Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alphastream" data-source="post: 5815099" data-attributes="member: 11365">I don't know if the latest Heroes of Rokugan campaign changed things, but in previous versions they operated separately from the CCG (which does radically change story based on tourney results, clan memberships, etc.). Some of it comes down to money, such as wealthy clan members that pay for people's subscriptions so their clan accrues more points.In Heroes of Rokugan's second campaign there was a good degree of player activity mattering, but it was comparable to Living Greyhawk and saw the same criticisms - true impact and equity. Even in the better regions players would question to what extent what they did mattered vs. was really pre-ordained. Was it pre-ordained that the Lion Clan would do what it did? Did your sacrifice really change things in that LG battle interactive, or was it just used as reasoning for something already planned? *Equity is a big deal and hurt LG in the final years of the campaign. The new player had less of a chance to influence the campaign than the invested player that happened to live in the same town as an administrator. While I understand and I'm even ok with some of that, I think future D&D organized play has to be really fair in who can change the story. It can't be based on knowing an admin or having more money if we want the campaign to really grow.* From my end as an admin, this can be a tough one. A player or players may do something that should have an effect, but a really serious effect may be a less interesting story than the one you already have planned. It is similar to the issue of using wandering monsters in home campaigns - is it better to have a choice of 10 random encounters you drew up quickly or spend all of that time on one cool encounter that represents a chance encounter with a creature?</blockquote>

Verification