D&D 5E How many gamers ACTUALLY play in AL?

[Sacrosanct]

Maybe I worded my OP badly (entirely possible). I wasn't trying to disparage AL, I was trying to get my head around claims that if it's NOT in AL, then no one will see it or use it (implying that everyone is playing AL).

 

[not-so-newguy]

Heh, I may have been just looking for an excuse to talk about my experiences with AL (entirely possible)

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

AL isn't really an option where I live (I don't even know if it an option anywhere in my country). As for the UA articles etc. I use them on a case-by-case basis, based on the campaign I'm running and any interest from my players, so I couldn't care less if stuff is AL approved or not.

 

[El Mahdi]

I ask this question because I've seen many statements that infer, imply, or outright state that unless something is officially approved for AL play, then no one will use it or see it. The thread about the most recent survey has statements like this.

...it strikes me odd that there is this impression out there that unless something is AL approved and used, it won't be seen by the masses.

It's called False-consensus bias. It's the assumption that everyone's experiences must be the same as theirs.

They are wrong.

And now I will commence with contributing my anecdotal evidence that proves why they are wrong...


I've been gaming since 1994. Longer than some, shorter than others. I've probably played with somewhere in the realm of 50 different people over that time. I have never played in any form of organized play - be it AL, RPGA, or anything else - and I've also never played at a gaming store or similar venue, or had the fortune of attending a convention. Of those people I played with, up to the point that I knew them, none of them had participated in any organized play either, nor had ever attended a convention. Only one actually played/ran games at a gaming store, but none of those games were official organized play either (local game, friends with the store owner, and not even always D&D).

And every single one of those players, including myself, have most certainly seen and used an obscene abundance of non-official materials, rulings, and approaches.


So, my confirmation bias trumps their false-consensus bias. Case Closed.

I think that the AL membership is much less than overall games, but for a non-trivial percentage of the gaming population AL is their only way to game. So for them fixes like "Just have the DM fix it" or "Have your DM homebrew it" aren't sufficient. For them having many of the fun and cool new things be reliant on a DM makes their experience worse. For these players new options coming out only twice a year isn't as exciting from them.

I'm having a hard time accepting this. Officially, 5E is a game designed with DM adjudication as an essential element of play. 5E is officially reliant on a DM. That's been stated by the designers in an official capacity many times. Based on that, I find it hard to believe that WotC would expect DM's to be robots with no leeway in how they run a game or solve problems.

Granted, I don't play AL; but this doesn't pass the sniff test for me. Basically, things like "have the DM fix it" or "have your DM homebrew it" really boil down to "Talk to your DM." I don't see why that would be any different just because it's organized play...

 

[Coredump]

Maybe I worded my OP badly (entirely possible). I wasn't trying to disparage AL, I was trying to get my head around claims that if it's NOT in AL, then no one will see it or use it (implying that everyone is playing AL).

I have only skimmed that thread, but I have not really seen that sentiment expressed there or elsewhere. If you have a specific page I should read I can do that.

The only time I see something similar is as a response to "homebrew it" or "Play it the other way" and stuff like that. Playing AL has good and bad, and one of those good and bad things is the DMs are limited in what changes they can make. For instance, while other people can use Minotaurs or Eladrin.... AL folks can't. So for an AL person, getting those into a 'player' publication is of more value than for a non-AL player.

 

[practicalm]

I have a group I run for people at church that I do not enforce AL rules. I started playing in an AL game at a game store in Long Beach. I started GMing last week when there were more people than prepared tables. I had a lot of fun focusing on giving the players a chance to role-play instead of just moving through the adventure.

Too many of the GMs I've played with in AL seem to more railroady instead of letting players role-play more and build social bond. Also, I haven't been a fan of some of the players who play evil characters.

Too much AL play seems focused on getting through the adventure as quickly as possible by both players and GMs. I don't really care for that style of play. We will see if the players at my table appreciate my style and return.

 

[kbrakke]

I'm having a hard time accepting this. Officially, 5E is a game designed with DM adjudication as an essential element of play. 5E is officially reliant on a DM. That's been stated by the designers in an official capacity many times. Based on that, I find it hard to believe that WotC would expect DM's to be robots with no leeway in how they run a game or solve problems.

Granted, I don't play AL; but this doesn't pass the sniff test for me. Basically, things like "have the DM fix it" or "have your DM homebrew it" really boil down to "Talk to your DM." I don't see why that would be any different just because it's organized play...

This refers to specifically UA and other things like that. For something to be AL it literally cannot use anything outside of the PHB and Elemental Evil Player's companion. Additionally things are specifically played RAW. If you use something from UA, or if you think some recent errata is silly, or if you want to play your totally balanced homebrew race it ceases to be AL and becomes a home game at a store which is fine, but decidedly not AL.

All this circles around to the starting point which is, people may be mad about things not being AL legal, however the group that this actually effects is a small minority. I have DMed it for the last 2 seasons and have had 0 worry with my players having too few options, no one has complained about it either. There are more than enough options currently for the limited play time that AL incorporates, and in all likely hood the current release rate is sufficient for AL play. If the allure of UA and homebrew content convince AL players to find time for their own home games, more power to them.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I've been playing D&D for a mighty long time. Started playing AL last December. It's been a hoot. Given my schedule it's nice to have a no-strings attached outlet for play - I'm playing in a weekly Casual Play campaign (POTA) which is very fun. The main downside has been having players show up consistently but the DM is doing a fine job and we're having a good time. I like the portability of it, so I can take characters I've created and play them in a variety of venues - various FLGS, conventions and the like.

That said, AL is NOT the full D&D experience. The possibilities for story options are necessarily truncated to fit the format, which means the players and the DMs are restricted from most types of free-form story creation. Treasures are set and immutable. There's no PVP (which is okay in my book). So you have to accept that. But as a fun way to spend an evening, I've enjoyed it.

 

[kbrakke]

I have a group I run for people at church that I do not enforce AL rules. I started playing in an AL game at a game store in Long Beach. I started GMing last week when there were more people than prepared tables. I had a lot of fun focusing on giving the players a chance to role-play instead of just moving through the adventure.

Too many of the GMs I've played with in AL seem to more railroady instead of letting players role-play more and build social bond. Also, I haven't been a fan of some of the players who play evil characters.

Too much AL play seems focused on getting through the adventure as quickly as possible by both players and GMs. I don't really care for that style of play. We will see if the players at my table appreciate my style and return.

I have no data to back this up, but I suspect places with large variance in players will experience this more. For me, we started with 3 up to 5 people and had a blast playing the starter set, spending as much time as we wanted on every part and getting really in to the role play. When the group got up to 7 players I had to be more strict about faffing about, as with that many people in one game I think it's better to keep it focused to prevent it from feeling stagnant. Even with this many players, because it was consistently the same 7, we were able to build our story together through Rise of Tiamat.

In the most recent season we have had more trouble as we consistently get 2 tables, but then sometimes drop to 1, meaning I am DMing most of the time, but get to play once a month or so. Additionally if we drop to 1 table, people in my group get mixed with the other group, leaving a narrative disconnect. If you have to worry about groups constantly switching tables, to keep a semblance of a story line, it's important to have everyone on a similar schedule. I would personally prefer stores like this run expeditions, but their time frame makes that much harder. So at the end of it, the intended pickup and play nature tends to push DMs in to a more focused style. This works great with expeditions where everything is a small adventure in a larger world, not necessarily connected to the other adventures, but poorly for something like PotA where you really want your group to explore the world and have their decisions matter.
TL;DR: If your store has high fluctuation in players, running a sandboxy story driven AP will be harder, running small bite sized adventures with a similar theme will be easier. I think you can do a lot with either, but it depends on the DM

Unrealted, I am lucky to never have to deal with evil characters. I am dming at gencon, so perhaps having that wider experience will open me to the horrors of the chaotic evil player in a Lawful Evil player's clothing.

EDIT: I guess my whole point boils down to consistency. When you are consistently with the same people, you have the freedom to build stronger bonds. If you don't know who will be at your table week to week it's hard to get that same level of intimacy. If you [practicalm] get the same group week in and week out they will 100% enjoy a more involved game. If you have more unstable tables than that, it will be harder, but you can pull it off with some work.

 

[Mirtek]

I don't think AL players make a large part of the 5e players (and neither did LG or LFR players) and WotC pays them next to no consideration while developing stuff.

Especially making the published APs legal for AL play seems more like a Wotc decision that AL just has to suck up and deal with (as those have a lot of problems for AL play, some of which the AL admins could issue AL specific rulings to fix and some that are still open).

The RPGA had it's ban list for LG, for LFR it was just "suck it up, whatever we release you have to allow" and with AL it's currently a mix of both (like them being allowed to ban Aarakocra and some other limits)

The AL admins have also repeatedly stated that they have no say in magic item rewards in AL adventures. WotC tells the author upfront which items he has to include as treasure.