Learn about D&D organized play options

Wow...I just looked at the schedule. I didn't realize there was going to be a 3 month gap in available adventures from December until March.

We've been running D&D Expeditions weekly since it started and everyone is having a lot of fun. When a new adventure doesn't come out that week, we've been replaying older adventures and having a good time with it. But after about 2 weeks of repeating adventures, everyone is wondering when the next new adventure is coming out. We should be able to survive until the end of December. However, I don't know that people will keep showing up at the store for 2 months straight with no new adventures. I'm not sure I want to keep running repeated adventures for those 2 months either.

I suspect we are going to lose most of our players in those 2 months. I guess maybe I can run the Starter Set adventure during that time or something. I'll have to think about this.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The holidays (Thanksgiving to Christmas) are a thing to factor into any plan. I'd encourage checking out some other games in the meantime (there are a lot of awesome board and card games out!), or adventures (you've done Mines and Hoard already as well?), or having someone do a quick home campaign.

It is a bit unfortunate though. I did a lot of LFR because of the sheer breadth of options and ease of play, and AL has definitely gone another direction. I am happy it didn't just copy PFS. Different styles of OP is actually really good, so that people can play something that suits them most.
 

Sidonunspa--At this point, it seems that the AL emphasis is on in-store play. Almost exclusively. And that's apparently on purpose. WotC doesn't need to encourage people to buy the game as much as they need other things to happen. They want people specifically playing the game in stores. Because it's not whether you are playing the game that's important. It's where you are playing the game. It's sorta like taking one step back to eventually take two steps forward.

AL seems to be about promoting WotC's relationship with stores in a much more overt fashion than any other OP structures in the past. Especially Pathfinder. What do stores get out of selling Pathfinder materials when there's no compunction for players to come into the store to play the game or (as a consequence of their presence) buy product? They can just as easily get everything they need, including adventures, online. PF players don't need a store at all, really. A store should support Pathfinder... why, again?

Adventurer's League seems to serve a very particular purpose for WotC. It's not primarily about selling D&D product. That can be done through online vendors. It's about WotC's relationships with stores. As a store owner, who are you going to favor: the company that practically requires players to go through them to get adventures and play them in their store, or the company that doesn't? If the player is going to buy product anyway, wouldn't a store want the opportunity for players to buy it from them? So the players play in the stores or have a store connection.

It has been stated many times that the purpose of the Encounters portion of AL is that new players who are unfamiliar with RPGs will learn when/how/where to get involved. WotC very much wants D&D identified with Wednesdays like they already have Magic identified with Fridays. And they're using Encounters to do that. So you can see why not having a specific time to learn how to play is fundamentally detrimental to WotC's branding efforts. WotC wants D&D public play to need stores similarly to how Magic requires stores for tournament play. (I'm not sure whether that's an effective--or even logical--strategic move in WotC's branding efforts, but that's just my opinion.) Why? It seems they're betting that the storefront is the central, defining feature of RPG play where communication happens between players. They want to be plugged into that. Because we players are the industry's best salesmen. And keeping us interacting with each other, in the right location (including public gamedays and cons), is where we talk about games. Online interaction isn't as effective--it's usually where you go when you have a problem or want to complain, not celebrate successes, share positive experiences, and talk "up" a game. Online communities are (and I know this is a vast generalization) generally negative... Their potential for growing the RPG industry itself is only so effective...

So you can also see why making the adventures shorter or non-serialized might also problem: it doesn't really encourage people to keep coming back to play in the stores consistently. If they're really just bite-sized experiences, the stores don't gain as much and less social interaction happens. And making them available online for non-store play also defeats the very function of the OP and discourages the storefront social aspect they believe is key to growing the RPG industry.

Bottom line--Encounters doesn't seem to be about veteran players at heart--at least initially. In some ways it's a losing battle in the long run for WotC to cater to the pool of pre-existing RPGers--that would be marketing to the in-crowd who already have their biases, their opinions, their attitudes and one that inevitably only gets smaller with each new RPG created. The better bet is to appeal to the "great unwashed", or the returning player of yesteryear. Encounters is not about those who already know enough about RPGs to find this website and have this discussion. Neither is Wednesday nights. AL doesn't factor in pre-existing player time because WotC is aiming at a whole different pie of potential players. We've already made it the game we wanted through play testing.

AL isn't ever going to be like other OPs. It doesn't seem like that's why it exists. It's instead about creating new consumers through stores to increase the size of the player base. There's doesn't seem to be a desire on WotC's part to emulate LFR or LG or even PF because catering to pre-existing RPGers is only part of the point: it's not about that right now, it's about pushing out to a whole new player demographic. Veteran players that turn away from 5E or AL will be fewer than the flood of new players coming in. Even Expeditions, which isn't specifically about playing on Wednesday nights, still requires a store connection with very rare exceptions, so it's also serving part of AL's function exactly the way they want it to. And that's why even non-store AL games have to be open to the public.

I hate to be a downer because I love 5E and AL, but I'm not expecting it to be anything beyond what it is at this very moment. I'm not expecting change at all as it seems to be doing exactly what WotC wants it to do right now. Veteran players aren't their priority, it seems. And we can either enjoy what's given to us and our experiences at our own individual tables, for what they're worth, or choose to walk away. Can we have fun given the structure (or lack thereof) as it exists? WotC seems to be gambling that we will. And if we don't, they still win--we'll most likely play the game in our own way on our own because it's a good game. We helped make it that way. They don't have to sell it to us--we've sold it to ourselves.

We'll see what happens.
 
Last edited:

While I agree with some of what you write, I think that takes speculation too far. Much of the current plan is certainly aimed at invested hard-core gamers, just as much of it is aimed at new and casual players. It is always a balance. And, what has been absolutely constant for each and every organized play program WotC has ever launched is one thing: frequent change. The programs are tweaked and changed to achieve better results, to keep things fresh, and to better speak to different demographics. If anything, the changes have historically over-addressed an audience, such as going too far to help conventions and ignoring home play or going too far towards home play and ignoring stores. What adjustments will be made in the future? None of us know, but I bet we will see them.
 

except the currenty strutucre disinfrances a large group of hard core players... those who do not like playing at a store...

playing CCGs in a store is one thing, but running a game in a store filled with CCG players, Role-Players, and Miniature Game Players is another thing enterly.

the published adventures may work for some groups but not for many others who have simply chosen to stick with pathfinder (I know quite a few who have)

the best hope I see would be 5e going OGL soon......as we could finaly get a steady supply of over the counter adventures (small ones, not campaign adventuires... taking classic style one shots), world books, and supplements.

it would also spawn a few living campaigns, granting more accessability to players.

I know if two old d20 campaigns looking at the possability of a 5e OGL to come out with their own shared campigns....
 

except the currenty strutucre disinfrances a large group of hard core players... those who do not like playing at a store...
Run it in another, quieter public location. If you just want to play D&D with your buddies, that's totally and absolutely fine. You can run the published 5E adventures, easily convert awesome adventures from other editions, or make your own. If you want to help D&D grow, run Expeditions public play in a public location. A store can help you organize it and promote it, even when it doesn't take place at the store. Or just run it in public without a store.

the published adventures may work for some groups but not for many others who have simply chosen to stick with pathfinder (I know quite a few who have)
Pathfinder offers great adventures, written by super-talented writers, designers, and editors. Playing Pathfinder isn't a bad thing (it's awesome - like playing any well-written RPG is). D&D isn't looking to compete with Pathfinder. It is looking to tremendously grow our hobby. Not at the expense of core players, but with a strategy that will grow the hobby. Any strategy will drive some away and retain others. This one is pretty friendly to core players - more so than LFR was, I would argue. (And, as a result, looks to be more successful than LFR and even than some of the biggest previous Encounters seasons.)
 

And, it isn't that I don't hear those of you saying you want to be able to play everything at home. I do.

I don't disagree, in that I like the idea of playing anything everywhere. No barriers, lots of play styles supported, and no matter what you want to play, you can do it wherever convenient. More play is good.

But, I do disagree, in that gamers do always find something to complain about. I am not saying this dismissively, but factually based on involvement with prior programs. There were loud voices crying out that LFR was far too limited in home play support, with far too few adventures to support their play... so the only option was to leave D&D. Or, that stores had no reason to run LFR, because players could already play it at home. Or, that conventions were dying because LFR had very little that was special to offer a convention. Terms like 'premiere' were meaningless, destroying the special convention scene that LG or other campaigns enjoyed.

The thing is, all of those things are true. All of them. Sometimes to an extent. Other times fully, but just for a certain audience.

The trick is pleasing as many people as possible while trying to realize your goals. I've been in the position of making those decisions and there is no perfect answer. Even when you do it well you will turn gamers away, even alienating some core die-hard awesome players.

But, programs change often. That's the great news. The programs adjust often. And this program truly offers great flexibility as compared to other programs. This is as close as we have come to having great flexibility while still making store and convention and public play special. I would urge everyone to give the program a fair try. Play it for a while. Try to see the positives (especially those for the overall hobby) and make it fun. D&D is an awesome game and we all win if the hobby grows.
 


I would if my local stores would even offered it...

Right now they have limited table space on "RPG Night" and are swamped by pathfinder (because players can play at the store and at home, and play with diffrent people while advancing their characters)

the stores have limited seating, one night for RPGs (which is also shared with other games, like CCGs and in one store warhammer 40k), these nights, regardless of the night they fall on, are backed by very very active venture captains (and venture lieutenants) who activly push their campaign and see AL as direct competition for store time and table space.

The AL campaign may not be compeating against pathfinder.. but pathfinder is apparently compeating against AL.

I'm just planting my hopes upon an OGL at this point.... I'm sure if there is one a campaign will pop up to fill the void.

they could have done a store only for 4 months then open the adventure to home play

as an aside the most exsiting and heavily played campaign I ever witnessed was LG... we would have packed game store days, held local converntions which sat over 40 tables (which people coming in from out of town) as well as more tables at GenCon then I have ever witnessed.

I still remember the old hockey stadium they would fill to capacity...and still turn away an avrage of 10 players (who had generic tickets) every round.

I never seen players so exsided about a WoTC campaig like that before or ever...

we captured some of that with Living Arcanis, but it was nowhere near the monster that was LG....
 


Remove ads

Top