Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Samwise 08-28-07, 02:10 PM	The LG Campaign is coming to an end. I would prefer it wasn't, but it is. Given that the end is absolutely inevitable, how exactly would people have preferred the campaign to end? With less notice? For the RPGA to announce the end of LG at Gen Con '09? "No, LG is over. This is the premiere of LFR. Have fun!" For the RPGA to announce the end of LG at Origins? "Thank you for playing the last LG event. We will see you next month at Gen Con for our new campaign!" For the RPGA to announce the end of LG at DDXP? "I suppose you are all wondering why we didn't have an LGCS 8 discussion. Well, we are ending the campaign in 6 months, so we figured we didn't need it." Or with more notice? Right at the beginning? "The LG campaign will only last 5 years. We know that isn't really the kind of open ended Living Campaign you'd like, but we only plan one big campaign arc for each region and that will be it." With 3.5? "Well, since we changed the release schedule LG gets another 3 years. But that's all! Oh yeah, we know you all hate the D&D Campaigns model where the whole thing just lasts 2 years, but really, we just can't keep the campaign going longer than that for ummm . . . other reasons. Yeah, those." Would it really have made LG all that better to know the campaign was only going to last 5 years, with a surprise 3 year extension, solely because of the cycling of editions? Does everyone want a set expiration date on LFR, especially knowing it will be taken as the lifespan of the 4E rules no matter what? People already want to quit LG with 10 months of releases yet to go. How many people never would have bothered starting last year? Or even two years into the campaign, had they known of the planned obsolescence? 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I don't see any of those options as being any better than the announcement at Gen Con. Right, it shouldn't be cancelled at all. Unfortunately, that isn't an option. So I'll take the notice we got, and look to the future. And next time make different plans. :D
Maesto 08-28-07, 02:20 PM	I think I would've preferred an announcement that the campaign would conclude at the end of 2009, not 2008. Give people some time to wrap up =)
Drezden 08-28-07, 02:31 PM	I would have preferred that they not cancel LG at all. I don't see the rationale for cancelling the most popular Living campaign ever just because you are introducing a new edition. I think the problem people have is with the decision to cancel LG - especially when the campaign appeared vibrant and in good shape - not with the way the announcement was made. I think the announcement was fine - it is the underlying decision that I have a problem with. Daren
smerwin29 08-28-07, 02:37 PM	Oh, come on Sam. Now you are being silly. ;-) Seriously, you are asking people to look beyond their own wants and accept something that they do not want. No reason is going to be good enough to combat the feeling of disappointment. Let's be real. Even though Living Greyhawk is a smashing success, 4e and the R&D decision to forego any conversion means a conversion of existing LG characters could not happen. The lesson taught by the LC conversion backs up the fact that a conversion would not be in the best interest of the campaign as a whole. So why not restart LG with 1st level characters and 4e rules? After all, LG already has a framework in place, right? My guess: Because the time is right and all the players at WotC are finally sold on the Living concept, and FR is going to be leading the way in 4e. If a setting that is virtually unsupported can succeed like LG did, the big dog should be able to outpace it. (Of course, people will argue that FR is wrong for a variety of reasons, but I'd wager that the new campaign setting for FR is going to render moot all of those arguments.) OK, everyone says, you can do Living Realms, but do Living Greyhawk too. Unfortunately, the resources to run one Living campaign is going to stretch the RPGA thin, especially if it is done right and to the best of its potential. Giving the player base such control of a brand and an IP was a bold move on WotC's part. They learned quite a bit from it, I reckon. Hopefully those lessons will pay dividends for players in the long run. What I honestly do hope, and I am optimistic that it could happen, is that after a couple of years, if Living Realms runs smoothly and meets the goals that will be associated with it, that the RPGA and those at WotC who control the budgets will see that it is worthwhile to spend the extra resources to resurrect both Greyhawk and the Living Greyhawk campaign. That assumes a lot, of course, but I think it could be done to the benefit of WotC, the RPGA, and the players who love Greyhawk and LG, of which I am one.
ankhwearer 08-28-07, 02:45 PM	I don't see the rationale for cancelling the most popular Living campaign ever just because you are introducing a new edition. The most popular Living campaign so far... ;) Could you clarify your comment? I'm not sure if "I don't see the rationale..." means: I don't agree with the rationale. I have not seen the rationale explained anywhere. I don't believe the stated rationale is the actual reason that they are ending LG. I do not understand that rationale that they have stated. Keep in mind, it's OUR campaign. True, we were told what setting to put it in, but the members of the RPGA write the scenarios, plot the story arcs, and roleplay their way through the adventures. LR does not have to be anything we dislike from the Forgotten Realms since we, the volunteers, will get to pick and choose what to include in the play experience that comes from doing a mod.
Drezden 08-28-07, 02:59 PM	How about we just leave it at - the rationale makes no sense. Most businesses do not end growing product lines. The fact is that LG has been very successful for the RPGA/WoTC. To just throw it away because you want to create a new living campaign that you hope will be better is a poor decision. You are going to alienate a substantial portion of the LG player base unnecessarily. Even if Living Realms replaces all of these players and more, you still lost players (customers) you didn't need to. Is DnD that profitable that it can afford to just thrown away customers like this? If you wanted to start a Living Realms campaign go right ahead, but there was no need to cancel LG to do it. I don't see why the RPGA can't support 2 Living Campaigns. If the work got to be too much, you hire more people - that is what expanding businesses do. Of course, 98% of the work doesn't even require paying employees since it is done by unpaid volunteers! Successful businesses do not operate like this. Customer appreciation and brand loyalty are traits to be nurtured and cultivated, not disregarded. Hope that clarifies my meaning for you. Daren The most popular Living campaign so far... ;) Could you clarify your comment? I'm not sure if "I don't see the rationale..." means: I don't agree with the rationale. I have not seen the rationale explained anywhere. I don't believe the stated rationale is the actual reason that they are ending LG. I do not understand that rationale that they have stated.
solbergb 08-28-07, 03:22 PM	I'm in a business where the product life cycle is about 6 months. So the idea of something popular ending to replace it with something that the marketing drones think will be more popular is a concept I understand, especially if you are resource constrained (I can only make one product at a time) Can the world support two living, global campaigns? WOTC doesn't think so, so they're going with what they think will work best. They might be right, they might be wrong. time will show. If you are going to qualify your users on the new product, doing it when the components (rule set) are being end of lifed makes sense. As is announcing the end of life early enough to let customers use the old product now, while the new one is being "qualified" (playtested, relased, adopted). Seriously - what they're doing is pretty normal in the manufacturing world. I don't know how useful that metaphor is in the gaming world, but this isn't an alien practice done by clueless, self-destructive idiots. It's a practice many companies do successfully every day, and indeed is the core business model for many profitable companies. It is especially common in innovation-based companies such as high-tech, or popularity-based companies such as fashion. Some customers will have a closet with 6 blue suits and one "casual" outfit that doesn't really change in 20 years. Some will buy every new fashion as it comes out. Many will just buy stuff as it wears out and replace it with whatever is being currently sold that catches their fancy or at least doesn't offend them. Catering to the first type of customer isn't too useful from the standpoint of making a profit. Catering to the second is also challenging, it's expensive to constantly innovate. The sweet spot is to use the second to drive sufficient change that the third category of customer will pay a premium for the changed product, while maybe maintaining some ineventory for the "stick in the mud" guys who will just replace clothes as they wear out. I could be off base here on what's going on, but WOTC strikes me as an innovation-based company - they're in the business of making better games over time AND selling product. If they don't actually improve the games, people will stop buying the new releases in sufficient quantity to be profitable. Even Kenzerco, which re-released D&D 1.0 as Hackmaster using their terrific comic as advertising modified the game to make it fit modern sensibilities better, and changed/introduced rules to make the comic book character behaviors more rational (the honor mechanic, boosted L1 hitpoints etc) Some of this is the perspective of nearly 30 years of RPGing talking. I doubt I'd be nearly so calm if the only experience of D&D I had were a few years of 3.x
smerwin29 08-28-07, 03:24 PM	Most businesses do not end growing product lines. Except that LG is not a product line. It is more like a marketing program. WotC is not selling LG, they are selling books through LG. The fact is that LG has been very successful for the RPGA/WoTC. To just throw it away because you want to create a new living campaign that you hope will be better is a poor decision. You are going to alienate a substantial portion of the LG player base unnecessarily. LG was/is very successful. It proved that a Living campaign can work as a marketing tool. It is not a poor decision to see if you can make that campaign work for a new audience, an audience that is much, much, much larger that the one the marketing campaign is currently focused on. And while it certainly does alienate a portion of the LG player base ("substantial" is arguable), to assume that it was unnecessary to do so is arguable as well. Even if Living Realms replaces all of these players and more, you still lost players (customers) you didn't need to. Is DnD that profitable that it can afford to just thrown away customers like this? That depends. Let's say for the sake of argument that this decision does alienate a substantial portion of LG players. First, it has to alienate them so much that they do not buy any more WotC products ever. Now that "substantial" portion is much less substantial. Weigh that against the potential upside of the players who did not play LG but will play LR because it is FR, with all the novels and other tie-ins. Even someone with no business sense has to see the potential outweighs the loss. Which of course naturally leads to the next argument: If you wanted to start a Living Realms campaign go right ahead, but there was no need to cancel LG to do it. I don't see why the RPGA can't support 2 Living Campaigns. If the work got to be too much, you hire more people - that is what expanding businesses do. Of course, 98% of the work doesn't even require paying employees since it is done by unpaid volunteers! This argument makes so many assumptions that it is hard to know where to start. Hiring more people takes more money. The assumption that 98% of the work doesn't require paying employees is arbitrary, with no basis in reality. You (nor I) how much goes on behind the scenes to make the campaign work. And as I said above, the LG campaign released a lot of power into the hands of the players. This is great for the players, and worked for the campaign, but is a nightmare in other ways: legally and creatively foremost. Successful businesses do not operate like this. Customer appreciation and brand loyalty are traits to be nurtured and cultivated, not disregarded. Successful businesses operate like this all the time. They change marketing efforts, they move resources, they alienate certain segments of their audience in order to retain or court other segments. It is so understandable for you to nto like it, and to make your unhappiness known. And maybe the unhappiness of the LG players (who are a very tiny segment of total DnD players and WotC customers) will make an impact on WotC's bottom line. But I seriously doubt it. Thanks for the discussion.
Arvagor 08-28-07, 03:30 PM	Successful businesses do not operate like this. Customer appreciation and brand loyalty are traits to be nurtured and cultivated, not disregarded. Are you sure about that? You might want to read this some time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke ;)
Drezden 08-28-07, 03:41 PM	Ha, ha - that is a good analogy. Hopefully, it is a good precedent too - maybe we can convince Wizards to reverse course and not cancel LG. If not Wizards, maybe some at Hasbro will do it. Daren __________ If you want to try and save LG, come discuss it at: lets_save_lg yahoo group Are you sure about that? You might want to read this some time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke ;)
solbergb 08-28-07, 05:01 PM	Sadly, New Coke is not a very analagous situation. LG doesn't have the market share that original Coke had. It doesn't have two generations of loyal customers who liked the old taste. There isnt' the financial stake if Realms is a flop either that Coke had. Seriously, Coca Cola corp lost a significant portion of its perceived market value when they flopped. Hasbro and WOTC aren't in this situation, so the leverage to "go back" vs "try something else" isn't anywhere near as high. Indeed, New Coke is the exception that proves the rule. Most product transitions work just fine, or at least well enough to not go back.
Mithreinmaethor 08-28-07, 05:21 PM	I had to go back and rewatch the all the videos and read all the blogs. But if I remember correctly it was said that Greyhawk will not be a D&D setting any longer. Which means LG COULD NOT exist past 4.0's release. I have a feeling that the omission of Greyhawk has something to do with WOTC and Gygax. Just a hunch.
Istaran 08-28-07, 05:43 PM	I could imagine possibilities for this.. maybe something like spending the next several years, while FR is run as a living campaign and Greyhawk is out to bring on some talented writers to put out books on the things that happen between the dramatic finale of LG and some other point several years later, wherein some dramatic world shattering events take place. Finally, after various loosely connected story arcs set in the various regions of the world have been played out in book form, things settle down into a somewhat more stable situation, setting the stage for the revival of LG in 5th edition down the line. At that point, LG has the advantage of a) existing regions with stories and histories known both by the old LG players, triads, authors, but also by the book-reading public b) a nostalgic player base interested in returning to adventuring in familiar settings. It would at that point likely be in a better position to take the limelight than either it or FR is now. I'm not saying WotC is planning this, I just think it would be a cool way to use the 'death' of LG to set up the IP for an even greater return in the future. I'm not convinced that running a Living campaign in the same setting as ongoing book writing is a particularly good idea, as it makes it quite problematic to coordinate the two and keep them canonically in sync with one another. Edit: Of course all this depends on WotC still having the rights to Greyhawk
Genghis Cohen 08-28-07, 06:16 PM	LR does not have to be anything we dislike from the Forgotten Realms since we, the volunteers, will get to pick and choose what to include in the play experience that comes from doing a mod.If you think that WotC will give LFR the same latitude that LG had, guess again. We were explicitly told that while some opportunity will exist for LFR to influence the FR novels, the FR novels will also influence LFR. in short, LFR will probably not be a full blown living campaign. FR's brand equity is too valuable. Expect it to be somewhere between LG and a D&D campaign.
Eric Anondson 08-28-07, 06:31 PM	But if I remember correctly it was said that Greyhawk will not be a D&D setting any longer. Which means LG COULD NOT exist past 4.0's release.I don't see how those two can be connected with each other. Generihawk name-generator for products is ending. Thus, Living Greyhawk needs to go away. That's a leap of logic I can't see at all.
Mithreinmaethor 08-28-07, 06:45 PM	I don't see how those two can be connected with each other. Generihawk name-generator for products is ending. Thus, Living Greyhawk needs to go away. That's a leap of logic I can't see at all. Actually I think I stated it a little better in a previous post. But from what I have seen and can infer is that Greyhawk is reverting back to its originator. WOTC will no longer support Greyhawk as a setting. And as I stated in a previous thread its all just a gut feeling, but dont be surprised if you dont see Greyhawk pop up in Gygaxs gaming system once 4.0 hits the shelves.
Eric Anondson 08-28-07, 06:58 PM	But from what I have seen and can infer is that Greyhawk is reverting back to its originator.That infering is something that strikes me as unfounded. Why make that leap as well? Has it even been hinted at? A gut feeling, okay, but do you have anything to back it up? The setting is WotC's. Rather then just let it revert to Gygax for nothing in return, they would license it out to folks willing to pay for it, like Paizo who have asked for it yearly for the past few years. WotC has no interest in licensing any setting right now. IMO, not so much a gut feeling as wishful thinking?
clannagh 08-28-07, 07:13 PM	In answer to the original poster .. some form of continuity. With a reset Greyhawk campaign at the very least your new characters could be relatives or descendants of your old ones. In similiar situations elsewhere it has even been possible to "bequeath" a nominal item of low value to a new PC. From a marketing point of view the move makes sense, all they really need is enough triad and authors to stay for the new campaign to kick off fine. The players are replaceable. From a PR point of view it remains to be see.
JamesMaissen 08-28-07, 07:29 PM	The LG Campaign is coming to an end. I would prefer it wasn't, but it is. Given that the end is absolutely inevitable, how exactly would people have preferred the campaign to end? With less notice? I would have preferred that it not end until it was indeed dying on it's own, either by having run its full course or perforce from suffering under a failed 4th edition (if it indeed does flop) rather than being canceled on high so as not to compete with the flavor of the month. Whatever they replace LG with will never have that sense of longevity for me as what they did to LG they will likely do to it when it suits them. Thus even if the campaign is wonderful, the volunteers pour their hearts out into it, and this proposed coordination between the new living system and authors can actually work out, it can be ended to suit other needs than that of the players. The length of the notice isn't as problematic as the willingness to end the campaign simply to make room for something else. This is where, for me, they've really shot themselves in the foot. The upside of a living campaign for me is it's durability over a home campaign.. with it removed from RPGA campaigns my desire to play them has likewise withered.. better to play in a non-RPGA one that is focused on the players rather than the product. -James
Maesto 08-28-07, 11:13 PM	I think the worst part of it ending is that a lot of people have put a lot of time into making this world come to life, and it's basically all about to be lost =(
Zanzibax 08-28-07, 11:14 PM	It should end with the death of Iuz, a war of conquest between Keoland and Ket, the unification of Aerdy, the end of the Scarlet Brotherhood, and the rise of the Cambion Lords of the Bandit Kingdoms... ...and similar epic changes in Greyhawk. Vatun Rises, the Five Shall be One and the Howl from the North as the Snow, Frost, and Ice Barbarians come into their own and utterly destroy the Stonefist Barbarians before turning on the softer southern climes. We don't have enough time to do it all.
Zanzibax 08-28-07, 11:15 PM	I think the worst part of it ending is that a lot of people have put a lot of time into making this world come to life, and it's basically all about to be lost =( Just keep playing, holler and scream loud enough, long enough, creatively enough, that they just have to bring it back when D&D 5.x comes out. :ton:
Mommy was an Orc 08-28-07, 11:30 PM	Let's be real. Even though Living Greyhawk is a smashing success, 4e and the R&D decision to forego any conversion means a conversion of existing LG characters could not happen. The lesson taught by the LC conversion backs up the fact that a conversion would not be in the best interest of the campaign as a whole. The lesson is that you need to think through a conversion document that makes logistical sense for the campaign, then put someone in charge of supporting the conversion online. The 2.0 -> 3.0 WotC conversion document was just horrid mechanically(similar XP characters could end up 5th or 9th level depending on class) and there wasn't someone in charge. That the results were bad shouldn't have been particularly surprising. I've yet to see 4.0 - I don't think it will take any special effort to easily convert characters - will they be exactly the same character? Maybe not. Will they have roughly the same look and feel? Sure. ------------ I think I would have preferred that there weren't decisions that involved buying books near the announcement - i.e. the kobold option buying Races of the Dragon, Dungeonscape for Greyhawk Ruins, enough evidence to buy Magic Item Compendium because we all knew it was going to be adopted, etc... I'm not saying it is the Circle's fault for this happening, but it would have been nice not to have been in that position.
Samwise 08-29-07, 12:30 AM	Oh, come on Sam. Now you are being silly. ;-) Yeah, pretty much. I am also being thoroughly worn out by the constant reinforcement of a bunch of complaints that focus on ignoring the reality of the situation. Look at the responses here. Most want to completely ignore that LG is not going to be cancelled, it is cancelled, and the choices are not between if it is cancelled or not, but which way it is cancelled. One person, Maesto, sort of answers my question, but even he wants the campaign to last longer. Sorry Maesto, there is no way WotC will support a 3.5 campaign for a year while 4E is setting up. It won't happen. If you wanted the campaign end to have been announced last year, I'd say think about this degree of frenzy but dragging on for 2 years instead of one. Gah! As I said, I'd rather they didn't cancel it either, but that simply is not an option, no matter how much I scream, shout, or threaten to try and set up a private LG campaign. And for all that screaming, shouting, and threatening, and ranting about "proper" business practice, if I were looking at all of this outrage, I would be wondering why even bother with another Living Campaign of any sort. All it does it get people attached to it, then make them frenzy when it is inevitably cancelled. Better to stick with the D&D Campaigns which they might not like as much, but at least they don't expect it to last forever. What I honestly do hope, and I am optimistic that it could happen, is that after a couple of years, if Living Realms runs smoothly and meets the goals that will be associated with it, that the RPGA and those at WotC who control the budgets will see that it is worthwhile to spend the extra resources to resurrect both Greyhawk and the Living Greyhawk campaign. That assumes a lot, of course, but I think it could be done to the benefit of WotC, the RPGA, and the players who love Greyhawk and LG, of which I am one. I'm going to aim for just a Greyhawk D&D Campaign first. Two years is at least a start.
Samwise 08-29-07, 12:40 AM	I think the worst part of it ending is that a lot of people have put a lot of time into making this world come to life, and it's basically all about to be lost =( No. It isn't. At least nothing I ever wrote will ever be lost. Even if WotC never uses it, which they may not be able to because of copyright/purchase issues, I will always remember it. And even if I never get a chance to put it into something else I write for WotC, it will always have a place in my home games. It will never be lost as long I have anything to say about it.
solbergb 08-29-07, 01:51 AM	Actually if you go with the assumption that the campaign was going to end, the way they actually did it wasn't that bad. Late enough that we kept the illusion for as long as possible, early enough to get some closure and not just end the campaign abruptly. I don't like most of your other suggestions. I appreciate the time we were given to end our characters stories properly, and I don't think it would have been appropriate to announce earlier until the release date for PHB4.0 was set in stone. As others said though, there isn't any way to announce the death of something like LG that will cause anything but a sad/angry reaction. I also would rather have just kept on playing, but given that there is no choice that includes it continuing, the way they chose to end it was ok.
cycloptic_squirrel 08-29-07, 02:47 AM	If we assume that LG is dead and there's nothing that could be done... it was not too badly done. I would have preferred that there wasn't a statement that Living Greyhawk would be restarted with new players though. On a large timescale, I think this was about right. On the small timescale, I wish the end of the campaign came sooner than it did. Granted it was only a few days, but that gave the illusion that Greyhawk might survive into 4th edition, as well supporting the illusion that it was a decision that hasn't been set in stone. Announce the new campaign hours after the unveiling of 4th edition, not days later.
Wavester 08-29-07, 11:12 AM	LG has always been very expensive to run and very labor intensive on top of that. Every year the PTB had to go into meetings and justify it's exsistance and fight for it vs. other campaign models that could achieve almost the same play levels with less work. When I was on the Circle back in the day we were all aware of this and we were told that one day it would end and their goal was to give us one years notice to wrap things up. The person who made that promise moved on to another position and Chris Tulach filled in and honored that same promise. So yes everybody is still having fun with LG but it has to end at some point. Having a year to wrap it up while it's still healthy and strong IMO is better then trying to wrap it up half-assed when it's in decline. As to the restart in the Realms it makes sense. It's time to do something different. I can only eat chocolate ice cream so many times before I really want something different. It's also only fair to give FR their time in the limelight that we have hogged for 8 years now. Dave C
MichaelAhlf 08-29-07, 12:54 PM	I think I would've preferred an announcement that the campaign would conclude at the end of 2009, not 2008. Give people some time to wrap up =) No kidding. They can conclude the Core arc anytime, I don't have an issue w/ that, but there are a LOT of conventions in the July through December area that could have been very well happier with the extra time to have a few more Interactives and wrap things up properly. I especially feel sorry for those who organized LG-specific conventions during the months of July, August, and September. Yes, they can run a "convention", but they'll be much smaller and may not have enough people to run at all. And LFR certainly is no help to them.
Samwise 08-29-07, 01:02 PM	I especially feel sorry for those who organized LG-specific conventions during the months of July, August, and September. Yes, they can run a "convention", but they'll be much smaller and may not have enough people to run at all. And LFR certainly is no help to them. Why is LFR no help to them? They can't become LFR specific conventions? They can't run LFR events? That's a pretty leap to declare that those conventions won't have any people wanting to attend simply because you don't want to play.
Genghis Cohen 08-29-07, 01:52 PM	LG has always been very expensive to run and very labor intensive on top of that.What is it about LG that is so expensive and labor intensive, excluding the work done by volunteers?
TetsujinOni 08-29-07, 02:04 PM	Why is LFR no help to them? They can't become LFR specific conventions? They can't run LFR events? That's a pretty leap to declare that those conventions won't have any people wanting to attend simply because you don't want to play. LR is no help >yet<, because for event planning on the scale of a convention, you need to reserve space with lead time. Because the end of LG has been set for before the premiere of LR play, and none of the details of LR play are yet available, convention organizers can't depend on early adopters of the new campaign to fill convention rooms (especially hotel room reservations, which is a huge part of how the convention makes itself attractive to the hotel). Rather than crying about the end of LG, though, this is a cry of "FORWARD THE NEW CAMPAIGN" - think of the con organizers! A comfort level with the new mechanics and new setting will increase the odds of rapid adoption - and that's where I think the rollout plan is fundamentally flawed. Leaving aside such things as an understandable lack of trust for digital initiatives from a company that can ignore broken links to major announcements for a week, some notion of how many players to plan for for July-December conventions next year, and how many judges will be available who will burn year one LR adventures because they can't get to GenCon to play at the premieres, will address the convention uncertainty for next year. Senior GM for my first con in ~40 days... and desperately trying to find tables of KEO7-04, KEO7-05 and KEO7-06 that are less than 4 hours away :weep:
Samwise 08-29-07, 03:53 PM	And yet it managed with 3E and LG in 2000. A whole bunch of people took a whole bunch of chances setting things up back then, but they somehow managed with just 3 core adventures from Gen Con 2000 to order. What you seem to be overlooking though is that LG adventures will be available until the end of 2008. That means all those conventions can offer any LG adventure from 2006-2008 at their convention while people try out 4E and LFR.
jhorred 08-29-07, 03:58 PM	I had to go back and rewatch the all the videos and read all the blogs. But if I remember correctly it was said that Greyhawk will not be a D&D setting any longer. Which means LG COULD NOT exist past 4.0's release. I have a feeling that the omission of Greyhawk has something to do with WOTC and Gygax. Just a hunch. I have a feeling that they decided to cut ties with Greyhawk since they don't own the IP for it exclusively. No. It isn't. At least nothing I ever wrote will ever be lost. Even if WotC never uses it, which they may not be able to because of copyright/purchase issues, I will always remember it. And even if I never get a chance to put it into something else I write for WotC, it will always have a place in my home games. It will never be lost as long I have anything to say about it. I spent a good amount of time writing a regional intro mod that premieres this weekend. I'm more sad that I don't feel like I'll have a chance to write a follow up to it[1] than I am it going away and never being used again. I enjoyed writing and running it. So far the people that have played it seemed to have a good time playing it. That is more important to me than it being around for years and years. Everyone can only play it once. Hopefully everyone does..... (and enjoys it) [1]- I would rather give up the mod slot to a different mod that is part of the final story arc than to satisfy me ego by having another mod published. Maybe I'll write something for LGR. (Who knows maybe I'll rewrite the intro to fit FR......)
Samwise 08-29-07, 04:04 PM	I have a feeling that they decided to cut ties with Greyhawk since they don't own the IP for it exclusively. Yes they do. Everyone keeps repeating this, but I've never seen anything to suggest there is the least bit of truth to it. WotC owns all of Greyhawk, from top to bottom. Now maybe people are confusing that Gygax retained rights to use the character Gord the Rogue, as well as locations in Greyhawk already mentioned in the two novel published by TSR. But that is only to write novels, not to get residuals every time GH is mentioned. I spent a good amount of time writing a regional intro mod that premieres this weekend. I'm more sad that I don't feel like I'll have a chance to write a follow up to it[1] than I am it going away and never being used again. Then modify it to remove the GH references, and write the sequel to that version. The legacy of LG will end only if people let it end. My GH will not end.
jhorred 08-29-07, 04:31 PM	Then I'm mistaken..... For the intro, I was thinking exactly that. Though it does rely on the environment so I'd have to have the right setting for it. It is tied heavily into the geography and recent history of the Pale though. In a way it's sort of an epilogue for the Winter Stalks the Pale story arc.
Eric Anondson 08-29-07, 05:10 PM	Why is LFR no help to them? They can't become LFR specific conventions? They can't run LFR events? That's a pretty leap to declare that those conventions won't have any people wanting to attend simply because you don't want to play.I think it entirely depends on the nature and implementation of "borderless regions", which we know few details.
paigeoliver 08-30-07, 07:33 AM	Also, the RPGA's terrible staffing problem could be really helped if they weren't overnighting unsolicited batches of RPGA cards to people at $7 each for shipping. They could GASP send the unsolicited cards via regular mail and use the extra money to hire another employee, or 3. I got unsolicited mailings of RPGA cards 3 times in the last year, all sent express mail. Multiply that by however many thousand people they are sending them to, and you have the money for another employee, or two, or three. Also, what other campaign models was Living Greyhawk fighting against that would get the same play numbers? I know the official play numbers aren't released, but the scenario history pages suggest that the average Core LG adventure was getting played ten times as much as the average adventure in any of the D&D campaigns.
rutrow424 08-30-07, 09:59 AM	LG has always been very expensive to run and very labor intensive on top of that. Every year the PTB had to go into meetings and justify it's exsistance and fight for it vs. other campaign models that could achieve almost the same play levels with less work. When I was on the Circle back in the day we were all aware of this and we were told that one day it would end and their goal was to give us one years notice to wrap things up. The person who made that promise moved on to another position and Chris Tulach filled in and honored that same promise. Dave, I realize that you have much more insight into the inner workings of LG than most of us, but I will echo the other poster who asked (though I know you can't probably give a full answer): how is LG so expensive and labor intensive to WotC? The only thing that seems to make sense is the large volume of mods that need reviewed by WotC employees for legal reasons, but that hardly makes the leap to onerous burden on the company that you discuss. If it was so burdensome, creating a modified version in LR could be a dubious decision despite their efforts to "improve" the model (or as someone suggested, you get a blend of living and DnD campaign, yikes). Back to topic, I think they handled the announcement reasonably well. Obviously I wish they would have decided differently, but we will get a lot more out of the end of LG than we may have otherwise. I am saddened at the thought that GH may no longer be "living" as far as WotC is concerned, but hopeful for its 4e return (at least in a source book), and looking forward to the (official?) DL anniversary releases.
Mommy was an Orc 08-30-07, 10:08 AM	Yeah, I've gotten RPGA cards for new members FedEx'd to me every time I've signed up to run an intro mod. Usually arriving after the mod is played. Which is quite silly. I think the big expense however is just how many regional mods are made. 31 regions * say an average of 5 per year = 155 mods. Throw interactives on top of that. Even after they're reviewed by the Circle, they need to be approved by HQ. That's a lot of mods that need to be reviewed/approved despite most of them not being played by even 10% of the player base. I'm sure that time could be better spent on many levels by the Circle and HQ.
Haro 08-30-07, 10:16 AM	I got unsolicited mailings of RPGA cards 3 times in the last year, all sent express mail. Multiply that by however many thousand people they are sending them to, and you have the money for another employee, or two, or three. Unsolicited? That word must mean something else where you're from. In Australia, when you sign up to the D&D Rewards Program and then receive said rewards, they generally aren't referred to as 'unsolicited'. I'd say you solicited the hell out of them. Joe
Arvagor 08-30-07, 10:19 AM	Dave, I realize that you have much more insight into the inner workings of LG than most of us, but I will echo the other poster who asked (though I know you can't probably give a full answer): how is LG so expensive and labor intensive to WotC?I'm not Dave, but I can think of several reasons off the top of my head (for expenses, at least)... 1) Free D&D Rewards Cards to all members 2) Hotel rooms for judges at the big cons (GenCon, Origins, DDXP) 3) T-shirts for judges at the big cons 4) Swag for the judges at the big cons (books, mods, minis) 5) Cost of the space at the big cons 6) Etc., etc. Now, will any of that go away once LG shuts down and LR kicks off? Probably not, but nowhere has it been stated that such costs wouldn't go away...
rutrow424 08-30-07, 02:17 PM	I'm not Dave, but I can think of several reasons off the top of my head (for expenses, at least)... 1) Free D&D Rewards Cards to all members 2) Hotel rooms for judges at the big cons (GenCon, Origins, DDXP) 3) T-shirts for judges at the big cons 4) Swag for the judges at the big cons (books, mods, minis) 5) Cost of the space at the big cons 6) Etc., etc. Now, will any of that go away once LG shuts down and LR kicks off? Probably not, but nowhere has it been stated that such costs wouldn't go away... I was not saying the RPGA did not incur expenses, as you note, but that the only unique LG expense would be the sheer volume of mod review. We obviously will never know the cost in time and $ Dave C noted as so onerous as to constantly threaten the campaign's survival; but I wondered if there were other things specific to LG that I was omitting. I find it difficult to believe that these costs were so high but the campaign was saved by the sole work of the Circle or by the goodness of WotC (NOTE: I do not intend to belittle in any way the hard work done by the Circle, nor do I proscribe to the WotC/Hasbro as evil corporate entity). If the costs did not befit the benefits received by LG's existence, no amount of goodwill or uproar should have kept it alive for 7+ years. The other campaigns and presumably LFR have far fewer mods and therefore should take less time and expense, so may be a better economic model. The LFR gamble is that gain will combine with equivalent or better player interest, and in the end sell more books. If 4e and LFR are good, they will be correct (I'll be there, if not as fervantly as I have been for LG).
clannagh 08-30-07, 08:00 PM	I think the big expense however is just how many regional mods are made. 31 regions * say an average of 5 per year = 155 mods. Throw interactives on top of that. Even after they're reviewed by the Circle, they need to be approved by HQ. . That to me was a big attraction to join RPGA and play LG. The fact that there was this massive world with all sorts of detailed stuff going down generated by swags of different people from all over the world was a massive attraction. Maybe I might get to play some of it maybe not, but the fact that it existed was a big drawcard. I am just like that. When choosing a university for a new course for example I do not go for the one with the "most elite famous law school" or whatever, I have always chosen one with a broad spectrum of stuff on offer and some depth to teh courses. I may never study latin but its nice to know its available if I want to.
Mommy was an Orc 08-31-07, 01:18 AM	Reviewing 155 modules is a big deal, but that isn't even one employee. That is a part-time employee at best. Heck, a decent intern could review modules, it isn't like LG modules as a whole were adhering to any sort of high standards. That's not quite how reviewing things work - presumably every mod gets looked at by WotC's marketing department. Does it reference material they're not allowed to use in LG? Are they using material from books they'd like to see players buying? Is there material that might offend a significant percentage of players or non-players? Not to mention, there is actually data to keep track of that will overwhelm that intern - are there spikes in sales when access to something specific is released - how many LG players went out and bought Races of the Dragon when they got the Kobold card? WotC's marketing department should know the rough answer to that question. And let's just be clear here - the problem of 155 mods not adhering to any sort of high standards is just the kind of thing that bothers a marketing department - they want you to be excited by the product. They were probably trying to figure out ways to fix that without crossing the line. Which is expensive.
rutrow424 08-31-07, 09:35 AM	That's not quite how reviewing things work - presumably every mod gets looked at by WotC's marketing department. Does it reference material they're not allowed to use in LG? Are they using material from books they'd like to see players buying? Is there material that might offend a significant percentage of players or non-players? The last item is really the only one that WotC should be doing of the 3; they presumably would have someone also review for legal/copyright issues. I do not envision either of these being done by the marketing department, but by the legal dept. The game "rules" people may also review, but that could also be trusted to RPGA HQ. Any collusion (for lack of a better term) regarding inclusion of new material to drive book sales would have been handled in the mod design process, and communicated to the RPGA reviewers in a more broad sense I would think. They should, but that would not really be an additional expense incurred related to LG. The marketing/sales people I'm sure already track sales of every book on a weekly/monthly basis. They will do this whether or not LG or the RPGA existed; these just provide additional reasons they may see activity or spikes. [QUOTE=Mommy was an Orc;13614936And let's just be clear here - the problem of 155 mods not adhering to any sort of high standards is just the kind of thing that bothers a marketing department - they want you to be excited by the product. They were probably trying to figure out ways to fix that without crossing the line. Which is expensive. I would disagree and say that RPGA HQ, the Triads, and Circle would be the main ones focusing on the quality of the mods, and that WotC marketing dept would not even be aware of whether the mods were good or bad. They may care, but should rightly be significantly more focused on promoting actual WotC product, not mods developed by unpaid volunteers distributed for free.
Mommy was an Orc 08-31-07, 10:25 AM	They should, but that would not really be an additional expense incurred related to LG. The marketing/sales people I'm sure already track sales of every book on a weekly/monthly basis. They will do this whether or not LG or the RPGA existed; these just provide additional reasons they may see activity or spikes. Which means the marketing department has to be aware of things that might cause spikes. I've seen marketing departments in action - it doesn't even necessarily matter if the marketing department actually uses the data, they need to collect the data in case something odd happens, then they can reference it. I would disagree and say that RPGA HQ, the Triads, and Circle would be the main ones focusing on the quality of the mods, and that WotC marketing dept would not even be aware of whether the mods were good or bad. They may care, but should rightly be significantly more focused on promoting actual WotC product, not mods developed by unpaid volunteers distributed for free. That's mostly true. That doesn't mean the WotC marketing department is unaware of the quality of the mod. Unpaid volunteers representing a company in any way are still representing the company. It depends on who is running the marketing department. And let's not forget what we actually do know - LR has significantly less regions and will be putting out less regional mods. LG was expensive to run and that is apparently fixed in LR. Feel free to name another change that explains it that doesn't involve cutting back on swag(which is something unlikely to be fixed)
rutrow424 08-31-07, 02:52 PM	Which means the marketing department has to be aware of things that might cause spikes. I've seen marketing departments in action - it doesn't even necessarily matter if the marketing department actually uses the data, they need to collect the data in case something odd happens, then they can reference it. I agree that this is true, but disagree that it is really any additional expense related to LG. They would gather all the relevant data anyway; knowledge that LG released a kobold card or that Xendrik just "opened" Complete XYZ is just data to gather. This internal data would come free of charge; they may spend some energy related to interpretation of that data but I doubt it is significant compared to what they spend otherwise. That's mostly true. That doesn't mean the WotC marketing department is unaware of the quality of the mod. Unpaid volunteers representing a company in any way are still representing the company. It depends on who is running the marketing department. Yes it does depend, but if their marketing dept (as opposed to legal or a quality control person) is spending a lot of resources on whether Vel 6-06 or VTF 7-01 is a quality product, then they are not dedicating resources appropriately. WotC may promote LG or the RPGA, they are not promoting individual mods. IME, the bulk of the quality control is handled by the volunteers and RPGA HQ, then gets to pass through Corp muster. And let's not forget what we actually do know - LR has significantly less regions and will be putting out less regional mods. LG was expensive to run and that is apparently fixed in LR. Feel free to name another change that explains it that doesn't involve cutting back on swag(which is something unlikely to be fixed) But that's my original question - why was LG so expensive to run? I understand that having RPGA and WotC review 100s of regional, metaregional, and core mods, plus specials and interactives, involves legal expense. Having fewer mods means less expense. They could have "fixed" that aspect of LG, but over time added more mods (metaregionals). So I feel I am missing (and don't ever expect to really learn) the burden placed upon WotC that had LG fighting for its life at every turn as Dave's message implied. If LG was too expensive, and that was a constant problem for WotC, nothing visible (w/ the possible exception of quicker approval of new materials for ARs) to the player base was ever really done to change that fact in 7 years. Most businesses would either decide the cost incurred was ok based upon the revenue or goodwill received back, or would make changes to rectify the situation. This does not mean that canceling LG w/ the onset of 4e, or creating LR to replace it were bad ideas; more properly, that why these were not done in 2002 or 2003 if LG was so expensive. The fact they created the DnD campaigns, but still kept LG around probably screams as part of the answer; but we will never have complete info on that aspect either.
amysrevenge 08-31-07, 04:45 PM	presumably every mod gets looked at by WotC's marketing department. I laughed out loud when I read this :P My cubicle-buddy is looking at me funny. I strongly suspect that a great many mods were read by at fewest 2, and at highest 4 people before being released (not counting authors and playtesters): 1-3 triad members and 1 circle member. I even strongly suspect that some modules were read by only 1 person: 1 triad member. The turnaround time on most modules was FAAAAR to short for them to have been passed around to a bunch of marketing types. The only portion of modules that I suspect may be regularly passed on to WotC from the Circle are the AR lists (items and favors), which are generally due in far in advance of the module itself being due. Mike Haakstad
Genghis Cohen 09-02-07, 07:34 PM	Yeah, I've gotten RPGA cards for new members FedEx'd to me every time I've signed up to run an intro mod. Usually arriving after the mod is played. Which is quite silly. I think the big expense however is just how many regional mods are made. 31 regions * say an average of 5 per year = 155 mods. Throw interactives on top of that. Even after they're reviewed by the Circle, they need to be approved by HQ. That's a lot of mods that need to be reviewed/approved despite most of them not being played by even 10% of the player base. I'm sure that time could be better spent on many levels by the Circle and HQ.I thought that regional mods are not reviewed by RPGA staff, just by the Circle. Can someone clarify this? Also, I've been told that interactives are neither reviewed by the Circle nor the RPGA.
Timlagor 09-04-07, 06:56 PM	[I haven't read the whole thread] A couple of thoughts on marketing and unseen consequences of product changes. 1) a couple of years ago a major supermarket changed ("improved") the recipe it used for one of it's squash drinks. I used to drink a couple of bottles a week and they lost that when they changed it to one I didn't like. What they probably won't have realised is that that change is the reason that I now shop there a couple of times a year instead of twice (or more) a month. * The situation is not analagous but if 4.0 alienates people hard enough they will stop buying other Hasbro products. - There are a good number of LG players who play it despite it using the D&D system. Our local LG group has around 30 players of varying commitment at any given time. 2-3 of those players together could easily flip the whole group away from D&D altogether if we don't like 4.0. There is virtually no Xen'Drik played at conventions in the UK -that could happen to D&D (or at least the RPGA) very easily indeed. Most of us are suspending judgement until we see the actual rules for 4th Ed but we are not reassured by the following at present: - less complexity means fewer options (thinking of the monsters here) - more resource management means one can't build a simple but effective character: lots of people don't want to "manage resources" (especially new players) - there is a global trend for "dumbing down": many current D&D players are those who don't like it. Of course this doesn't mean that it isn't the right decision for WotC/Hasbro but it certainly has its risks. [Genghis: Metaregionals and also I believe Regionals are reviewed by the Circle Member for the Metaregion; but not by WotC or RPGA HQ who I think do review the Cores though I don't see any reason why they should.] EDIT: I'd have preferred them to let us keep our XP&GP and rebuild our characters (compltely freely) in 4Ed for continuing LG. [If 1:1 xp&gp conversion isn't appropriate I'm sure a formula could have been produced relatively easily]
KarmaInferno 09-04-07, 07:38 PM	I would have preferred that it not end until it was indeed dying on it's own, either by having run its full course or perforce from suffering under a failed 4th edition (if it indeed does flop) rather than being canceled on high so as not to compete with the flavor of the month. You mean like they did with Living City? Nearly everyone I know that went through that heartbreak overwhelmingly felt that WotC should have just ended the campaign, instead of letting it totter pathetically in zombie state for so long. Trust me, it's better to end on a high note than to suffer through a horrid whimpering extended death. Really, I don't get why everyone's so surprised. Then again, I went through the RPGA cancelling no less than six different prior Living campaigns I was heavily involved with, so perhaps I'm a bit jaded. -karma
Britt 09-04-07, 10:16 PM	Personally, I never would have supported a conversion of characters and would have fought against it as hard as I could. A new edition is the perfect time to reset, bring everyone down to base, starting levels, and start clean. The closest I would have supported would be a fast forward of the timeline, maybe 10 or 100 years, and starting over with some intermediate storylines written by the new admins.
Eric Anondson 09-04-07, 10:48 PM	The closest I would have supported would be a fast forward of the timeline, maybe 10 or 100 years, and starting over with some intermediate storylines written by the new admins.Ditto.
JamesMaissen 09-05-07, 04:38 AM	Personally, I never would have supported a conversion of characters and would have fought against it as hard as I could. A new edition is the perfect time to reset, bring everyone down to base, starting levels, and start clean. The closest I would have supported would be a fast forward of the timeline, maybe 10 or 100 years, and starting over with some intermediate storylines written by the new admins. It would have been problematical to do otherwise. Letting players essentially start 4e at high level would only highlight whatever serious errors the edition is going to come out with. This way at least there will be time to put out multiple player handbooks before that occurs. -James