Tia Nadiezja
First Post
The mechanics are tools for realizing the stories. One of my favorite things about D&D in general and 5e un particular is how fluidly story feeds mechanic feeds story.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
SCAG Thread
- Thread starter Tyranthraxus
- Start date
Warmaster Horus
Explorer
My impression is that you want AL to support your character's story more. That may or may not be possible because AL has necessary limitations. My advice, and of course take it for what it's worth, is to recognize this and accept AL for what it offers if you intend to participate. If you want more than AL can deliver, feel free to find other avenues that feeds that muse.
kalani
First Post
That is not strictly true. We have a dedicated team of volunteers which have collectively released a number of articles specifically intended to help players and DMs apply the rules at their tables. Examples from the website include (but are not limited to):
- Handling the Xenophobia of Hillsfar at your Table
- What does it take to be a balanced DM
- How to prepare for your adventure
- Being the Dungeonmaster in a Shared Universe
- Master, Dungeon Master (Series, with 12+ articles to date)
- The Arcane Edict in Mulmaster
- DMing and DM Empowerment
To understand the Story Origin mechanic, you need to understand the history of Organized Play. The SO mechanic was designed to prevent major issues that have occurred in previous OP campaigns due to the unintended interaction between rules from disparate sources. This was particularly an issue in the LFR campaign, resulting in frequent errata and ban-list updates and a large amount of player frustration and anger as a result. It also created an arms race between optimizers and module designers, hedging out more casual players, and also fostering an environment of hostility toward casual players by the optimizers (Optimize or Go Home mentality).
Pathfinder Societies also faces a similar issue, with their answer to the problem being to introduce the "Core Only" campaign.
When the Story Origin mechanic was conceived, nobody had any idea of what WotCs release schedule or product map would look like. It was a pre-emptive future-proof rule which would allow players to use content, without risk of unintended rules-interactions by combining options released several years apart which were never playtested together.
The fact that the product release schedule has not yet released content which could be problematic (to date), does not mean that it won't in future. Yes, it appears to be a silly mechanic on the surface - but consider how such a rule might have helped in the 3.5 or 4E era, if players were limited to a small number of sourcebooks per character.
In fact, I used a similar house rule in my 3.5 and 4E games
In my late-era 3.5 and 4E home games, Players were allowed to use the Player's Handbook, and 2 other rulebooks of their choice when creating their characters in an effort to cut back on the silliness, and prevent rules abuse.
StinkyEttin
First Post
I wouldn't say that I'm strawmanning you. I will say, however, that I'm painting with very broad strokes the typical responses that we received regarding SCAG and its inclusion (or lack thereof) in the program.
You'd be surprised how many people take up an opposing view point. If I was a new-comer to the various forums and facebook groups, I’d see Wizards (and by virtue of that, us Admins) as the worst business of all time. Simultaneously worrying about their own profit margin while fomenting an environment where the opportunity to profit from the game is passed onto local game stores and conventions all while completely, and deludedly ignoring their playerbase’s needs while creating a game developed through intensive playtesting and then, once completed, distributed for free. Seriously, that’s Cobra-level ineptitude right there.
Shockingly, we’re going to agree to disagree here, as well. All of the Admins DM/staff local conventions and most of us DM at our local game stores, myself included. I know what it’s like to work a table. I also play (when I’m able), so I know how the rulings that we have to make impacts the players. That said, we all have experience in the previous incarnations of Organized Play, so we know what *actual* restrictions can look like. If you played Living Greyhawk, you’ll sympathize.
As it stands (administrative stuff like reporting and the like, aside), the program *just about* includes everything that Wizards publishes. The sole exceptions to that are the disallowance of the Aarakockra and some official guidance on what can be used from the Monster Manual. That considered, the answers to any questions that a DM might have are easily accessible—provided that the DM takes the time to ask. Given how many times I have been called upon to answer why thinks like story origins exist, I assume that the DMs understand and are aware of the resources they have.
Speak of the Devil! Story origins are primarily a means of distinguishing characters from different seasons of play. A Tyranny of Dragons character should feel different than an Elemental Evil character should feel different than a Rage of Demons character. This might mean having different abilities, backgrounds, or even being a member of a different race. An EE character should have some local ties to the elements or the city of Mulmaster, while a RoD character should be a bit mad and have ties to the area surrounding Hillsfar.
Story Origins also (and to a *much* lesser degree) are a means of protactively addressing the very real potential of power-creep. In time, we may realize that these precautions aren’t necessary and get rid of the restrictions. But for now, it’s what we’ve got. Just because it prevents a player from making the exact character they want doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s an excessive or unnecessary rule; it means that we’re thinking ahead—that’s a good thing and something that Wizards is consistently accused of not doing.
No one is telling anyone how to play the game. The DM still has the latitude to adjudicate rules conflict according to his or her whim. We don’t make those decisions. You will never see an “official” ruling on general rules. We merely provide a framework upon which those rules are used to provide a cohesive, consistent, and enjoyable experience for our players. Sometimes that means taking the liberty to predetermine random magic items, or expand and elaborate on a given adventure’s more ambiguous content (such as Bruenor’s reward in OotA). We sometimes might also provide some insight on how to deal with certain items (typically intelligent items found in the published adventures).
Not sure who told you that SCAG wasn’t going to be allowed during Season 3. But then again, I’m not sure who told you it is. This goes back to my earlier comment about people torturing themselves by listening to doomsayers. What you attribute to a lack of communication among the Adventurers League staff and Wizards, I attribute to an excess of communication among pessimists. Naysayers are going to naysay. If you buy into what they’re saying, then of course you’re going to see failings. Ignore them. Assume that we’ve got your back—because we do.
I can’t speak for the other Admins and I can’t speak for Wizards. I can say, however, that any appearances of dismissiveness on my part stems from having to constantly respond to complaints about the same thing a half dozen times a day. If I had a nickel for every time I had a player imply I was a fascist because they weren’t allowed to cast EE spells with their ToD sorcerer or because they weren’t allowed to roll their ability scores instead of using point-buy, I’d be able to retire comfortably in Europe somewhere.
This is where we agree and where I genuinely think that all of our oppressively excessive rules come into play. I want to be able to play a character at my FLGS here in WA and if I find myself in Sarajevo for some reason, be able to play that same character in the same story line without having to worry about the local characters being equipped to the gills playing half-vampire, half-dragon, half-fiend, fiendish nerf herders (a custom class created by the clever DM). This means the aforementioned framework of rules. If we want cohesiveness, consistency, and portability, we’ve got to have a system that compels that to happen. So while this means that the local player who doesn’t leave his home town can’t play an Aarakockra, it also means that jet-setting gamers doesn’t have to worry about making sure that his character conforms to whatever whacky campaign setting they use in the South of France.
Pretty much agree with everything in your response -- however, this:
For this one, Tia has a point. When SCAG was first announced, and we first started to see questions about 'when can we use this stuff?', the standard answer was that AL only changes the rules when new seasons begin, so don't expect any official feedback until the next ALPG. Admittedly, this then becomes a presumption that SCAG won't be allowed for Season 3, since the legality won't be determined until the start of Season 4, but it's not an unreasonable presumption.
It seems that the admins are going to pre-empt their normal silence between seasons to announce some specific guidelines for SCAG once it's in general release, so it turns out that presumption might not be true. At the time the book was announced, though, the presumption was reasonable, based on what we knew of AL.
Here's another area where interpretation makes AL policy look bad. In your statement, it seems like you think the two situations above are equivalent, but to the player who doesn't travel and probably never will, it looks like you're punishing him (or her) in order to cater to the jet-setting 'pay-to-win' player.
What you want to do it turn this on its head -- if the jet-setting player could go to the south of France and play an aarakockra, that would be unfair to the player who only plays in one game store in East Middle-of-Nowhere, Texas and who's DM hates aarakocra. However, I see a big problem with trying to make this argument with a straight face while also asserting that AL will never have 'official' rules interpretations -- especially when, as you note, AL already does have some 'official' rules interpretations, such as what monsters can be summoned/taken as a wild shape in an AL adventure. It's a bit disingenuous to say 'here's how you choose your starting gear', and then when a player asks what to do if he wants to sell back some of that gear, respond with 'oh, we don't do official rulings, check with your DM!' I get that nobody wants to be the 'AL Sage' because that person would get all the name-calling the other admins get cranked up by two orders of magnitude, but if you're going to make AL DMs work in the role of 'rules police', the least you can do it provide them with a Chief of Police.
--
Pauper
For this one, Tia has a point. When SCAG was first announced, and we first started to see questions about 'when can we use this stuff?', the standard answer was that AL only changes the rules when new seasons begin, so don't expect any official feedback until the next ALPG. Admittedly, this then becomes a presumption that SCAG won't be allowed for Season 3, since the legality won't be determined until the start of Season 4, but it's not an unreasonable presumption.
It seems that the admins are going to pre-empt their normal silence between seasons to announce some specific guidelines for SCAG once it's in general release, so it turns out that presumption might not be true. At the time the book was announced, though, the presumption was reasonable, based on what we knew of AL.
Here's another area where interpretation makes AL policy look bad. In your statement, it seems like you think the two situations above are equivalent, but to the player who doesn't travel and probably never will, it looks like you're punishing him (or her) in order to cater to the jet-setting 'pay-to-win' player.
What you want to do it turn this on its head -- if the jet-setting player could go to the south of France and play an aarakockra, that would be unfair to the player who only plays in one game store in East Middle-of-Nowhere, Texas and who's DM hates aarakocra. However, I see a big problem with trying to make this argument with a straight face while also asserting that AL will never have 'official' rules interpretations -- especially when, as you note, AL already does have some 'official' rules interpretations, such as what monsters can be summoned/taken as a wild shape in an AL adventure. It's a bit disingenuous to say 'here's how you choose your starting gear', and then when a player asks what to do if he wants to sell back some of that gear, respond with 'oh, we don't do official rulings, check with your DM!' I get that nobody wants to be the 'AL Sage' because that person would get all the name-calling the other admins get cranked up by two orders of magnitude, but if you're going to make AL DMs work in the role of 'rules police', the least you can do it provide them with a Chief of Police.
--
Pauper
StinkyEttin
First Post
As with the game itself, the specific rule trumps the general rule. The general rule is that mid-season guidance isn’t provided. Season 4, specifically, will have guidance forth-coming. I suspect this is largely in part to the release of the Sword Coast Adventurer’s guide. As has been the case with every single published product to date, the intent is to include the material in the program. The timeline just didn’t mesh up this time around. And because of this, adjustment is warranted. Will this always be the case? I assume it won’t be.
As far as malevolent silence goes, we get the material when we get it. Speculating on what we’re going to get is bad practice. If I were to say that the EE player’s companion would be completely allowed without restriction and then Wizards were to say that everything except Aarakocra were allowed, the uproar would be epic in scale. So you’re right, we are usually silent on upcoming updates—right up to the point where we can say definitively what is going to happen. That’s because I want to be correct in the information I give; the alternative is too horrifying to consider as a viable alternative.
We keep going back to “pay-to-win”. In releasing special materials (Epics and special certificates) to conventions, they and the attendees are the winners. The folks that put on these awesome shows and draw in huge crowds. They drum up large-format support for the program. That draw deserves special attention. Whether or not Preston Van Kennedy IV (a made-up, rich-sounding name I just made up) is able to fly his Leer jet to whatever convention he wants to go to, gets a cert out of it is not indicative of the purpose behind why we do what we do. Most of the con certs are given out at the local, smaller cons by the volunteers that sacrifice their own time and money (often times as much and more than it costs for the players, themselves to attend) to represent the program. The certs are a way to draw more folks in and get the program out there.
I can tell you, like I’ve told others, that I am *exceptionally* picky about how I dole out the small allotment of certificates I am given. The best way not to receive a certificate is to ask for one. So chances are, if I ran a table for Preston Van Kennedy IV and his entourage; it’s fairly likely that they’d leave without a certificate. Kids, first-time D&D players, and those players that demonstrate a ton of enthusiasm and give me a memorable experience are those who I reward. I’m so picky about how I give my swag out, that I’ve still got Season 1 dice and Inspiration Tokens. Pay-to-win is a myth. A legend. It’s the thing that crooks tell their kids about. It is the Keyser Söze of D&D.
That works as well.
The DM may make rules interpretations (can a flaming sphere be conjured on the intersection of a grid, do a monk’s unarmed attacks count as finesse weapons, can I wear a shield and benefit from the Duelist Fighting Style) to their heart’s content that is their domain. We do issue rules regarding the program at large from time to time. While not a personal fan of the equipment rules, it provides a single, consistent rule for old-school gamers and for new players. I cannot speak to why Wizards made the decision they did, but that’s what we’ve got. As far as what monsters can and can’t be used with your various conjure/wild shape/animal companion abilities, the current rule is an expansion on what was previously allowed. Previously, the player did not have access to the monster manual (aside from the beast Appendix) for character options (specifically the various conjure spells). But rather than have the players have full tilt to the entire book that may or may not include things that are not relevant to the setting, we prescribed an order of permissibility. This didn’t sit well with some, and worked fine with others. But for the program as a whole, it was determined that having that list in order of permissibility worked best. So, that’s what happened.
What happens at a DM’s table is largely up to the DM; there are a large number of different articles and op-ed pieces posted on the website as was mentioned earlier that clarify and provide really good information. The DMs are manning the proverbial trenches representing the program at its lowest level. Sometimes that responsibility is easy and sometimes it is not. We can’t please everyone but we can try and please as many people as we can. So far, we’ve been lucky; while there are those who don’t approve of what we do or the reasons why we do it, they are (or at least seem to be) in the minority. In the meantime, we will continue to receive feedback, discuss it, and pass it up the chain. Some of that may work out in the favor of the folks that disagree with us, and some of it won’t.
So, using your analogy, while we may be the Chief of Police, we are pretty laid back. We aren’t the arch-typical “Damnit, you destroyed half a city block! Turn in your badge!” sort that you see in the movie. We’re the ones that let their subordinates use their own discretion while providing them a few things to be mindful of. Sometimes that’s well received, and sometimes it’s not. But I have to answer to the Mayor in case the aforementioned city block gets destroyed.
And I did, in fact, say all of that with a straight face.
skerritthegreen
Explorer
Wait, I am the Keyser Söze of D&D! Damnit Travis, turn in your badge! Also, I totally support pay to win. I will sell you a cert for $1 million dollars!
Mithreinmaethor
First Post
It almost seems at times that the AL admins are working against the SCAG's inclusion as an evergreen option more than they are for its inclusion as one.
Well, I doubt this will be the last time a product either slips in the regular release schedule or doesn't get released at the same time as a new published hardback module, which is the trigger to the start of a new AL season. "We will release all our products either in February or September" is a pretty restrictive publication schedule; not to mention a great explanation for why WotC probably shouldn't cater all its releases to the Adventurers League schedule, even if it could.
Absolutely agree, and accept that it's smarter to be silent than to be contradicted.
Still, that doesn't satisfy those folks who will argue that, since WotC has an AL team, there should be some sharing of info between the folks publishing the shiny new material and that AL team so that *some* degree of advance warning -- rather than *none* -- is possible. Even if the sharing is simply 'here's the final PDF we're sending to the printer; take a day this week and figure out what you need to share with the volunteer admins to give them an idea of what's coming. (There may be reasons not to do this, such as fear of leaking info prior to publication, so there may well be factors I'm not taking into consideration that affect the ability to do this kind of sharing. It'd be nice to know what those factors are, though, so we can excuse them.)
*glances at the bulletin board behind him at the portrait of JFK, the photo of his Rav 4 mini-van, and the flyer publicizing the Douglas Preston signing at the local Barnes & Noble*
I got a bad feeling about this one...
Many people aren't making that distinction. In fact, there are folks who are volunteer coordinators who will quite vigorously argue that DMs do not have the ability to make rulings (i.e.: "house rules") that don't exist either in the printed game rules or the Adventurers League Players Guide. There are people who will argue that a ruling that doesn't abide by what Jeremy Crawford has published in Sage Advice is illegitimate, despite Crawford himself tweeting just yesterday:
"What's the 1st rule of Sage Advice? The DM--not the rulebook or the sage--is the game's adjudicator. The 2nd rule? Don't forget the 1st."
Granted, you're not going to solve these problems by either appointing an AL sage or simply re-affirming that DMs are the Sages of their tables, but it would be nice to at least see some consistent messaging from different levels of the AL hierarchy. Though based on this comment...
Perhaps it's just a variation of the 'better to remain silent than to be contradicted' guideline discussed above.
Don't get me wrong -- I am in favor of this, as it does trend toward the goal of having a consistent play experience across the many different tables that play AL. On the whole, I think it ended up being a good thing. The problem comes from a perception that some parts of the organization seem to be saying that if you don't follow that list, you're not playing AL, while others are saying that, if the DM wants to go outside the list, that's not going to break the program. I realize that consistency of messaging is challenging in a program with literally hundreds of volunteers, all of whom have some sanction to go into public fora and represent the program, but that would be less of an issue in either a world where AL has designated 'sages' that are authorized to speak on rules issues, or alternately, where anything not listed in the Player's Guide is left to the DM to resolve and anything published by AL on the Organizer's site (for example) is meant as a guideline to help DMs who aren't sure how to rule.
Absolutely true -- being a DM is hard enough without having to be a middle-manager at the same time. And I agree, you never get 100% agreement on anything, so someone is always going to be unhappy no matter how things go down.
And it's good to see that the folks in the admin roles are willing to engage in these sorts of conversations and help hash things out, even if it seems like it sometimes requires a crisis-level of outrage to attract the attention of the Mayor's Office (which may be why some folks go into crisis mode over what seem to some of us like trivial decisions).
Folks like myself and Tia have our hearts in the right place, I think, even if we don't have a complete understanding of how the process works, as opposed to how we think it should work.
--
Pauper
Similar Threads
