SCAG Thread

[Tia Nadiezja]

On the player side, I recently released a post on this forum alone designed to help players navigate their Starting Equipment choices, with the goal being to help them gain the best possible options in each instance.

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.

The problem with the story origin mechanic isn't in its goal. Its goal makes a ton of sense. It's in its execution so far, because its execution so far does nothing really to achieve its goal - it simply creates a situation which is more favorable to people holding significant system mastery (in this case, mastery of the AL rules rather than of D&D mechanics - meta-system mastery) than the base game already is. I really don't think that's a thing that we want out of our rules.

Right now, there are three story origins. Tyranny of Dragons allows a few minor background things. Elemental Evil has backgrounds, races, and a rather large list of very useful, very cool spells. Rage of Demons is back down to backgrounds, with a side order of gods for Clerics and characters with the Acolyte background.

Playing an in-season background is a ton of fun, but it doesn't offer a significant mechanical advantage. It flavors your character in a way that's really cool for the current season. But the hypothetical power gamer doesn't care about that - they care about power and versatility, and that means that, regardless of which adventure the store is playing, they're going to pick Elemental Evil because it's got the awesome spells and nifty race options.

I'm not talking about Aarakockra. I also can't spell that word. Whether or not flying races are balanced is an argument to have another time; I absolutely sympathize with the choice to ban them entirely. Further, them being banned, I'm delighted that there are no apparently plans to release a cert for them. It doesn't matter if I'm a travelling player or a local; I can't play an aarakockra, and that's good. The con issue shows up when we talk about the Death domain, which is (pardon my pun) absolutely killer to see someone else play when you've got a great character concept for it but you're banned from using that because you work as, say, a caregiver for disabled adults and convention travel is so far outside your budget that GenCon might as well be happening on Mars.

But that's a different point. Back to story origins.

So... story origins mean that you can't cast the cool spells in the EE player's guide while using a background from Rage of Demons. That's where you lose me - not because I don't understand the need to keep options that could interact badly isolated, but because two things have gone wrong here at once that make the choice look ridiculous to me.

1. Spells and backgrounds - and races and backgrounds - don't interact. It is not possible for a negative rules interaction to form between RoD origin mechanics and EE origin mechanics, because those mechanics never touch each other in-game. A background that could possibly make Investure of Flame broken would be a bad background and need to be banned from the game not due to that specific interaction but because it was a terrible idea to begin with.
2. Resources were removed without being replaced by anything at all commensurate.. Until these last few days, the EE Player's Guide was by far the meatiest post-Core block of stuff we've seen. It's great! I love that it's free! I actively want to spend more money on D&D because they gave it to me! I bought the spellbook cards! But then the next season starts and I want to make a character who has a background that interacts with what's going on in the season because having your character be directly linked to the story is great and is part of how home games work and the work that the AL folks did to replicate that aspect of home play in AL is awesome... but now I have to pick between this solely story-based thing and being able to cast those cool spells. My spellbook cards are crying, folks. There are literal tears forming on the outside of the box, because that's messed up, and it favors rules-mastery (and, though I am loathe to use the term, power-games) over people who want to be involved in the story.

That's the problem with how the story origin system works right now. I love the basic idea - keeping a subset of things that we know won't break the game when used together legal for a given character is a great idea. But at some point during planning for a season, someone needs to have sat down and said to themselves, "What is the broadest set of rules options we can allow these new characters without there being literally any chance whatsoever that the rules from different sources will have unexpected and dire interactions?" Ripping out cool spells and races and replacing them with a short list of backgrounds ain't that - and someone, between AL's staff and WotC, really ought to have seen that when the call was being made. The origin system was created before the release schedule was known; it needs to have adapted by now to the release schedule.

Now I'm going to talk about the SCAG.

The impression I had about it not being allowed in RoD comes directly from conversations with AL staff. It comes from talk on Facebook involving our regional coordinator, and it comes from talks on the WotC forums involving Skerritt and Kalani. I wasn't talking out my donkey when I talked about it; I went to great lengths both to gather information and to express my concerns.

This is also where I first got on the "the focus on conventions is not good for AL" kick I'm still on.

Basically, it was said on Facebook that the SCAG would almost certainly not be allowed for season 3 - that the earliest it might show up is Season 4. I then said that there was a problem with that - the book's advertising copy explicitly called out that it was intended for use with Rage of Demons adventures at the time, and a new player who picked the book up then walked into an AL game, with the Rage of Demons posters all over the store and Rage of Demons adventure open on the table and people raging about demons and demons raging everywhere, would then have to be told, "I'm sorry. The book you bought that the advertising copy for said is intended for use in the Rage of Demons campaign is not actually allowed in the Rage of Demons campaign. Play with this short list of wonderfully-flavorful backgrounds instead!"

That's a frustrating experience for the new player. It's one that could have been avoided by either immediately legalizing the book on release (I know the list of reasons this is unlikely to happen) or by making the RoD campaign's start date match the release date of the SCAG, through some combination of pushing back RoD's start and moving up SCAG's release. I know that wouldn't have been easy - especially the second - but it was a thing that could have been done.

It was then pointed out to me that RoD had to start when it did so that the launch event could happen at GenCon, and that the release date of both the adventure and the Guide couldn't be moved for the AL players because AL players are a tiny subset of the total population of the game's players. And at that, I just flipped my lid a little, and got something pretty much permanently stuck in my craw about the emphasis on convention play. Why?

Because if the books couldn't be moved for the small subset of players who are involved in AL, why in the world would the start date of the season - and, thus, the legality of a book whose advertising copy specifically called out Rage of Demons - be set based on the tiny subset of that tiny subset who attended, not conventions in general, but one single convention located a very, very long way from pretty much all the major population centers in the Midwest?

I honestly still have not gotten a good answer to that.

 

[skerritthegreen]

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.

To clarify, DMs do not have the authority to change the PHB rules ("Its my personal feeling that dwarves should be immune to poison, so you should swap resistance to immunity at my table but I think to balance that you loose 10 feet of movement."), change the AL rules ("All drow are banned when I run, if you try to play a drow, you can't play."), or make rulings that go on to future tables ("Its dumb that there is only one +1 rapier, I'm changing it so everyone gets a +1 rapier, and write down that its made of mithral or adamantine, your choice.")

They are intended to clarify how situations might work at their table (see Travis' long list above).

 

[Pauper]

Because if the books couldn't be moved for the small subset of players who are involved in AL, why in the world would the start date of the season - and, thus, the legality of a book whose advertising copy specifically called out Rage of Demons - be set based on the tiny subset of that tiny subset who attended, not conventions in general, but one single convention located a very, very long way from pretty much all the major population centers in the Midwest?

I honestly still have not gotten a good answer to that.

Heck, I'm not an admin, and I can answer this one: it's the largest table-top gaming convention in North America, and one of the largest in the world. (Based on my scatter-shot research, which involved a couple of Google searches, I'd say it's the second-largest, after Spiel in Germany.)

It's kind of a no-brainer to launch your new RPG campaign season in a location where tens of thousands of people might be able to try it out, and you don't even have to pay for the privilege!

--
Pauper

 

[skerritthegreen]

Playing an in-season background is a ton of fun, but it doesn't offer a significant mechanical advantage. It flavors your character in a way that's really cool for the current season. But the hypothetical power gamer doesn't care about that - they care about power and versatility, and that means that, regardless of which adventure the store is playing, they're going to pick Elemental Evil because it's got the awesome spells and nifty race options.

There is no right way to play D&D, so there's no actual problem with what you just said. RPers care about RPing, so they pick RoD SO. The power gamer cares about optimization, so they pick EE. Everyone wins and the SO mechanic is still working just fine.

1. Spells and backgrounds - and races and backgrounds - don't interact. It is not possible for a negative rules interaction to form between RoD origin mechanics and EE origin mechanics,

So you are against proactive rules based that are necessary based on historical precedence just because you don't need them for the current combination? You are correct, there is totally nothing that can ever be learned from the past (or from what the Admins/WOTC might know is coming but cannot announce as of yet).

2. Resources were removed without being replaced by anything at all commensurate..

Requiring an amount of mechanical content to be created always equal to the EEC is not reasonable. Content books come out less frequently than SOs. This sadly just can't happen. There is not the $ or manpower to make it happen, so saying if it's not going to happen it's better to toss SOs and let bad combos happen isn't superior.

The impression I had about it not being allowed in RoD comes directly from conversations with AL staff. It comes from talk on Facebook involving our regional coordinator, and it comes from talks on the WotC forums involving Skerritt and Kalani.

You are correct, since I said on the WOTC forums that baring additional guidance from WOTC things would be as you state, so you shouldn't assume it's going to automatically be legal because we haven't been given that guidance yet. In addition the timeline for that guidance precludes any assumption that its automatically coming to suit people asking for it, so you may wish to be prepared that it might not come.

I then said that there was a problem with that - the book's advertising copy explicitly called out that it was intended for use with Rage of Demons adventures at the time,

While it does say something close to that (From the website = The Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide is also a great way to catch up on recent events in the Forgotten Realms, to get background on locations featured in the Rage of Demons storyline coming in September, and to learn the lore behind video games like Neverwinter and Sword Coast Legends.), reading it, it does not appear to be the case (and indeed the book itself does not make this claim). So it is usable with RoD, it is not specifically for RoD. It is more general than that. People are making leaps from various claims on the internet.

by making the RoD campaign's start date match the release date of the SCAG, through some combination of pushing back RoD's start and moving up SCAG's release. I know that wouldn't have been easy - especially the second - but it was a thing that could have been done.

No, that's not really realistic because it's not monetarily or workflow realistic. Hasbro isn't going to hurt themselves to please a tiny fraction of their market. The AL isn't big enough to affect the total that much, and waiting to release the RoD book hurts them much more. Also, RoD start date was not Gen Con, it happened after Gen Con. The AL did preview events at Gen Con, but the actual season started when the book came out several weeks later. Indeed there was deafening complaints from All Access Players who assumed they would get copies of RoD which wasn't yet printed, so it didn't happen.

emphasis on convention play. Why?

I understand you despise convention play and those who attend conventions and that there might be anything at a convention that isn't elsewhere, but conventions grow community. Marketing research from previous campaigns have shown that those that go to conventions get energized and go home and further energize their circle of friends, spreading a desire to play and be involved in the community. Research has shown that it is a net plus over those who complain that conventions are unfair. Conventions also enable networking via face to face gaming or meeting people at the booth or at seminars. This gets people in contact with others and again, grows the community, which in the end is the goal for many of us. Hopefully that answers your questions about why we support conventions.

 

[StinkyEttin]

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.

You’re probably right. And this creates a precedent; which is pretty dangerous ground when dealing with people that are as...invested...as some of our players are. 

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."

You’re going to have players throw Sage Advice in your face all the time. It happens to me. I agree with most of Jeremy’s stances on most of the issues brought up. But occasionally, I don’t. The cool thing about this is--as you brought up--is “Rule #1 and Rule #2”. You’re going to get rules lawyers and you’re going to get people who disagree. It’s inevitable. Read the entry. Read it again. Make your decision and stick with it. They can either accept it or they can choose to leave the table. Better yet, they can choose to leave the table and step up and DM on their own.

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...

Anyone who reads the groups and the articles posted on the website sees this exact sentiment repeated nearly on a daily basis. It’s in the Player’s Guide. It’s literally all over the place. The only way we could be more thorough in explaining this is by personally and individually going to every DMs house and discussing the topic over a piping-hot plate of Stove Top.

Now, the distinction needs to be made between a simple rules adjudication and a house rule; the two are completely different things. Each DM has their own interpretations of the rules as published in the PHB. A house rule is wholly the domain of the DM. If I as a DM decide that the Duelist Fighting Style does not work while wearing a shield--that is a rules adjudication. If I say that everyone gets the Duelist Fighting Style for free, regardless of their class--that’s a houserule. Adventurers League DMs have the authority to interpret the rules as published as they see fit, but they do not have the authority to create their own rules to add to the game; such as flanking, custom classes, critical fumble charts, axe-lutes, etc.

Perhaps it's just a variation of the 'better to remain silent than to be contradicted' guideline discussed above.

If there’s one thing I learned from my stint in the military, it was to keep your mouth shut unless you know damn well that you’re right. It has served me well.

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.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

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.

Sometimes how a thing works and how we’d like it to work doesn’t always mesh up. Sucks, but it’s the way it is. That said, I like investment. Invest away.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

IF anyone wants to know why I say that AL administrators tend toward dismissiveness in their posts? This. This post right here. This is why I say that.

There is no right way to play D&D, so there's no actual problem with what you just said. RPers care about RPing, so they pick RoD SO. The power gamer cares about optimization, so they pick EE. Everyone wins and the SO mechanic is still working just fine.

Except that RPers are not, in fact, winning, because they are cut off arbitrarily from the fun spells and races. They are, in fact, losing.

So you are against proactive rules based that are necessary based on historical precedence just because you don't need them for the current combination? You are correct, there is totally nothing that can ever be learned from the past (or from what the Admins/WOTC might know is coming but cannot announce as of yet).

Not at all what I said. I'm against arbitrary application of rules where they don't help. I'm against inflexibility.

Requiring an amount of mechanical content to be created always equal to the EEC is not reasonable. Content books come out less frequently than SOs. This sadly just can't happen. There is not the $ or manpower to make it happen, so saying if it's not going to happen it's better to toss SOs and let bad combos happen isn't superior.

Or some thought could be given before throwing out older content. They could wait until there is a significant amount of new content before doing so. If SCAG becomes legal for Season 4, removing EE from Season 4 wouldn't sting nearly as badly as removing it for Season 3 did.

While it does say something close to that (From the website = The Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide is also a great way to catch up on recent events in the Forgotten Realms, to get background on locations featured in the Rage of Demons storyline coming in September, and to learn the lore behind video games like Neverwinter and Sword Coast Legends.), reading it, it does not appear to be the case (and indeed the book itself does not make this claim). So it is usable with RoD, it is not specifically for RoD. It is more general than that. People are making leaps from various claims on the internet.

When it calls out this season and is banned from this season, that's a problem.

I understand you despise convention play and those who attend conventions and that there might be anything at a convention that isn't elsewhere, but conventions grow community. Marketing research from previous campaigns have shown that those that go to conventions get energized and go home and further energize their circle of friends, spreading a desire to play and be involved in the community. Research has shown that it is a net plus over those who complain that conventions are unfair. Conventions also enable networking via face to face gaming or meeting people at the booth or at seminars. This gets people in contact with others and again, grows the community, which in the end is the goal for many of us. Hopefully that answers your questions about why we support conventions.

When did I say that I despise convention play? THIS is it. This is why I get so frustrated with interacting with AL staff. I'm quite happy to have people go to conventions and play games and network and have fun. That's great! What bothers me is the emphasis on it - the statement that things can't be moved around for the tiny percentage of the playerbase that does AL in stores but things have to be made to cater to the tiny percentage of that tiny percentage that attends and games at conventions.

I've been to a few conventions. They were great times. I got to meet people and play a lot of games and watch anime and wander around dealer rooms and generally have a blast. It was, in other words, its own reward - not something I needed extra things unique to the convention to be given to me in order to convince it it was fun. But it was also a tiny part of my experience as a gamer and a member of fandom, and it's a thing that a tiny portion of gamers get to experience in a given year - or, frankly, in a lifetime.

I'd absolutely love it if you were to stop applying motives to me I not only lack, but have gone to great lengths to avoid expressing - just as, when I express that I think mistakes are being made in rules and design, I do my very best to avoid implying that I think this is malice. I know it's not. I'd appreciate the same consideration.

 

[skerritthegreen]

Except that RPers are not, in fact, winning, because they are cut off arbitrarily from the fun spells and races. They are, in fact, losing.

Or some thought could be given before throwing out older content. They could wait until there is a significant amount of new content before doing so. If SCAG becomes legal for Season 4, removing EE from Season 4 wouldn't sting nearly as badly as removing it for Season 3 did.

If a player wants to RP their character thematically so it matches the season, how does picking race/class/spells that are thematically not at all relevant to the season "winning" for the RPer? I understand why they would be for the power gamer, but I think I am missing something about your argument. Wouldn't forcing an RP character to use thematically inappropriate mechanics disrupt their attempt to develop a thematically appropriate self-narrative?

When it calls out this season and is banned from this season, that's a problem.

We definitely agree there. Since the book is not thematically relevant to the season, I would much rather that Green Ronin not have called out the RoD season in their marketing (though I understand why they did it). However, that doesn't change that the book is generic and unrelated, so altering the release schedule (which would then mean having months without new content) to wait for a book that is unrelated to that content, doesn't make sense to me.

 

[warfteiner]

Tia - thank you for your insight, but I think you may be mis-remembering a key thing about the marketing surrounding the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide: at no point did it say it was "for" the Rage of Demons storyline - it said that it was "compatible with" the Rage of Demons storyline.

It's a simple lead from one to another, but I think it's also important to note that not only did Rage launch at Gen Con, but Gen Con was about two weeks earlier than normal this year and the book was about two weeks later in the usual fall release pattern (based on previous years of D&D releases). While it's true that Wizards was able to work some magic (har, har) in 2014 so that the Monster Manual was at the show, this won't be a guarantee every year... especially when so many elements work against us in that regard.

Lastly: on the story origins and spells point, well, it's always possible to find a spellbook with some of the season 2 spells inside. There may even be other adventure-based rewards for such things in the future, but who knows. It may not be perfect (as not every class uses a spellbook, nor does this 'unlock' races) but Faerun is a big and wonderful place. There's no need to have all the toys in one chest, in my opinion

 

[StinkyEttin]

IF anyone wants to know why I say that AL administrators tend toward dismissiveness in their posts? This. This post right here. This is why I say that.

Again, disagreeing does not necessarily equate to dismissing.

Except that RPers are not, in fact, winning, because they are cut off arbitrarily from the fun spells and races. They are, in fact, losing.

I have six Adventurers League characters. Only 1 one of them has the Elemental Evil story origin. Am I therefore losing at D&D?

Not at all what I said. I'm against arbitrary application of rules where they don't help. I'm against inflexibility.

As has been demonstrated before, our rules flex and shift over time based on the feedback we receive and forward to Wizards. Story origins, while imperfect, are accomplishing what they have been designed to do. The presumption is that a slew of character options accompanies each story origin. So far, this has proven to be false. Season 2 appears to be the exception to this rule. Maybe that will change. Maybe it will not. In turn, this may or may not cause change in the rules. All of this remains to be seen.

When it calls out this season and is banned from this season, that's a problem.

Wait until it’s a problem to declare it a problem.

What bothers me is the emphasis on it - the statement that things can't be moved around for the tiny percentage of the playerbase that does AL in stores but things have to be made to cater to the tiny percentage of that tiny percentage that attends and games at conventions.

I've been to a few conventions. They were great times. I got to meet people and play a lot of games and watch anime and wander around dealer rooms and generally have a blast. It was, in other words, its own reward - not something I needed extra things unique to the convention to be given to me in order to convince it it was fun. But it was also a tiny part of my experience as a gamer and a member of fandom, and it's a thing that a tiny portion of gamers get to experience in a given year - or, frankly, in a lifetime.

Gen Con is a huge event. It is an excellent opportunity to promote the program and put on a kick ass show. Because of this, it gets a lot of attention. So far, Gen Con has hosted the kickoffs for Seasons 1 and Seasons 3. It gets Epics. This year, it got a few neat certs and some faction buttons. It got Fai Chen’s. It gets these because of the sheer number of people that pass through it on a daily basis.

I’m a huge fan of the local cons, but the five tables of Adventurers League being run at Corn Cob Con in Arbuckle, North Dakota doesn’t get this same level attention solely because of the disparity in attendance. The fewer tables a convention is able to fill, the less likely it is able to successfully run an Epic. The need for promotional stuff like certs is reduced. Being able to get an Admin or Wizards employee to come and run Fai Chen goes down. This is just the way it is. It has nothing to do with a lack of respect for what the fine folks at Corn Cob Con do (BTW, if any players in ND want to start Corn Cob Con, that’d be great); it’s just that the program doesn’t benefit in the same way as it does doing these things at Gen Con.

So while the relative number of dedicated Adventurers League players that attend Gen Con can be small; they’re ultimately not why we’re there. We’re there to show other people who aren’t involved in the program what it’s all about.

 

[Coreyartus]

I'm not sure what this thread has degenerated to, but there are some obvious takeaways from it.

1) SCAG's adoption into AL has been handled horribly, bottom line. Whether it was intended to be used or not by the powers that be, or whether it was communicated clearly that it wouldn't or might or could be used by the powers that be, or whether people got told one thing or incorrectly made assumptions or whatever--it simply hasn't been handled well.

Perception is everything. Doesn't matter how or when truth is told. Management of the perception of SCAG's applicability has been, honestly, a bit of a cluster*^&%. Go back to social media and see--repeatedly--how things were communicated to AL's participants. Multiple messages of contradictory communication from different sources--WotC initially indicating one thing (intentionally or not), WotC's Admins explaining differently, then AL's LCs and RCs unwittingly and faithfully towing that line. No one can say the miscommunication didn't happen--it did. "Is SCAG for use in AL?" ad nauseum...

Even if the right people weren't saying anything for fear of saying the wrong thing, others were doing the saying. You can't blame people for listening to the only authorities doing the talking.

But ultimately that's all irrelevant. The problem is that no one was correcting them. "It should be--no, it isn't--no, it might be--no, it will be..." It all results in a perception that isn't confidence inspiring. Rightly or wrongly. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Take away: Please get your ducks in a row (however you're going to do it) before this happens again--which it will, because WotC is going to release more stuff, guaranteed. Stick with it, and make that policy clear whatever it is.

2) I can't say I agree with the convention paradigm. Anecdotally, for every 1 person that I know in my local circle that attends conventions, I know 5 more who don't and have no interest in doing so. But they still play. Conventions are irrelevant to them--even local ones... It's pulling teeth to get attendees and DMs--I've seen that struggle. I wouldn't count on the statistics of earlier OP's from earlier editions for applicable statistics--people are playing AL because it's very popular right now and it's the only RPG game in town with any recognizable local presence at their FLGS beyond MtG or wargaming. Pathfinder isn't found at local stores in the way D&D is now. It's not because small numbers of convention attendees have dispersed to engender community. It's coming from the other direction...

Take away: Please re-evaluate the relevance of those statistics because it feels (again--rightly or wrongly is irrelevant) a bit like trickle down theory from a certain perspective...

3) The difference between "house rule" and "rules adjudication" has been continually debated over and over and over again on Social Media channels. The problem isn't knowing what the difference is, the problem is clearly communicating that difference. And it has to be done over and over again as new DMs and players are presented with the difference in multi-various permutations whenever they have to debate who makes a rule or whether it exists whenever it comes up for the first time.

Take away: It doesn't matter whether you think you're being clear or the explanation is out there already in a million places. It's that very communication of the definition that is the heart of the quandary. If people aren't understanding what you're saying in the PG, it needs to be re-written or communicated in a way that is understood (frankly, there are parts that read like stereo instructions...). And that needs to be communicated to whomever is doing that writing, because it seems the biggest hurdle of new participants isn't the rules themselves but developing the capacity to contextualize AL's approach to the rules.

On a side note, Tia, I think you may be being a bit "combatant"... You're accusing the Admins of being condescending and applying motives, but you're likewise doing so and reading into their statements as well...

It's clear everyone's passionate about how they spend their precious spare time (and for some it could be argued it's even a quality of life issue). There's other headaches we could have with better benefits, but we all love this particular headache. It's bound to get better as kinks are worked out.