WotC has ended support for Living Forgotten Realms (and the RPGA, too)

[Steel_Wind]

Steel Wind, I really don't appreciate being used as an example...

I wasn't suggesting anything untoward. I said I was making a reasonable inference based upon the nature of your comment; no more.

If you say that isn't what you meant? Fair enough. I accept your clarification and apologize for any umbrage taken.

 

[BryonD]

Also, the comparison to Pathfinder Society is hilarious.

Dannager, for someone pretending to take the high road. It is interesting that this line above is the starting point of the thread heating up.

It seems to me you are putting a lot more energy into being provocative, and then hoping that everyone gets too busy with your name calling (including political references) and ranting to notice that you are not actually responding to the statements which were made.

 

[WolfStar76]

Hypothetical question for you:

Since WotC no longer runs LFR, does that enable LFR (should it so desire) to distribute and run organized play material for pre-Spellplague era FR (using either 4e or 3.x rules or whatever else). Are they still mandated to only use "official" WotC setting material since there's no longer active corporate oversight and checking of material, and since the setting itself has exceedingly little published "official" support (thus removing the need to use LFR to support only the current published and supported version of FR)?

That's a good question, yet also a fairly moot one.

We like supporting 4E and the current 4E version of the Realms - if only for simplicity's sake.

I suppose if we wanted to do a small story arc, or even a single adventure, that went "back in time" for some reason we could do so, but I doubt we'd even want to do that much.

Assuming we had the inclination to go back to a pre-spellplauge era FR, we probably could not as that isn't 4E, nor the current lore of the Realms. WotC would likely frown on that and tell us to stick to the current iteration.

 

[Nagol]

That's a good question, yet also a fairly moot one.

We like supporting 4E and the current 4E version of the Realms - if only for simplicity's sake.

I suppose if we wanted to do a small story arc, or even a single adventure, that went "back in time" for some reason we could do so, but I doubt we'd even want to do that much.

Assuming we had the inclination to go back to a pre-spellplauge era FR, we probably could not as that isn't 4E, nor the current lore of the Realms. WotC would likely frown on that and tell us to stick to the current iteration.

A related question; I've heard complaints that the adventures run are typicaly have a relatively sanitised world. Does the separation allow the exploration of more gritty world?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Hypothetical question for you:

Since WotC no longer runs LFR, does that enable LFR (should it so desire) to distribute and run organized play material for pre-Spellplague era FR (using either 4e or 3.x rules or whatever else).

Or maybe they can run a version of FR where Mystra actually stays dead; that would be cool too.

 

[avin]

Sounding like a doombringer here... but if RPGA is now going community-driven, as it was DDM, it will be dead no far in future, as DDM is...

 

[WolfStar76]

I'm going to be fairly brief here, because I get the strong impression you've already made up your mind on the issue, and would rather quibble pronouns and stretch what's being said to support your viewpoint.

You're certainly welcome to do so, and to hold any opinion you want. I hope you can appreciate why, however, I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to change what would appear to be an unchangeable opinion.

This isn't due to the topic becoming heated (I, in fact, feel there's little to no heat in this thread overall), but a matter of how and where can I best spend my time. My apologies in advance if this stance in any way irks you.

Wolfstar76, I’m a little troubled with the content of your post on the first page of the thread, that would be post #21 right here.

Here’s the issue. You quote the bold portion from the following passage that I wrote concerning WotC's current support for organized play:



So who is the “they” in my post that your quote is referring to? Well, it’s the same entity we’ve been talking about the whole thread – and the same entity that is referred to in the thread title. I am talking about Wizards of the Coast LLC, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc.

I think part of the issue we're having in communication is that you see WotC and the LFR Community as completely divorced - splitting things into a clean black & white "US" (the LFR Community and Admins, like myself) and "Them" (Wizards of the Coast).

While we (the LFR Admins) have more freedom than ever before - the division still isn't a clean cut. WotC still sponsors us, WotC can still veto things they really don't like (though IMHO we (the LFR Admins) would have to have some REALLY crappy ideas for it to get that far), and WotC still owns and supports the LFR campaign.

The division isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.

I was not talking about the community of LFR players. I never did. That wasn’t the subject matter of the thread.

But that did not stop you from posting this in response which some ENWorlders evidently thought was an “authoritative” and “official” response wherein you said the following:

Another point of miscommunication. It isn't the "players" that are releasing content. It is the LFR Admins, with the support of Wizards of the Coast in the endeavor.

If you think this is just the players trying to get stuff released without guideance and blessing from WotC, I don't know where to begin to change your mindset.

Let’s count the pronoun references in that post:

• ”We've actually released content just this year...”
• "we've restructured a bit..."
• "we've held in the past..."
• "so far this year we've released..."
• "We also hosted a Battle Interactive at DDXP..."
• "Our campaign [sic] documentation..."
• "So, to say that we're not releasing anything is quite the misnomer."
• "We've released content, and we're working on more content for the coming months"

I honestly sorry to say I really don't get the point here. Should I not speak colloquially on the forums? I could turn on robot-lawyer-speak mode, I suppose, but I have the impression that most of the community understands full-well the intent of my messages - especially as I've gone back to clarify (both in the original post, and in my last reply to you) what I mean in my usage.

If that isn't good enough, then I can only apologize once more for our apparent disconnect.

Quite the misnomer? Wolfstar, I never said a DAMNED THING about the community supporters of LFR, of which, you are an admin.

I wasn't talking about what you and your fellow community members were doing. I was talking about how Wizards of the Coast wrongfully threw you under the bus.

Well, that would, again, seem to be the heart of the miscommunication. We aren't JUST the LFR Community. This isn't something we're doing 100% on our own without any help from WotC.

If you see it as such, well, that's your opinion. As an LFR Admin, I can tell you it isn't true until we're both sick of me saying it. You can accept that or not as you see fit.

The question wasn’t about whether the LFR community was generating content for each other to use, the question was whether or not WotC was authoring, creating, developing, editing and releasing that content.

If that's the dividing line for you, then no. WotC isn't doing any of that - but then, before this change editing was the only part they really played before. It was still the LFR Admins and Writers that were authoring, creatinve, developing and releasing content. WotC did some editing and review (as we were previously canonical content), as well as hosting. The rest was all us.

Overall, this has been a good change, because without waiting for turnaround from WotC on the editing/review process, we're able to produce content much more smoothly than before. [/quote]

My guess is, at the least, that the Gencon convention material that WotC probably authored (I’m assuming they did, I guess that I may be wrong) made its way to LFR. But you don’t even talk about that. No, you are too busy using pronouns and official “we” when the subject was never about you – it was about WotC.

As above, nope. We wrote the content before. This was also the case back in LG, as well as other RPGA campaigns. In fact, in the 3.x days, I don't believe that WotC did editing or review of adventures - so in many ways, we're actually back to where we were 4+ years ago.

Few people felt that the RPGA was dying then, so as an "RPGA Insider" I'm realy, honestly confused why that seems to be such a strong claim now.

That’s a distinction with a difference. It would be like a Pathfinder Society Venture-Captain coming onto the boards when Paizo was being bashed for "not doing something”, and responding that "Yes we are, as we’ve done A B and C!" – in reference to his local or state Pathfinder Society Chapter.

Well, that wouldn’t be Paizo, would it?

And you are not WotC. On this point, we have no disagreement.

I don't know enough (or honestly really anything) about Pathfinder Society and it's structure with or in relation to Paizo, so I'll assume your point is vaild.

In my initial response, I asked you this about the "we" part of your post:



You responded by saying:

Let me be more clear then:

When you used the pronoun "We" in relation to a statment that WotC had not released anything, and said words to the effect:

Not true! Misnomer!! "We released A, B and C"

You misled readers at ENworld into thinking that WotC had authored and released the material, when, in fact, WotC did no such thing at all.

I would like to hear the ENWorld members who believed I said that speak for themselves on the matter - I've learned long ago that trying to speak for anyone other than one's self in a forum causes more problems than it's worth.

If you thought that's what I was saying, and my above points don't clarify the matter better (that WotC has never authored our adventures, and that this is nothing new in 15 or so years of Living Campaigns), then I can only apologize once more.

Before you suggest I'm being unfair in saying this, let's look at the XP points comments under your post. Was anybody who read your post confused about that? Let’s take a look at the people who posted XP props for you and draw reasonable inferences, shall we?

[FONT=&quot]Maggan: Great of you to stop by![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]renau1g: Thanks Wolfstar[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]OnlineDM: Thanks for chiming in with some authority![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Aberzanzorax: Always a pleasure to be enlightened by you Wolfstar, thanks![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Vyvyan Basterd: Thanks for dispelling wild and inaccurate rumors.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Pour: Appreciate the facts![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]darjr: Thanks for stopping by.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Herschel: Well done, good sir.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gulla: Thanks for taking the time to clear things up.[/FONT]

"Authority?" "Wild and inaccurate rumours?" "Facts?" "Clearing things up?"

I cannot take any credit or responsibility for the comments of others.

I speak with the authority of a member of the LFR Admin team.

My posts have been factual to the best of my ability, and I've done my best to point out my opinions when such are given.

Let me ask you: How do you think your use of the pronouns “We” "we've" and "our" was taken by those commenters when you were responding to a criticism levelled directly at WotC – and not *you*, by using those pronouns?

Well, since I identified myself as an LFR Admin, I'd hope they took it as such - so far nobody else has claimed the confusion you do.

That doesn't mean it isn't there, of course, though I welcome others to contact me if they were confused as well.

So let’s return to the topic at hand:

What material, specifically, has Wizards of the Coast LLC, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc., authored, created, developed and released for use with Living Forgotten Realms Organized Play program since July, 2010?

None.

Let's roll the clock back to 2000 and include Living Greyhawk.

Still none.

The impression you left in more than a few posters was that it was a whole number of modules – with more on the way. Except, reading your post carefully, in fact, that wasn’t WotC at all. Those modules were instead created by the LFR community itself.

Again, I'll let others post for themselves. If I were to post that "most people understood what I was saying" - would you automatically believe I say so with authority?

Recap: Near as I can tell, there is nothing wild and inaccurate in what I posted at all. WotC has not released material for organized play, outside of D&D Encounters, for the past 8 months. If I’m wrong, tell me I’m wrong (Hell even **I** think I might be wrong when it comes to material written for use at conventions!)

Again, I can't take responsibility for others feeling posts in this thread have been wild or inaccurate.

But at least be accurate in what you say and how you say it.

Something I always strive for.

Re: RPGA

I asked you, in pretty specific terms, the following:



You’ll forgive an old lawyer for recognizing the witness didn’t care to answer the question. But yes, I noticed.

My apologies, I felt that giving perspective helped answer the question.

The RPGA is being used to help WotC manage community-run campaigns. Currently this includes Living Forgotten Realms, and the new Ashes of Athas (mostly convention-based) campaigns. There is also a new campaign being started called Living Divine. I know little more about that campaign than the name, and that the admins for it are good people.

The RPGA is being used, simply, for community-driven organized play, where as "D&D Organized Play" is being used for WotC-Created organized play content.

I lack the ability to clarify it any better than that (again, because it isn't an incredibly black-and-white, easily-drawn line).

[*]The RPGA has been replaced by the WPN

Folded into.

The structure is that all Wizards Organized Play is part of the Wizards Play Network.
Within that structure is the DCI program (mostly used for Magic: the Gatherings) and D&D.
D&D is split into the RPGA, and D&D Organized Play.

I wasn't clear on that. I'm sorry.

[*] If you wanted to actually JOIN the RPGA right now? You can't. (If you google it, Wizards' website prompts you to join the Wizards' Play Network. The RPGA has vanished off their official website.)
[/LIST]

The RPGA uses WPN numbers, which still use the DCI forms for joining. RUMOR (and I'm happy to state it as such) is that once they run out of their warehouse of DCI Membership Forums, they'll design WPN forms instead. Further rumor suggests this will be branded with WPN, DCI, D&D, and RPGA logos - but until I see them, I'm skeptical they'd carry that many logos. Could be an eyesore.

So what's left of the RPGA witihn WotC as a formal organization for organized play? Not much at all. What does WotC do for it? Well, again, not much at all.

As much as we (the RPGA members) have had from them historically - save the last few years.

[Edit: According to David Christ on the Paizo Message Boards, WotC is still sponsoring for -- and paying for -- DMs and table space at cons. I didn't suggest they weren't. But apparently, this is being done under the RPGA banner. If so, that's a big something that has not been mentioned here.]

Dave runs the D&D Experience convention, RPGA events at Origins, and at GenCon. While I'm part of his "Baldman Games" staff as well - he's THE person to go to for information about financial support at conventions.

You can take what he says as Gospel on those matters.

I don't deal in the money side of conventions, so I didn't bring it up as it isn't something I tend to think of, nor would I want to mis-state something.

In terms of the LFR website, according to you, WotC:

• hosts it.
• provides general guidance to LFR admins should WotC break the rules of LFR with a new book;
• WotC will permit RPGA/LFR to use the banners they already have at conventions; and,
• WotC will let the LFR website create and distribute modules, for FREE, by LFR fans to other LFR fans, using the marks and IP of WotC

It isn't just loosely-affifilated "LFR Fans" who write adventures (which is what your useage of the term would seem to indicate - I could be misreading, such is the nature of "tone" on the Internet).

The Admins (more specifically, the Writing Directors) are in charge of our story areas within the campaign. They accept writing applications/submissions from people - but the writing directors are in charge of storyline/plots, editing and reviewing advenutes, playtesting, and keeping track of their adventure authors (to keep them on task for deadlines, as well as having a backup author or two on-hand in case something happens to a current adventure author such that they can't complete and adventure).

This isn't a matter of "just fans" writing adventures if and when they want - which seems to be the impression you have.

Other admins (like [MENTION=83421]JohnduBois[/MENTION]) could give you more insight into that process. I've never written an adventure, so I only know the genera

So -- after decades, that’s what the RPGA is now. Am I correct?

Yup, pretty much right back where we've been.

If so, do I still think that means that WotC has "killed the RPGA off?" Yes. I. Do.

An opinion you're fully entitled to, no matter how much I disagree with you.

Do I think that means that LFR and RPGA are now essentially circling the bowl? Yes. I. Do. And I am not "ashamed" to say it, either. Saddened? Yes. I was a past member of the RPGA. But ashamed? No. That shame doesn't come to roost in my rafters; nor yours.

As above, I agree to disagree.

That truly isn’t meant to be a slam on you or the other organizers of LFR. Quite the opposite: it’s my expression of sadness (and yes, a little contempt) concerning the people at WotC who decided to throw some of their best and most loyal fans they had in the entire world under the bus when they abandoned the RPGA brand -- and abandoned active development for professionally authored, developed and created and illustrated LFR modules.

Well, if you thought that RPGA adventures were being professionally written by WotC-Staffers:
A) Thanks! That speaks REALLY well of the quality of RPGA adventures, and is a HUGE compliment that I'll accept on behalf of all the volunteer authors that have put in the work to make them so great over the years
B) I'm sorry to report that you're mistaken. Adventures have always been written by the community.

(To be perfectly clear, yes, there are SOME adventures that are written by WotC staffers - usually whomever the Organized Play Manager is at the time. They've never been a project by, say, the WotC Development team).

Those best and most loyal fans in the world? That would be *you*.

I hope I've shed some light on your further confusions. I spent more time on this than I really wanted to.

If I can't change your mind, so be it. All I can do is lay out the facts as I see them, promise you that I've passed along the best information I have as an LFR Admin, and let you make up your own mind on the matter.

Overall, I think the biggest stumbling block is your impression that WotC was writing RPGA adventures at any point in the past. If you think that's what this change means, yes, I can see why you'd think this is a sign of failure.

As that's never been the case - I hope you can at least see why I strongly disagree with you.

 

[Holy Bovine]

That game is still popular enough to make money? I figured with the 6 million clones out there and the fact that I havnt seen someone playing a game of magic in years that it was dead as the rest of the collectible card games.

The vast majority of those clones are dead now. M:tG is actually experiencing quite the resurgence in popularity and has eclipsed D&D in sales for a long, long time. Most RPGers really have no idea how tiny their market really is in comparison.

 

[WolfStar76]

A related question; I've heard complaints that the adventures run are typicaly have a relatively sanitised world. Does the separation allow the exploration of more gritty world?

It really depends, I think, on where the "sanitized world" aspect comes from.

We have at least two factors working against us, assuming we wanted to get into a more "gritty" feel.

1) People play with their kids - especially at conventions like GenCon. So there's a limit to how gritty an individual encounter can feel as written - if you prefer "darker/grittier" content at a given table or play, however, feel free to let your DM know.

If they're good at thinking on their feet, can improv, or know in advance (while preparing their adventure) that this is what you prefer, they'd be well within their rights to adjust things on the fly for you/your group.

2) Time constraints. Especially within a store or convention environment, we have just over 4 hours to play through most adventures. That doesn't leave a lot of time for more, really, than explaining the basic objectives of an adventure.

3) (Okay, so I came up with three, sue me ). The last isssue is also that, to date, LFR storylines haven't been very well organized. We know this, we're not proud of it, and we're working to improve.

Under our new structure we have four (I think it's four) story areas, instead of 12 regions. Those story areas are going to have much more connected storylines than we've really seen in the past. (Where it was easy to level out of the level band for an adventure before you could complete a three-adventure story arc).

That might help bring more "bite" to the campaign. Only time will really tell.

 

[JohnduBois]

I've seen some comparisons between what is currently happening with Living Forgotten Realms and what happened with D&D Miniatures. I'd like to draw one specific contrast with regard to the "community run" concept, although my knowledge of DDM is limited to what I have heard third-hand. With regard to Living Forgotten Realms, this means that Wizards of the Coast has taken a step back with regard to oversight. Because the campaign is no longer considered "canon" for Forgotten Realms, WotC no longer needs to have FR story folks take time away from novels to read our adventures, many of which never needed that step of review to begin with. Wizards also stopped paying for adventures, although the amount they were paying was something of a pittance for the work involved anyway. Wizards of the Coast is, however, still providing support for the campaign ranging from funding for convention support to licensing to a some other things that I can't talk about (in a couple cases because I'm not sure if I'm even supposed to even know about them). The DDM rules, on the other hand, were licensed to the Guild folks because WotC wasn't going to do anything with it anyway. WotC still wants to be involved in LFR, just not to the point of direct oversight that they previously had in place.