Scenario Expiration Question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Scenario Expiration Question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
tharlan
09-04-07, 05:38 PM Here is an interesting question....

Why do scenarios have to expire?

One of the things that always frustrated me as the LC Coord is that every year I was writing introductory adventures for brand new PCs, and insuring that even though the vast majority of my play base was 5th level and above that I had adventures for the beginners. Why? Because my starter adventures would expire after two years.

Would it be even remotely possible that all of the time, effort, and thought that goes into creating the year one adventures not get tossed in the Expiration Can after two years? Three, or even four years gives the campaign staff and the regional staff a chance to concentrate on creating adventures for the current plot lines. They don't have to stop and take a few brain cells and throw them at creating starter adventures for new players/characters.

Just a thought!

Troy
Living Kingdoms of Kalamar Lead Director
All around nice guy...
ankhwearer
09-04-07, 05:45 PM One of the things that always frustrated me as the LC Coord is that every year I was writing introductory adventures for brand new PCs, and insuring that even though the vast majority of my play base was 5th level and above that I had adventures for the beginners. Why? Because my starter adventures would expire after two years.

Intro mods in the Duchy of Urnst (and other regions I believe) only expired when the Triad said they did. Generally, our region just kept four (including a two rounder) on hand and dropped the oldest when someone wrote a new one.

Was it different in your area?
Sieylianna
09-04-07, 05:54 PM My understanding is that the RPGA only paid for Core modules, so these were the only ones where the RPGA owned all rights. The RPGA had a limited period of usage for regional and metaregional modules, which forced them to be retired.

Plus there is the who issue of playing modules which no longer make sense due to ensuing events.

Ed
Grimslade2001
09-04-07, 06:57 PM If we are going to see 3 year story arcs in LFR, mods should be available for 3 years. More than three years and there is confusion between arcs. Less than 3 and new players get left out. I suppose, if story arcs were staggered, 3 year arcs with a new arc starting after year 2 of the previous, 2 year shelf life would be okay. But, the arcs would not be interconnected well. The influence of the player base would be less. Food for thought.
WotC_Tulach
09-04-07, 07:49 PM Ed has a good point, which is one reason why the Year 6 regionals and metaregionals for LG are not being carried forward.

Living Forgotten Realms should have a better and longer adventure distribution than Living Greyhawk does.
Stormhawk
09-04-07, 08:19 PM I had a couple good conversation with Creighton on this subject. I feel two (2) solid years is fine. Why? The story arc must go forward. If a new player comes in when a story is about to expire, that's what campfire discussions and legends are all about - it also puts some age on your character when you experience things that other characters have not and keeps the game living and fresh. Don't be afraid to shed a good story, someone else will step up and write a good one to take its place when its time comes...

My recommendation going forward is this: Keep it to two years, but make it two full years based on the date of the release. What was horribly disturbing about LG was that they would release an adventure in December of 2006 and then have it retire on December 31st 2007. Logistically, I liked how an adventure or two was released every month. This is also good for cons and gives a nice campaign flow.

I recognize this had some to do with the logisitics of event ordering on the RPGA site but I honestly feel it's more of a shaft to the authors than it is to the players when a quality adventure retires in under two years.

My two copper.

Stormhawk
KoboldChieftain
09-05-07, 12:15 AM Given the ability to play more scenarios, I think three years would be more suitable. That enables us to build a bigger library of scenarios. It also allows for "catch up" time for people just coming in.

I will grant you that on the other hand it could make for some down right weird scenarios progressions. Your high level character could play in the conclusion of an arc and then in the very next game day or convention your low level character could play in the begining. Like I said, it could be weird.

I think the best answer is to have well labeled scenarios and alert event coordinators. :)
Skerrit
09-05-07, 01:41 PM I think that if the campaign moves to a three year plot cycle, a three year expiration date probably makes the most sense. It gives no folks a chance to catch up, but still retires things so the new cycle (assuming there is one) has a chance to blossom on its own. After all, things do happen in the campaign world and sometimes the plot needs to move forward.
Jonathon_M_Johnson
09-05-07, 02:16 PM Ed has a good point, which is one reason why the Year 6 regionals and metaregionals for LG are not being carried forward.

Living Forgotten Realms should have a better and longer adventure distribution than Living Greyhawk does.

Hello all-

Hey Chris-

In another posting, (RPGA General/ RPGA Chat Log - September) you made a comment about being able to play all modules.

Since I live it Colorado and I would like to play a New York module, are they setting LFR up like LG where I would have to travel to New York to play that module?

Or could I just have a judge in Colorado judge me that module in Colorado?

Or would I have to play that module online?

Thanks

Jonathon M. Johnson
Colorado
Jonathon_M_Johnson
09-05-07, 03:52 PM I had a couple good conversation with Creighton on this subject. I feel two (2) solid years is fine. Why? The story arc must go forward. If a new player comes in when a story is about to expire, that's what campfire discussions and legends are all about - it also puts some age on your character when you experience things that other characters have not and keeps the game living and fresh. Don't be afraid to shed a good story, someone else will step up and write a good one to take its place when its time comes...

My recommendation going forward is this: Keep it to two years, but make it two full years based on the date of the release. What was horribly disturbing about LG was that they would release an adventure in December of 2006 and then have it retire on December 31st 2007. Logistically, I liked how an adventure or two was released every month. This is also good for cons and gives a nice campaign flow.

I recognize this had some to do with the logisitics of event ordering on the RPGA site but I honestly feel it's more of a shaft to the authors than it is to the players when a quality adventure retires in under two years.

My two copper.

Stormhawk

Hello all-

I like the idea that the end of December of the next year is that modules expiration date, even if the last module premiered December and only has 12 months of play time.

I think that it helps people stay organized and not wondering when a module is going to expire; the two year date after released would make people wonder that.

With a short turn around in modules, yes the campfire / legends story is a good thing along with - get those modules out of here and lets get another thing happening in the world. I.e. New story arc, new king - queen, new bad guys. If modules sat around for 2, 3, 5 years, then when someone plays a 5 year old module, and they talk about the King Bob, the new player asks about him and the old players say, "Oh.... King Bob died 3 years ago, now we have Queen Lisa." We had an LG module like that in Colorado.

Sure it seems like everyone wants to have the people that come into LFR late in life play the year 1 modules; but hey.... there has to be a cut off somewhere.

Thanks

Jonathon M. Johnson
Colorado
KoboldChieftain
09-06-07, 07:12 AM ...

Since I live it Colorado and I would like to play a New York module, are they setting LFR up like LG where I would have to travel to New York to play that module?

Or could I just have a judge in Colorado judge me that module in Colorado?

Or would I have to play that module online?

Thanks

Jonathon M. Johnson
Colorado

You would be able to play the NY scenario without restriction. Sounds pretty cool to me. I like the idea of a themed Game Day where you play a couple of scenarios from a different region.
Stormhawk
09-06-07, 08:26 AM I guess my point on the subject is this:

The world needs to balance the players desire to play everything vs. moving the story forward. There will always be lots of LFR to play and you may not get to play everything. If it's too easy to play everything, the story arcs will conflict and not advance at an appropriate level. The timeline must move forward in a non-confusing manner, IMO. Under the three year rule, players will play adventures out of order which is not good for the story or for the RP game play - it's terrible, quite frankly. This is the RPGA and we should stand up for story advancement over the player's desire to play every scenario. A defined retirement period, whether or December 31st or within two years allows the story to move forward which is fundamentally important in my view.

Under LG rules, would you really want to be able to play regional flavor of a 595 adventure and then move to a 597 in the next round? Essentially, by allowing a three year arc, that's what your asking for.

I guess what I am saying is that it's healthy if you don't get to play all the content. There should be more content to go around than one can play. This was an element of LG that was done very well in my opinion.

Rob
MatteBlack
09-06-07, 09:26 AM As long as I am not running out of content to play, I agree with Stormhawk's view that the adventures you make or miss have some effect on making the characters individual.

It would likely be tough to organize but, I think I'd like a system that allowed variable shelf lifes. Some short lived adventures would become events in the campaign while a nice technical dungeon delve that was largely outside the region's current events might have a longer shelf life or even indefinite one because it is more a matter if characters happen to stumble on that remote cave or what have you.

If you changed the naming convention to one with the region, release date and the number of months it would be available, its shelf life would be pretty easily discerned and unlikely to overlap with a bit of finessing. (ie. COR 9/6/07.12 would be a core region adventure available today and for the next year.)

Lee
mmockus
09-06-07, 12:05 PM Many players when they enter a campaign have the desire to want to get caught up. So the urge here is for adventure to have a long span of play, long or no retirement. This is understandable and natural.

This has had a bit of a side effect. All of 2007, several groups focus only on playing the CY 596 adventures before they retire and are missing out on the new content as it comes out. So you end up with 2 groups of players, the curent year players and the past year players. This is not a hard line, but is a bit of a division in the campaign. I'm not sure this is avoidable and is an acceptable drawback for a 2 year play window.

A 3 year or larger window would concern me greater than the current 2 years though. I may further compartmentalize or divide the play group, so the unified campaign experience gets lost a bit.
ployer
10-01-07, 01:50 PM My personal thoughts on this are that we should have Introductory Modules have no expiration period such as they are now in LG. ( atleast in my region - Yeomanry ) However with other modules I think the 2 year expiration is fine, aslong as Stormhawk suggested it be from the release date of the module and not the year. While I dont think it needs to be down to the specific day, i think expiring modules by month would be acceptable and not be a complete pain to manage. Just my opinion.

Phil
mmockus
10-01-07, 04:39 PM Though I have considered keeping intros without expiration. One good reason for expiring them is the same reason for expiring other adventures; The story goes forward. An intro set in a town that no longer exists or featuring NPCs who are dead break continuity.

Intros have been some of our more popular adventures, not only new players, but they also allow existing players to start new characters or to get an easy table together without worrying about who is what APL.
amysrevenge
10-02-07, 12:39 AM The story is always carried with the newest modules. You could justify any length of time as "moving forward". You could justify retiring modules after 1 month in the name of moving the story forward. You could also justify retiring mods after 5 years for the same thing.

I'm of the opinion that mods should be active for as long as WotC's contract allows them to be active. Apparently in LG that was 2 years. If they can keep that access for longer, I'm happy.
Reneshat
10-02-07, 01:14 AM Though I have considered keeping intros without expiration. One good reason for expiring them is the same reason for expiring other adventures; The story goes forward. An intro set in a town that no longer exists or featuring NPCs who are dead break continuity.

Intros have been some of our more popular adventures, not only new players, but they also allow existing players to start new characters or to get an easy table together without worrying about who is what APL.

I must say, getting a new batch of Dyvers Intros each year was very nice. In fact, one of my favorite modules was a Dyvers Intro. So there are benefits to retiring the modules so you have a revolving door of new character goodness. However, it is sad to think I will never have the chance to TPK yet another table with A House, A Door, A Dilemma.
aljergensen
10-02-07, 05:56 PM I don't normally have a problem with scenarios expiring because it gives gaming groups impetus to run some games that might not otherwise be run. If we didn't have a "last chance" con, some of the mods may not be run after they've been out for a year or so.

On the other hand, while I agree that the story going forward is part of what makes a living campaign dynamic, that doesn't necessarily justify retiring mods. As long as it is clear when the mod takes place gamers take all sorts of inconsitencies in stride. There was quite a while in Nyrond when we had to keep asking "Who's on the throne?" and "Are we in an evil kingdom?" at the beginning of regional mods.

So if we kept the campaign date on the mod, people could adjust expectations to the time frame the mod was written in. And if people are joining the campaign it might be kind of fun to run them through some "historical" adventures to give them a feel for the timeline.

However, there may be legal/procedural/tracking overhead issues with keeping a mod around forever that we don't know about.

The evolution of how the campaign is run may also be an issue.

Overall though, I don't see a problem with scenarios not expiring as long as it's clear when they take place.

Allen.
Keith53
10-02-07, 06:26 PM Assuming LFR plot threads are progressing over a period of many months to a couple of years, long dwell time of adventures presents a problem that spoilers will be growing. Also, people who put off playing an adventure because it will always be available, end up never playing it. I don't think non-expiring adventures is a good idea. I do agree that having some introductory adventures with very long shelf life, more to introduce new players to the campaign, than start a new PC, are warranted.

Keith
jhorred
10-03-07, 10:43 PM I would prefer to see scenarios expire at some point. It'd help keep timelines clearer and avoid there being overwhelming choices to new players later in the campaign.
tombollis
10-03-07, 11:10 PM I would prefer to see scenarios expire at some point. It'd help keep timelines clearer and avoid there being overwhelming choices to new players later in the campaign.

Personally, I don't care much for extended plot lines and story arcs. I prefer stand alone adventures that can be played in any order. I'm not one who will play everything. in order, so too much continuity actually detracts from the play exprience - I find it disjointed and confusing.

Tom Bollis

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tharlan 09-04-07, 05:38 PM	Here is an interesting question.... Why do scenarios have to expire? One of the things that always frustrated me as the LC Coord is that every year I was writing introductory adventures for brand new PCs, and insuring that even though the vast majority of my play base was 5th level and above that I had adventures for the beginners. Why? Because my starter adventures would expire after two years. Would it be even remotely possible that all of the time, effort, and thought that goes into creating the year one adventures not get tossed in the Expiration Can after two years? Three, or even four years gives the campaign staff and the regional staff a chance to concentrate on creating adventures for the current plot lines. They don't have to stop and take a few brain cells and throw them at creating starter adventures for new players/characters. Just a thought! Troy Living Kingdoms of Kalamar Lead Director All around nice guy...
ankhwearer 09-04-07, 05:45 PM	One of the things that always frustrated me as the LC Coord is that every year I was writing introductory adventures for brand new PCs, and insuring that even though the vast majority of my play base was 5th level and above that I had adventures for the beginners. Why? Because my starter adventures would expire after two years. Intro mods in the Duchy of Urnst (and other regions I believe) only expired when the Triad said they did. Generally, our region just kept four (including a two rounder) on hand and dropped the oldest when someone wrote a new one. Was it different in your area?
Sieylianna 09-04-07, 05:54 PM	My understanding is that the RPGA only paid for Core modules, so these were the only ones where the RPGA owned all rights. The RPGA had a limited period of usage for regional and metaregional modules, which forced them to be retired. Plus there is the who issue of playing modules which no longer make sense due to ensuing events. Ed
Grimslade2001 09-04-07, 06:57 PM	If we are going to see 3 year story arcs in LFR, mods should be available for 3 years. More than three years and there is confusion between arcs. Less than 3 and new players get left out. I suppose, if story arcs were staggered, 3 year arcs with a new arc starting after year 2 of the previous, 2 year shelf life would be okay. But, the arcs would not be interconnected well. The influence of the player base would be less. Food for thought.
WotC_Tulach 09-04-07, 07:49 PM	Ed has a good point, which is one reason why the Year 6 regionals and metaregionals for LG are not being carried forward. Living Forgotten Realms should have a better and longer adventure distribution than Living Greyhawk does.
Stormhawk 09-04-07, 08:19 PM	I had a couple good conversation with Creighton on this subject. I feel two (2) solid years is fine. Why? The story arc must go forward. If a new player comes in when a story is about to expire, that's what campfire discussions and legends are all about - it also puts some age on your character when you experience things that other characters have not and keeps the game living and fresh. Don't be afraid to shed a good story, someone else will step up and write a good one to take its place when its time comes... My recommendation going forward is this: Keep it to two years, but make it two full years based on the date of the release. What was horribly disturbing about LG was that they would release an adventure in December of 2006 and then have it retire on December 31st 2007. Logistically, I liked how an adventure or two was released every month. This is also good for cons and gives a nice campaign flow. I recognize this had some to do with the logisitics of event ordering on the RPGA site but I honestly feel it's more of a shaft to the authors than it is to the players when a quality adventure retires in under two years. My two copper. Stormhawk
KoboldChieftain 09-05-07, 12:15 AM	Given the ability to play more scenarios, I think three years would be more suitable. That enables us to build a bigger library of scenarios. It also allows for "catch up" time for people just coming in. I will grant you that on the other hand it could make for some down right weird scenarios progressions. Your high level character could play in the conclusion of an arc and then in the very next game day or convention your low level character could play in the begining. Like I said, it could be weird. I think the best answer is to have well labeled scenarios and alert event coordinators. :)
Skerrit 09-05-07, 01:41 PM	I think that if the campaign moves to a three year plot cycle, a three year expiration date probably makes the most sense. It gives no folks a chance to catch up, but still retires things so the new cycle (assuming there is one) has a chance to blossom on its own. After all, things do happen in the campaign world and sometimes the plot needs to move forward.
Jonathon_M_Johnson 09-05-07, 02:16 PM	Ed has a good point, which is one reason why the Year 6 regionals and metaregionals for LG are not being carried forward. Living Forgotten Realms should have a better and longer adventure distribution than Living Greyhawk does. Hello all- Hey Chris- In another posting, (RPGA General/ RPGA Chat Log - September) you made a comment about being able to play all modules. Since I live it Colorado and I would like to play a New York module, are they setting LFR up like LG where I would have to travel to New York to play that module? Or could I just have a judge in Colorado judge me that module in Colorado? Or would I have to play that module online? Thanks Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado
Jonathon_M_Johnson 09-05-07, 03:52 PM	I had a couple good conversation with Creighton on this subject. I feel two (2) solid years is fine. Why? The story arc must go forward. If a new player comes in when a story is about to expire, that's what campfire discussions and legends are all about - it also puts some age on your character when you experience things that other characters have not and keeps the game living and fresh. Don't be afraid to shed a good story, someone else will step up and write a good one to take its place when its time comes... My recommendation going forward is this: Keep it to two years, but make it two full years based on the date of the release. What was horribly disturbing about LG was that they would release an adventure in December of 2006 and then have it retire on December 31st 2007. Logistically, I liked how an adventure or two was released every month. This is also good for cons and gives a nice campaign flow. I recognize this had some to do with the logisitics of event ordering on the RPGA site but I honestly feel it's more of a shaft to the authors than it is to the players when a quality adventure retires in under two years. My two copper. Stormhawk Hello all- I like the idea that the end of December of the next year is that modules expiration date, even if the last module premiered December and only has 12 months of play time. I think that it helps people stay organized and not wondering when a module is going to expire; the two year date after released would make people wonder that. With a short turn around in modules, yes the campfire / legends story is a good thing along with - get those modules out of here and lets get another thing happening in the world. I.e. New story arc, new king - queen, new bad guys. If modules sat around for 2, 3, 5 years, then when someone plays a 5 year old module, and they talk about the King Bob, the new player asks about him and the old players say, "Oh.... King Bob died 3 years ago, now we have Queen Lisa." We had an LG module like that in Colorado. Sure it seems like everyone wants to have the people that come into LFR late in life play the year 1 modules; but hey.... there has to be a cut off somewhere. Thanks Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado
KoboldChieftain 09-06-07, 07:12 AM	... Since I live it Colorado and I would like to play a New York module, are they setting LFR up like LG where I would have to travel to New York to play that module? Or could I just have a judge in Colorado judge me that module in Colorado? Or would I have to play that module online? Thanks Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado You would be able to play the NY scenario without restriction. Sounds pretty cool to me. I like the idea of a themed Game Day where you play a couple of scenarios from a different region.
Stormhawk 09-06-07, 08:26 AM	I guess my point on the subject is this: The world needs to balance the players desire to play everything vs. moving the story forward. There will always be lots of LFR to play and you may not get to play everything. If it's too easy to play everything, the story arcs will conflict and not advance at an appropriate level. The timeline must move forward in a non-confusing manner, IMO. Under the three year rule, players will play adventures out of order which is not good for the story or for the RP game play - it's terrible, quite frankly. This is the RPGA and we should stand up for story advancement over the player's desire to play every scenario. A defined retirement period, whether or December 31st or within two years allows the story to move forward which is fundamentally important in my view. Under LG rules, would you really want to be able to play regional flavor of a 595 adventure and then move to a 597 in the next round? Essentially, by allowing a three year arc, that's what your asking for. I guess what I am saying is that it's healthy if you don't get to play all the content. There should be more content to go around than one can play. This was an element of LG that was done very well in my opinion. Rob
MatteBlack 09-06-07, 09:26 AM	As long as I am not running out of content to play, I agree with Stormhawk's view that the adventures you make or miss have some effect on making the characters individual. It would likely be tough to organize but, I think I'd like a system that allowed variable shelf lifes. Some short lived adventures would become events in the campaign while a nice technical dungeon delve that was largely outside the region's current events might have a longer shelf life or even indefinite one because it is more a matter if characters happen to stumble on that remote cave or what have you. If you changed the naming convention to one with the region, release date and the number of months it would be available, its shelf life would be pretty easily discerned and unlikely to overlap with a bit of finessing. (ie. COR 9/6/07.12 would be a core region adventure available today and for the next year.) Lee
mmockus 09-06-07, 12:05 PM	Many players when they enter a campaign have the desire to want to get caught up. So the urge here is for adventure to have a long span of play, long or no retirement. This is understandable and natural. This has had a bit of a side effect. All of 2007, several groups focus only on playing the CY 596 adventures before they retire and are missing out on the new content as it comes out. So you end up with 2 groups of players, the curent year players and the past year players. This is not a hard line, but is a bit of a division in the campaign. I'm not sure this is avoidable and is an acceptable drawback for a 2 year play window. A 3 year or larger window would concern me greater than the current 2 years though. I may further compartmentalize or divide the play group, so the unified campaign experience gets lost a bit.
ployer 10-01-07, 01:50 PM	My personal thoughts on this are that we should have Introductory Modules have no expiration period such as they are now in LG. ( atleast in my region - Yeomanry ) However with other modules I think the 2 year expiration is fine, aslong as Stormhawk suggested it be from the release date of the module and not the year. While I dont think it needs to be down to the specific day, i think expiring modules by month would be acceptable and not be a complete pain to manage. Just my opinion. Phil
mmockus 10-01-07, 04:39 PM	Though I have considered keeping intros without expiration. One good reason for expiring them is the same reason for expiring other adventures; The story goes forward. An intro set in a town that no longer exists or featuring NPCs who are dead break continuity. Intros have been some of our more popular adventures, not only new players, but they also allow existing players to start new characters or to get an easy table together without worrying about who is what APL.
amysrevenge 10-02-07, 12:39 AM	The story is always carried with the newest modules. You could justify any length of time as "moving forward". You could justify retiring modules after 1 month in the name of moving the story forward. You could also justify retiring mods after 5 years for the same thing. I'm of the opinion that mods should be active for as long as WotC's contract allows them to be active. Apparently in LG that was 2 years. If they can keep that access for longer, I'm happy.
Reneshat 10-02-07, 01:14 AM	Though I have considered keeping intros without expiration. One good reason for expiring them is the same reason for expiring other adventures; The story goes forward. An intro set in a town that no longer exists or featuring NPCs who are dead break continuity. Intros have been some of our more popular adventures, not only new players, but they also allow existing players to start new characters or to get an easy table together without worrying about who is what APL. I must say, getting a new batch of Dyvers Intros each year was very nice. In fact, one of my favorite modules was a Dyvers Intro. So there are benefits to retiring the modules so you have a revolving door of new character goodness. However, it is sad to think I will never have the chance to TPK yet another table with A House, A Door, A Dilemma.
aljergensen 10-02-07, 05:56 PM	I don't normally have a problem with scenarios expiring because it gives gaming groups impetus to run some games that might not otherwise be run. If we didn't have a "last chance" con, some of the mods may not be run after they've been out for a year or so. On the other hand, while I agree that the story going forward is part of what makes a living campaign dynamic, that doesn't necessarily justify retiring mods. As long as it is clear when the mod takes place gamers take all sorts of inconsitencies in stride. There was quite a while in Nyrond when we had to keep asking "Who's on the throne?" and "Are we in an evil kingdom?" at the beginning of regional mods. So if we kept the campaign date on the mod, people could adjust expectations to the time frame the mod was written in. And if people are joining the campaign it might be kind of fun to run them through some "historical" adventures to give them a feel for the timeline. However, there may be legal/procedural/tracking overhead issues with keeping a mod around forever that we don't know about. The evolution of how the campaign is run may also be an issue. Overall though, I don't see a problem with scenarios not expiring as long as it's clear when they take place. Allen.
Keith53 10-02-07, 06:26 PM	Assuming LFR plot threads are progressing over a period of many months to a couple of years, long dwell time of adventures presents a problem that spoilers will be growing. Also, people who put off playing an adventure because it will always be available, end up never playing it. I don't think non-expiring adventures is a good idea. I do agree that having some introductory adventures with very long shelf life, more to introduce new players to the campaign, than start a new PC, are warranted. Keith
jhorred 10-03-07, 10:43 PM	I would prefer to see scenarios expire at some point. It'd help keep timelines clearer and avoid there being overwhelming choices to new players later in the campaign.
tombollis 10-03-07, 11:10 PM	I would prefer to see scenarios expire at some point. It'd help keep timelines clearer and avoid there being overwhelming choices to new players later in the campaign. Personally, I don't care much for extended plot lines and story arcs. I prefer stand alone adventures that can be played in any order. I'm not one who will play everything. in order, so too much continuity actually detracts from the play exprience - I find it disjointed and confusing. Tom Bollis