unanimity, but some kind of agreement should be reached. Because the design experts are also not experts? If the experts are actual experts and if there is a proper process for review, then any problems that arise should be limited to being minor in nature. It only becomes an issue if there is no proper review, perhaps because the company is rushing the book to the shelves. With regard to taking an option back, yes, it is naturally harder to do once someone has chosen it because you then rely on the maturity of that person and the persuasiveness of your reasoning for removing the option. However, the notion that something in the future that is published affects the previously-allowed option in a way detrimental to the campaign assumes that the DM doesn't also assess the future material before integrating it (or that the DM didn't do a thorough job of doing so). As far as developments in a campaign causing a problem, that can happen even with the existing options and is not a reason to not have them available for those who want them. Sounds like an excuse for shoehorning too much new material into resources that fans of older material want to use. just because you create a duelist class or subclass doesn't mean you have to shove a duelist NPC into an adventure. You can suggest the possibility of changing that NPC into a duelist, but the NPC should work just fine and have the appropriate flavor even if you are not using the dueslist option or the book that it comes in. Paizo's failure to recognize that you don't have to shove new options down people's throats is not a valid excuse for not creating more options, it's a flaw in the execution of their products. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Greg Leeds talks about D&D
Top