AL Player's Guide Rage of Demons - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 potenequus Aug 16, 2015 20:20:58	Question about the new season, was going through the AL player's guide I noticed that on page 3 under Allowed Rules, it doesn't include Elemental Evil Player's Companion. So if it's not included, can you play the races or pick spells from it? I do see where it states the exceptions, but what about new characters? Thanks in advance for the help.
#2 Enevhar_Aldarion Aug 16, 2015 21:35:55	Each Season has it's own set of rules to follow, but any story origin character can play in any adventure or expedition. Say, for example, if you want to play one of the allowed races from the EE Guide during the Rage of Demons season, you have to use the EE story origin and cannot use any of the new material in appendix A of Out of the Abyss for that character. The one exception will always be spells that a class is allowed to learn from a scroll or spellbook. For example, a wizard from any story origin can still learn elemental spells if he get hold of a spellbook that contains them.
#3 Coredump00 Aug 16, 2015 23:32:40	potenequus wrote:
(Reply to #3) potenequus	Coredump00 wrote:
#5 Nozareem Aug 18, 2015 5:10:16	This my thought but they should have something for the warlock class since there is the fiend pact and I still hold out hope for the race Fey'ri as playable like for what they did for Genasi and others! Also for a really wild idea for a class option would be Demonologist which even in the book of vile darkness first and second book was not a have to be evil class.
#6 zingbobco000 Aug 18, 2015 15:25:29	For the record, what they did with OotA is very simaler to what they did with ToD, 10 random extra bonds, and two backgrounds that are variants of other different backgrounds.
#7 Kalani Aug 18, 2015 22:11:50	That is all they have shown us in the dragon+ preview. It is possible this is only a small portion of appendix A, or the entire appendix. We simply do not know at this time (and anyone that does know is probably under NDA)
(Reply to #7) zingbobco000	Kalani wrote:
#9 Tyranthraxus Aug 19, 2015 19:01:17	Assuming that one page is all there is to Appendix A. If i was playing a spellcaster I would still pick the EE background (bar Cleric) My reasoning is A) My Race choices are bigger B) I get access to the EE Companion spells which I dont get access to in either the TOD or ROD story origin. You might ask what about the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide due out in November? Thats November. We will be into the season by then and there is no precendent yet of the Powers that be, authorising additional content mid season for the players guide. Logically it would have new backgrounds possible spells and so on, but we dont know IF they would be incorporated into Season 3. ( In my personal view, its a lot more likely for Season 4). Ehats everyone elses view on this?
#10 Enevhar_Aldarion Aug 19, 2015 22:38:02	Also remember that if there is any kind of free player's companion, like for EE, released, anything in it not also in Appendix A will not be AL-legal. But there is a way around that for the AL Admins. The FAQ in the new Guide specifically lists dndadventurersleague.org as a valid site for AL-legal sources and addtional character options. So anything released that is not in the Guide could be posted to that site and made legal for Season 3.
#11 TiaNadiezja Aug 28, 2015 7:28:00	Tyranthraxus wrote:
(Reply to #11) SteveMND	TiaNadiezja wrote:
#13 Skerrit Aug 28, 2015 8:39:03	I think you have a combination of misunderstandings and assumptions. The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide does have options usuable with RoD, but they are not specific to RoD (as I understand it). The Admins, who are not full employees of WOTC, do not have the book or advanced knowledge of it (you don't hand out secret proprietary knowledge to just anyone who volunteers), and since AL play is only a small portion of the total D&D play, we shouldn't expect that they, or Green Ronin who did the heavy lifting on this season, will alter their book release schedule to suit the DnDAL. And we certainly are not going to forgo releasing adventures at Gen Con so we could match up with their relase schedule either (which would also require us to change the length of seasons or move them around everytime a new book is scheduled; imagine the chaos that would cause). Remember that the Admins are NOT employees of WOTC or Green Ronin. While we might have more conversations with them than the average player, we don't (no should we) have the power to force the season to line up with book releases. And just like I expect someone who works in payroll at WOTC doesn't have advance info, neither do those of us in OP. The book also isn't banned in the DnDAL. It will be incorporated to some level in the future. However, as a general rule we do not change the rules midseason. The endless rules updates of previous campaigns often led to confusion, so we prefer to update the ALPG right before each season starts. Everyone knows when that is, and where to get it, so there is less confusion. When this book comes out, the season will be more than half over (11 of the 16 adventures will have premiered), and we are not offering wholesale rebuilds, so it wouldn't fair to say "Once we get the book and read and decide what/how we will adopt it, it will be legal for season 3. Hey, enjoy it for the roughly 3 adventures that will be coming out after we announce, but if you already made a PC, you played it, so no cool toys for you." Instead its much more balanced to do it right, actually take time to see the book, and then adopt it at a time that is fair for everyone. Greg Marks DnDAL Associate Resource Manager
#14 TiaNadiezja Aug 28, 2015 9:09:40	Skerrit wrote:
#15 TiaNadiezja Aug 28, 2015 9:21:30	Also, if WotC is trusting y'all to be effectively the public portion of their marketing arm, without paying you? They can trust you with advance copy of the books. EDIT: I'm trying to make clear: My primary issue here is with WotC's handling of their relationship with Adventurer's League, which I think is actively harmful to both AL play and their own marketing efforts. They're the ones who the money goes to; they're the ones who need to act to make sure everything works properly.
#16 Nozareem Aug 28, 2015 11:10:09	Skerrit wrote:
#17 TiaNadiezja Aug 28, 2015 11:57:25	Nozareem wrote:
(Reply to #16) TheBreen	Nozareem wrote:
#19 Ravix Aug 28, 2015 13:25:10	Breen is correct.
#20 Nozareem Aug 28, 2015 13:35:25	Ok my point is that on the issue of the not fair problem if it was legal to some players issue. Those people who have characters between lvl 1-4 that might be intersted in what's coming out in the SCG should not play encounters or mods that would level their character beyond level 4. This is in the idea that if the SCG was made legal that those people who would have wanted to change something but now can't because of being above level 4. This in turn kicks we don't want it to be unfair for those players idea out the door. Ok on the thats not fair reason for the Origins story issue yes it could be a slight issue, but most people care more about what new races there will be and new subclasses like what has been stated in other posts. The problem is that WOTC seems to want to do something with D&D but they do a halfass job while doing it! instead of coordinating their products and season to coincide with each other like how they do Magic they have the left hand who are WOTC and right hand who are the encounters and conventions and expeditions and neither real communicate well or WOTC is more of "I don't care just make use money." If only WOTC showed they cared for D&D as they do for magic then we wouldn't have this problem.
#21 CoreyartustheSecond Aug 28, 2015 17:10:51	Nazareem, I think as an AL participant, I'll wait patiently for the books to be combed through by the AL staff to ensure there aren't any snares that could further complicate the OP. We've seen how being on the tail end of content as it is released can result in frustrating "clarifications" for the OP, and my desire to use what's offered isn't as important as deferring to the Admins for the betterment of the whole. If this is the only way WotC will let them prevent those kinds of things happening then I say let the Admins have their space and time to do it. I can hold on despite whatever misuse of words WotC used on the cover or in press releases that implied something different when it comes to the OP. Having a book "early" for the next season in public release could, in some ways, actually be a great boon if the opportunity is used well. But I agree with other aspects of what you're saying. There does seem to be a lot of unnecessesary "IP protection" that undermines how different aspects of their own endeavors operate. In my opinion, at a certain point, they have to decide if AL is authentic to WotC or not. But I think that over the last year, WotC has been the recipient of a lot of feedback that expresses that exact frustration, so I bet they're aware of the problem. The question is whether they want to do anything about it, and what steps they feel comfortable taking. It's numbers are small, but it seems apparent they're getting a LOT out of it. Maybe I'm wrong. Sadly, it's completely obvious (they've admitted so) that they regularly make substantial changes to everything they release way up to the last minute before press, so I can see how it's difficult to potentially share any content at all with the OP (if they even wanted to) if they don't know themselves what they're going to actually keep. But in the end, they need room for trial and error if they decide to change their working process, so it may take a couple seasons to work out kinks if it's an important enough priority for WotC for their OP. But I suspect they're aware. They can't not be. We've all been very very vocal about it... hehe... Remember, WotC writes and sanctions the ALPG. They purposely didn't include SCAG as a legal rules source for Season 3. As a result, they've effectively given their own OP months of prep-time to address the new content for Season 4. That's seems more than they've ever done before. Yeah, it seems backwards, but at least it's something. Perhaps we'll know in a few weeks if that feedback has had an impact on RoD, OotA, and SCAG. If it hasn't, that will be very telling. If it has, I bet we can look forward to a much more satisfying experience in the future.
#22 Kalani Aug 28, 2015 16:43:07	Keep in mind also - the blurb about SCAG makes perfect sense once you realise that Green Ronin are the authors of both the SCAG and Out of the Abyss. Cross-promotion of their products is perfectly reasonable in this instance, especially in light of the fact that these products are not made with AL in mind, but rather - are targeting the D&D community as a whole.
#23 Coredump00 Aug 28, 2015 19:08:39	And lets not forget.... the admins are mostly volunteers. So its no favor to them to dump something like SCAG on them and say "Hey, you have 6 days to adapt this stuff for OP" OP is free for us. They put out a lot of content and aids and organization for us.... having the 'wait' a few months to incorporate some extra content just isn't that big of a deal.
#24 Enevhar_Aldarion Aug 28, 2015 21:39:41	And let us also not forget that Robert, Greg, and the rest of the folks running the AL do not write the Player's Guide. They do not have the final say on what is legal and what is not from a new book. WotC listens to their advice and suggestions, but WotC makes all the final decisions. Robert and company can make little tweaks and add a bit of extra content by way of the organizer's website, but nothing major. And while the Sword Coast book will not be legal before Season 4, my hope is that at that point it will be treated as evergreen and be legal for every season starting with 4. Maybe they will even make it backwards compatible with seasons 1-3 at the same time.
#25 Mirtek Aug 28, 2015 23:39:41	Skerrit wrote:
(Reply to #25) CoreyartustheSecond	Mirtek wrote:
#27 Nozareem Aug 29, 2015 8:12:20	It's never fun being treated as a "red headed step child" as we are by WOTC while the favored child like Magic is well taken care of. This feeling will only grow as the D&D community grows and new players start to feel as we do. So from the shadows we watch as other more favored properties of WOTC get to play in the light. I hope that at some point WOTC gets there **** together and treat us as they do the other properties because at some point people will get tiered of it and decied their business is best spent else where! Lets be honest the way WOTC is handeling the SCG is the dumbest way ever! It's like saying on Holloween night you tell a child after "trick or treating that they can't eat any of thier candy for a few weeks because you don't feel like checking the candy any time soon! Or it's Christmas Day and after opening gifts your told you can't play with that awsome toy until after the new year! I find this pathetic on WOTCs behalf! There will be a lot of up set AL players when this guide comes out, and this will only get worse when it happens again next time another cool guide with crunch comes out as is handled poorly again!!
#28 ZHDarkstar Aug 29, 2015 8:42:14	Nozareem wrote:
#29 Skerrit Aug 29, 2015 10:05:14	As CoreyartustheSecond said, the way WOTC works, they are changing whats in the book up until it is sent to the printers (which is only a short time before the book is delivered). Timelines on these products are MUCH shorter than they were once upon a time. Also remember that WOTC chooses what's legal in the PG before a season starts. So if I am hearing correctly, the general opinion is, you would prefer a book be listed as legal (list the whole book since not even WOTC knows what will all be in it) and then after it comes out, the Admins look it over and if necessary, we mid-season retroactively ban or nerf things your characters may have been using. That is you preference rather than waiting a few weeks and including it in the next season. I will forward those comments along and see what we can do to make that happen in the future.
#30 Coredump00 Aug 29, 2015 11:15:07	For the love of god people..... such whining.... Look, we get a ton of free adventures, free packets, free certs, and its even organizing it is no cost to us. And the response is to complain that we don't get every single option the minute it is available.... really? Yes WotC is giving the free stuff away for its own purposes. Yes it helps 'their' stores, yes it helps build awareness... but we are still getting it for free. You want the entire AL process, or the entire SCAG development process... to be modified so that we can get the shiny toys to use with our free content.... Well, I want to competely change their development schedule so the book comes out right before my birthday... it would make a great present. Sheesh people..... Do you really think it would be a good ideas to push back the Season 3 start to November? Do you really think they should skip Gen Con, Dragon Con, Pax, etc? Do you really think they should ignore the Christmas buying season, and force the book to be published in August, and compete with all the back to school shopping? And why? Because when you play free content you want to be able to use all of the new toys immediately... no waiting for you....
#31 Coredump00 Aug 29, 2015 11:17:04	As for the 'red headed step child'..... magic makes them a ton more money... this has nothing to do with being 'unfair'... each game is treated on its merits and delivery. And yet... did they let Magic have a 2 year playtest that generated almost no income? Are they creating a bunch of free content and handouts for use at Friday Night Magic? No... I didn't think so...
#32 Mirtek Aug 29, 2015 14:19:21	Skerrit wrote:
#33 Skerrit Aug 29, 2015 14:54:54	Mirtek wrote:
#34 Nozareem Aug 29, 2015 16:47:53	Ok this how WOTC should do AL! The season thing is great but when releasing chrunch like SCG it should come out the following month after the release RoD or new season campaign books. So a couple weeks before street release the RCs should get in contact with LCs or any need to know people and have a AL meeting about the new material and go over what will be allowed in AL and what won't. So on release day a AL PDF will be sent on D&D website for what is legal. Any thing like SCC with crunch should always be released this way for maximum use by consumers business 101. There should never be AL crunch possiable content released mid season that is stupid as hell and poor business practice or WOTC must not really care about AL.
#35 Kalani Aug 29, 2015 17:04:53	It is not as simple as that. These products are outsourced to a third party, and as such - the needs, limitations, and interests of that third party also need to be factored into the decision making. I suspect that the November release was the soonest that this product could be launched, and that while they could have delayed release to coincide with the start of season 4 - neither Green Ronin or WotC would be happy to miss out on the potential revenue over the Xmas period. Green Ronin itself would have had to fit the development of OOTA and SCG into their schedule, and knowing the kinds of products they release - I suspect their product schedule is planned several years in advance.
(Reply to #32) Coredump00	Mirtek wrote:
(Reply to #34) Coredump00	Nozareem wrote:
#38 Skerrit Aug 29, 2015 18:42:56	We've heard your various thoughts and suggestions and we'll add them to the list of things we'll discuss as we start to talk about implementation for seasons 5 and 6 (as 3 is done and we're in the process of 4).
#39 BRJN Aug 30, 2015 7:42:39	Skerrit wrote:
#40 Skerrit Aug 30, 2015 7:45:20	Everything is on the table. I'm happy to listen to everyone's suggestion and if the majority overwhelmingly angrily want random retroactive removals of content as long as they can have it the second it comes out, we can talk about among the admins. It seems like a bad idea to me, but I don't claim to see every angle.
#41 TiaNadiezja Aug 30, 2015 8:04:06	Yeah, Skerrit, if you're responding primarily to me, you're misreading what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the correct response to the current situation is to allow everything then retroactively ban stuff. It's to look at the situation AL has landed in, and have WotC work with both AL and its contractors so that AL doesn't land in this situation again, because having gotten here in the first place is absurd. It means AL, WotC, and Green Ronin aren't coordinating or communicating in any meaningful way about marketing and organized play, and it's an absolute mess that is going to lead to confusion at tables, lost sales (however small - game stores run on razor-thin profit margins) for game stores, and anger from new players at not getting to use a book for precisely what it's being marketed as. It's a mess, should not have happened, and should be avoided in the future. I'm not saying AL needs to change course - there might not be a better response to where things are now than what you're doing. I'm saying where things are now needs to not happen any more. I'd like to address a few points that have been made here: 1. Yes, they've given us a ton of free content, and for that I'm exceptionally grateful. However, for those whining about people whining (congrats on getting so meta, by the by), I'd like to point out two things: A. This is the first paid supplement the game's gotten. I've actually been itching to spend money on 5e since about two months after the DMG came out, because I love the game and want to support it, but all they've released since then is modules and I design my own adventures for my home game and play AL occasionally in store so I don't need to buy modules. Getting to buy then use the SCAG sounds lovely. B. AL isn't free for a lot of people. Even discounting the fact that they want our most precious possession (our time) in order to play it, many game stores, including all of them in my immediate area, charge for table space. You want to play, you've gotta pay, and players deserve the maximum return on investment for the cost in time and treasure. 2. The "story origin" system is completely broken - and not in an "overpowered" way. In an "It just doesn't work" way. It's counterintuitive and nonfunctional. At the moment, there are three story origins available (Tyranny of Dragons, Elemental Evil, and Rage of Demons). Players showing up to their game stores to play Encounters will see ads all over the place for Rage of Demons, so when asked to pick their story origin they'll pick Rage of Demons. But wait! There is nothing meaningful that RoD adds in terms of player options that isn't available in EE. There's nothing at all in ToD that isn't in EE. Literally the entirety of ToD's options, and all the notable options of RoD, are a subset of EE's options. The Elemental Evil story origin is better, and that's ludicrous. If there isn't an interaction that breaks things between the new material (of which there is none in RoD's creation rules) and the old material, the old material should be allowed in the new season. I get being cautious, but banning old material while adding nothing in its place just gets my goat. It creates a newbie trap that could be avoided with the slightest effort by WotC's folks. 3. It's been mentioned a few times in this thread that book releases shouldn't be timed around AL play because AL's players are a tiny subset of the total playerbase of the game. I agree entirely - AL seasons should work to book releases more than book releases do to AL's seasons. However, it's also been pointed out that the reason for placing seasons where they are is to debut adventures at conventions, and that makes me actively want to bang my head on the wall. If we're going to end up banning a book from AL play during the adventure the book was specifically written for in order to keep a schedule, and not move the book because the people working from the schedule are a tiny subset of the game's playerbase, why would we schedule around conventions when conventiongoers are a tiny subset of that tiny subset? Why worry about the conventions at all? They honestly and seriously don't matter to anyone who isn't there, and the set of people who are there is insignificant. I just... I don't get it.
#42 Kalani Aug 30, 2015 8:06:52	I concur. I think it is a terrible idea to have things get hit with the nerf-hammer (or ban-hammer). Just look at how many players complained about the minor nerfing of their characters due to the recent PHB errata. Players are going to complain if they have to wait for something, but they will complain even more if you take their shiny toys away after the fact (due to a revision of the allowed rules).
#43 Skerrit Aug 30, 2015 9:17:08	TiaNadiezja wrote:
#44 Enevhar_Aldarion Aug 30, 2015 10:13:01	Skerrit wrote:
#45 ZHDarkstar Aug 30, 2015 13:10:31	TiaNadiezja wrote:
#46 Skerrit Aug 30, 2015 13:20:55	ZHDarkstar wrote:
#47 Nozareem Aug 30, 2015 14:33:57	ZHDarkstar wrote:
(Reply to #47) Coredump00	Nozareem wrote:
#49 Skerrit Aug 30, 2015 17:03:38	After thinking about this thread some more, I think I know what the problem is. Some players are upset because they feel like they are not listened to because they do not represent enough of the market, while others say those players are whiners because they are getting it for free so how can they complain? I think the answer is money. Maybe we should charge for adventures and certs and pretty much everything. If people were paying, they could expect more and their complaints wouldn't be as easy to drown out. The average pathfinder society adventure is four dollars, so something in that neighborhood would seem a good idea. Then if you want tradable certs, maybe WOTC include a way to get those mailed to you for the appropriate cost, maybe another few bucks (or maybe its something stores could sell them so there's more love for them since several players have mentioned in this thread and others about finding ways to monatarily support local stores)? I think you guys may have hit on something here that was talked about when AL was first being worked out and maybe it should be revisited. What we need is less free stuff and more for money stuff so that there is a larger reason to address your issues when they come up and overall help the health of the gaming market.
(Reply to #49) CoreyartustheSecond	Skerrit wrote:
#51 TheBreen Aug 30, 2015 18:28:38	Maybe the answer IS money. In 1987 I joined a new (to me) organization called the RPGA, which launched its own D&D campaign in the Forgotten Realms.* For $20 per year I got a thin plastic membership card and a very skinny, black-and-white "magazine" every other month. I thought it was wonderful. The new campaign, which let us create our own characters and play them in adventure after adventure, gaining experience points and treasure, started out slowly. There were only two or three adventures per year for the first couple of years. They were ONLY available for play at conventions. There were no such things as "game days," or playing at a game store. Playing at home was strictly forbidden, and of course in 1987 playing online was practically unheard of. That means, of course, that there was no way to play without paying. Somehow, the campaign caught on. There were official materials published for purchase in stores, there was a campaign newsletter, metagame organizations and eventually thousands of players. The organization spawned lots of other campaigns as well, including one based on Masque of the Red Death™, a pretty interesting setting. I'd happily go back to a paid system. I imagine that dues would have to be much more, say, $50 per year on top of paying for other things. Even though the current adventures are easy to obtain as PDFs, I'd gladly pay to get them in a slightly more polished, printed form. I'd have no qualms about eliminating online or home play (though I don't see why that would be necessary). And I'd practically fight to be able to pay to get more sourcebooks and other campaign materials. From time to time I read about other RPGA old timers who are willing to pay to go back to the old days (as impractical as that probably is), but I'm sure there aren't a very large number of us. But if paying for what we get would increase the quality of the playing experience, by all means, sign me up. -- *Yes, this was Living City, which ran and expanded for more than a dozen years.
#52 TiaNadiezja Aug 30, 2015 18:43:45	Skerrit wrote:
#53 Skerrit Aug 30, 2015 18:46:20	I am definitely not attempting to mock you. I think it might be a solution to your concerns and as you see, several others apparently agree. I'm not saying it is happening, just that is one option worth exploring if it gets to where you are asking us to go.
#54 TiaNadiezja Aug 30, 2015 18:58:56	Skerrit wrote:
(Reply to #53) Ghaliyah	Skerrit wrote:
#56 Ravix Aug 30, 2015 23:56:56	I agree with revisiting the money thing you were talking about. Looking at some of the posters here is very irritating, however. You could say Tia is representing the 1% of the player base that I absolutely hate dealing with. People who do absolutely no research, show up and act entitled, and then complain when things aren't the way that they wanted them to be. I quit dealing with those people ages ago.
#57 Mirtek Aug 31, 2015 3:24:39	I'd gladly pay for AL if this leads to the aforementioned improvments. I fully support that idea
#58 Nozareem Aug 31, 2015 5:15:10	I to will gladly pay, so that in hopes that AL will get more attention from WOTC and at the same time get them involved again which is something many people complained about at Gen Con! Plus I played with LFR in game store club which I payed for and also payed for a moment this year before the club stopped running AL due to over saturation in the local area. I will add one more thing, if AL goes to a pay to play community then the cert issue will have to be addressed because money will then be involved and every one at the table will feel entitled to walk away with something. So just like in pathfinder the items per mod will have to be increased so everyone can get a item. This mean for a example 7 different items for seven people. So if only 4 people show up each person can pick one of the 7 items found in the mod then the cert for that item will be given.
#59 Tyranthraxus Aug 31, 2015 5:39:04	You dont pay to play Pathfinder Society though. the DM pays for the scenario once and then can run it whenver. Comparing AL to PFS just dosnt work.
#60 ZHDarkstar Aug 31, 2015 8:31:06	Tyranthraxus wrote:
(Reply to #49) Pauper	Skerrit wrote:
#62 Skerrit Aug 31, 2015 9:23:26	Pauper wrote:
#63 Mirtek Aug 31, 2015 10:42:27	Pauper wrote:
(Reply to #62) Ainulindalion	Skerrit wrote:
#65 Skerrit Aug 31, 2015 11:36:41	Ainulindalion wrote:
#66 The_Hanged_Man Aug 31, 2015 13:00:48	TiaNadiezja wrote:
(Reply to #66) GideonBlackRose	You'll definitely see a substantial downturn in AL participation if there's a fee to play. I know in my town, AL has managed to attract many new folks to DND and older players like me who haven't been actively involved in the hobby for awhile. Through AL participation, I've seen many new players convert from casual play to more dedicated, long-term play. You can probably kiss that goodbye if AL starts charging. The_Hanged_Man wrote:
#68 Skerrit Aug 31, 2015 14:25:36	GideonBlackRose wrote:
#69 BRJN Aug 31, 2015 14:56:15	Ghaliyah wrote:
(Reply to #68) TheBreen	Skerrit wrote:
#71 imaginaryfriend Aug 31, 2015 19:05:28	Hmm, the money thing might be worth exploring, but I have my doubts. The amount of money it would take to positively (in the view of those that feel wronged) influence the percieved issues between AL, WotC, publishing schedules ect. is likely to be beyond what the AL community can generate without hurting its mission. In the work I have done for organized play over the years I have never once considered the playerbase to be "customers" entitled to anything (rather I view them as a community to attempt to please). I would certainly have been willing to do so, but then I also would have wanted to be payed somewhere near my normal $100 hourly rate..... Well ok, maybe not really, but it does illustrate a potential issue. Right now it is mostly volunteer work, if you turn it into a decidedly more commercial enterprise, that is going to have effects on the creation side of the content chain as well.. And those changes will not all be good.
(Reply to #70) imaginaryfriend	TheBreen wrote:
#73 Tyranthraxus Aug 31, 2015 19:34:57	My players basically had fits of giggles for most of Cloaks and Shadows. One lady was laughing so much over something in a certain scene she actually had to leave the table. I think thats got a little to do with the time factor ( I run in a gamesday environ.. whilst I do have a time limit .. im not pushing out players by 4 hours). I think its certainly different than a convention run of the game which does have some pretty restrictive time constraints. We also have people who ONLY game at Coventions (I have trouble even imagining it). I think the Authors have certainly hit their stride as the writing is quite tight and there is continuity between scenarios. Actually so much so that, one of my players who used to play Living Greyhawk said he though the Continuity was too much. THere was too much interconnection between the scenarios. I dont pay that view much heed though. Id prefer a Babylon 5 to a Star trek. Sure the maps could be better, and I think they slowly are.
#74 AndrewJO Aug 31, 2015 19:51:44	I have no problem with our DMs or fellow players in AL right now, but if it goes to pay-to-play, I'm out. Due to one of our DM's and a few of our player's lack of experience, we often spend much longer to finish a module than it should take. It took us 4 sessions to finish DDEN 1-3, which at $5 per session would be $20. What would I have gained for my $20? Only 1800 exp and 300 gold, and a mediocre gaming experience. AL pulls in new players who then buy WOTC products, start charging for AL and we'll just start playing home games instead, with no real need to buy new products. Sorry for the rant, just my 2¢
#75 Skerrit Aug 31, 2015 20:25:02	I don't think anyone has suggest pay to play. The only suggestion I heard was to stop giving the adventures for free. The comparison was made between and An Expeditions adventure and a Pathfinder Society adventure (which costs $4 to purchase and is not given out for free).
#76 Enevhar_Aldarion Aug 31, 2015 20:30:10	Skerrit wrote:
#77 CoreyartustheSecond Aug 31, 2015 23:25:08	I think it's becoming clear through these posts that our individual understandings of what "monetization" might entail (and even its effectiveness at garnering whatever we feel it's supposed to accomplish) is completely different depending on each individual poster's experience with AL and other OPs. We may be making assumptions about what "monetization" means based on those experiences... For example, to some it means AL becomes like the old RPGA "membership". For others it means a commensurate "upgrade" of quality or additional maps or materials. To yet others it means the adventures become available for public play. To some it means charging "per session of play". And to some it just means purchasing certs. I think it's clear that when the word "monetization" is bandied around, it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. There are a million different permutations and ramifications to what that actually means and how it might happen, but all and any of them would be a fundamental change to AL that would never ever be made lightly, I am sure. There are tons of pros and cons to any aspect of monetization, and it has to be very carefully considered no matter what form it might take. It's not something that can be done easily, swiftly, nor "experimentally" and certainly deserves a careful examination of just exactly why it might be undertaken. When anything gets "money" involved, expectations change. It's obviously a huge shift that would need to be pondered very very carefully, as the ripple effect would be profound and extensive. But our individually developed understandings of how AL might make monetization a reality don't necessarily mean those things are going to happen by default. It might not mean AL automatically becomes like the RPGA. It might not mean the content of what's availabe in those adventures changes form. Following Pathfinders publicly available PDF example isn't necessarily the path AL is obligated to choose to go down. And paying for "per session" of play has all kinds of inherent problems at the local level. The deep changes that monetization in any form might mean would be significant, and I know that's not lost on anyone. But in the end it all comes back to "why would it be beneficial"? It seems to me the entire reason the idea of monetization was brought up at all was to somehow provide "clout" so AL could have more of an active and prepared voice in WotC's development process instead of having to deal with things like SCAG's mid-season release and the confusion and frustration it creates for AL's participants before and after the fact. It was brought up as an option to address AL's apparent inacapacity to be part of the conversations when dealing with material written for Homeplay which they're obligated to incorporate in the OP and they know nothing about before it's released. It was percieved as a tool that would provide leverage for participant voices that don't have any currently, so AL would have some justified capacity to know what's coming up... And somehow prepare... The Expeditions program is so effective, in part, because AL has much more autonomy regarding the material and all that entails. If there is a different answer than using "money" as the justifying vehicle that would enable AL to be more prepared with WotC's release schedule, then it should be carefully considered before making that choice. If monetization doesn't provide that "clout", then in my opinion monetization isn't the answer, no matter what form it takes. If it doesn't provide a mechanism to help AL be prepared with WotC so more SCAG confusion and Homeplay shoe-horning is less of a problem, then it's not the answer.
#78 Cascade.rpga Sep 04, 2015 6:32:32	Maybe do a little of both... A regular schedule of free adventures (even PFS does that). Then a similar schedule of paid events, like the major cons, special events, even home play options. Make it so the fee comes with printed certs as part of the process; just like buying the adventure. I see it this way, previous player oriented living campaigns were player driven and allowed some autonomy, which seems to be how AL is except for published hardback content. Living Greyhawk is the best example. You could purchase the events for a very small fee but the adventures and story were driven by local teams of volunteers. The campaign was so rich that the stories took a life of their own. IMHO... Living City was the first - run ok for a first time but really con based and you had to be an insider to enjoy it. Living Greyhawk really peaked with player interaction and story. maybe too much player / triad variety and lost focus as the years went by. LFR started reallly well but bogged down with constant rules changes and over complication of too much content. PFS has been progessively getting better due to expanded story, dedicated volunteers and a company driving printed content (although maybe a bit too much). It really gears to the players on the financial side; gifts, free stuff, swag, etc. expecting a payback latter. I don't see WOTC doing this. I think there are plenty of people willing to redo LG days but you need a strong central "authorized" management.
(Reply to #78) SteveMND	Cascade.rpga wrote:
#80 Coredump00 Sep 04, 2015 7:28:50	I never played LFR, but from everyone I have spoken with 'taking a different approach' is a very good thing. They are simply filled with horror stories of how LFR went bad...
#81 RCanine Sep 04, 2015 8:53:36	I always run out of D&D stuff to buy long before I run out of budget. Especially in this new 5E age of the only for sale content is mega adventures I'm never going to be able to find a group to commit to playing all of the way through. My preferred solution to this has always been a "why-not-both" strategy of offering the free content via PDFs as they are today, along with higher production value copies with everything you need to run them (maps, minis) for sale.
#82 RCanine Sep 06, 2015 10:07:13	I was trying to think how we could do this in a model similar to Magic: The Gathering. The brilliant thing about MTG is that you can buy a ton of cards and play forever for free, but certain ways to play also require a constant investment into the hobby (e.g. booster drafts). A constant release schedule incentivizes the hardcore players to continually buy cards, even they do so only in cyclical bursts. To make this model work, they could keep the OP free as it is now, but lock everything outside of the Basic Rules behind a cert. Playing a warlock? Cert. Playing a gnome? Cert. Taking a feat? Cert. Elemental Evil Spells? Cert. Certs could be earned via OP events or purchased (possibly in booster packs). This would require a pretty big re-architecture of AL (and I'm not saying it doesn't have potential problems), but it is a way to bring money into the hobby without destroying the free-to-play model as well.
#83 Enevhar_Aldarion Sep 06, 2015 10:34:03	RCanine wrote:
#84 RCanine Sep 06, 2015 20:04:20	Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
#85 Tyranthraxus Sep 06, 2015 20:48:09	RCanine: At conventions? Like most organised play campaigns the mechanics of a character are rarely checked because of the artificial time constraint. Some PFS conventions however even have a table you can go to however and get your character checked for validity. At the game store table or home games? There is the time there to check over log sheets at least. Im still not convinced the majority of dms do it. I did it 2 weeks ago before the game at one of my tables of expeditions because people seemed to have a LOT more gold that I would expect. One guy had 12 more hp than he should of had.. and as a barbarian thats possibly 12 more virtual on top of that because of rage. In terms of DND its a LOT easier. You need the PHB and thats about it. There just arnt that much physical books to take to sessions unless you are the dm and even then you dont need the mm for expeditions. I personally think everyone playing in an AL game should have the latest version of the Season players guide on them as a base. Then we work out to the PHB. If you are playing a Spellcaster, its simply not fair on the table that you need to be reaching for another players phb to look up your spells. What happens if NONE of the players at the table have a phb and have to rely on the DM for his/hers ? (assuming of course the dmg brought his). Ive actually had to stop people at the table from using phones and ipads because sadly people are playing games on their phones, checking messages , watching videos etc during the combat round. Ive actually skipped players turns when i call out their character name for their action and I get no response. Im in the position where I can print out blank character sheets for people ... which is a good thing because sadly a lot of people are just hoping I have copies to give them.
#86 RCanine Sep 06, 2015 21:21:48	Tyranthraxus wrote:
#87 Tyranthraxus Sep 06, 2015 21:38:05	Thats perfectly fine RCanine. Im having to actually turn players away at the moment as I still cant find anyone willing locally to step up to run a second table of expeditions and im often getting 7 player tables. (Im not going to get offended by anything said to me on the internet) I also DM for kids. Kids on a table with adults often dosnt work but sadly its the way it is at the moment. . Nobody is access their web based character sheet at my table.
#88 SteveMND Sep 07, 2015 7:03:36	Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
#89 Ravix Sep 07, 2015 12:26:05	I don't let people play spellcasters at my table if they do not have access to a PHB or list of their spells.
#90 Angry_Steak Sep 07, 2015 14:27:38	Ravix wrote:
#91 EthanSental Sep 08, 2015 19:17:35	I was under the impression that PFS is now only core book only so bringing a splat book meant nothing. Have they backed off the core book only in PFS?
#92 Tyranthraxus Sep 08, 2015 19:48:13	I stopped played PFS, but they now have 2 'modes' within their Organized play structure. One is the 'anything goes' standard PFS and the other is CORE book only, which limits players essentially to making character from the Core book. We dont really have the book bloat issue in AL (and I dont think we will ever have it). The rule when I was playing is that you had to either produce the book or a photocopy of the pages used (from your owned copy). Core had only really just started when I stopped playing , and it wasnt hugely popular yet., but essentially it was introduced because of the whole view 'Ive gotta carry too many books to each game!' crew/view.
#93 Kalani Sep 08, 2015 22:11:20	It was also introduced because of DMs and casual players complaining about the optimizers running roughshod over the adventure; and optimizers complaining if a casual player showed up with a non optimized pc These same complaints arose in LFR (in addition to the complaints about frequent errata). It also creates an arms race between optimizers and mod writers. These were the primary reasons for PFS core only and the AL story origins.
#94 RCanine Sep 08, 2015 22:16:52	Kalani wrote:
#95 SteveMND Sep 09, 2015 6:57:11	Kalani wrote:
#96 Cascade.rpga Sep 09, 2015 7:48:20	RCanine wrote:
(Reply to #62) Pauper	Skerrit wrote:
(Reply to #63) Pauper	Mirtek wrote:
(Reply to #82) Pauper	RCanine wrote:
(Reply to #98) Ainulindalion	Pauper wrote:
(Reply to #100) Pauper	Ainulindalion wrote:
#102 Mirtek Sep 10, 2015 11:53:30	Pauper wrote:
(Reply to #102) Pauper	[quote="Mirtek"] That's not what the AL website says: Lastly, if you don’t have a store that can sponsor you, you can contact customer support by filling out this support form. Be sure to select D&D Convention Support under the products drop-down as well as all other pertinent information. Once sent off, you may qualify to receive a Convention Support Package (D&D Expeditio

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

potenequus

Aug 16, 2015 20:20:58

Question about the new season, was going through the AL player's guide I noticed that on page 3

under Allowed Rules, it doesn't include Elemental Evil Player's Companion.

So if it's not included, can you play the races or pick spells from it?

I do see where it states the exceptions, but what about new characters?

Thanks in advance for the help.

Enevhar_Aldarion

Aug 16, 2015 21:35:55

Each Season has it's own set of rules to follow, but any story origin character can play in any adventure or expedition. Say, for example, if you want to play one of the allowed races from the EE Guide during the Rage of Demons season, you have to use the EE story origin and cannot use any of the new material in appendix A of Out of the Abyss for that character. The one exception will always be spells that a class is allowed to learn from a scroll or spellbook. For example, a wizard from any story origin can still learn elemental spells if he get hold of a spellbook that contains them.

Coredump00

Aug 16, 2015 23:32:40

potenequus wrote:

(Reply to #3)

potenequus

Coredump00 wrote:

Nozareem

Aug 18, 2015 5:10:16

This my thought but they should have something for the warlock class since there is the fiend pact and I still hold out hope for the race Fey'ri as playable like for what they did for Genasi and others! Also for a really wild idea for a class option would be Demonologist which even in the book of vile darkness first and second book was not a have to be evil class.

zingbobco000

Aug 18, 2015 15:25:29

For the record, what they did with OotA is very simaler to what they did with ToD, 10 random extra bonds, and two backgrounds that are variants of other different backgrounds.

Kalani

Aug 18, 2015 22:11:50

That is all they have shown us in the dragon+ preview. It is possible this is only a small portion of appendix A, or the entire appendix. We simply do not know at this time (and anyone that does know is probably under NDA)

(Reply to #7)

zingbobco000

Kalani wrote:

Tyranthraxus

Aug 19, 2015 19:01:17

Assuming that one page is all there is to Appendix A. If i was playing a spellcaster I would still pick the EE background (bar Cleric)

My reasoning is

A) My Race choices are bigger

B) I get access to the EE Companion spells which I dont get access to in either the TOD or ROD story origin.

You might ask what about the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide due out in November?

Thats November. We will be into the season by then and there is no precendent yet of the Powers that be, authorising additional content mid season for the players guide. Logically it would have new backgrounds possible spells and so on, but we dont know IF they would be incorporated into Season 3. ( In my personal view, its a lot more likely for Season 4).

Ehats everyone elses view on this?

#10

Enevhar_Aldarion

Aug 19, 2015 22:38:02

Also remember that if there is any kind of free player's companion, like for EE, released, anything in it not also in Appendix A will not be AL-legal. But there is a way around that for the AL Admins. The FAQ in the new Guide specifically lists dndadventurersleague.org as a valid site for AL-legal sources and addtional character options. So anything released that is not in the Guide could be posted to that site and made legal for Season 3.

#11

TiaNadiezja

Aug 28, 2015 7:28:00

Tyranthraxus wrote:

(Reply to #11)

SteveMND

TiaNadiezja wrote:

#13

Skerrit

Aug 28, 2015 8:39:03

I think you have a combination of misunderstandings and assumptions. The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide does have options usuable with RoD, but they are not specific to RoD (as I understand it). The Admins, who are not full employees of WOTC, do not have the book or advanced knowledge of it (you don't hand out secret proprietary knowledge to just anyone who volunteers), and since AL play is only a small portion of the total D&D play, we shouldn't expect that they, or Green Ronin who did the heavy lifting on this season, will alter their book release schedule to suit the DnDAL. And we certainly are not going to forgo releasing adventures at Gen Con so we could match up with their relase schedule either (which would also require us to change the length of seasons or move them around everytime a new book is scheduled; imagine the chaos that would cause). Remember that the Admins are NOT employees of WOTC or Green Ronin. While we might have more conversations with them than the average player, we don't (no should we) have the power to force the season to line up with book releases. And just like I expect someone who works in payroll at WOTC doesn't have advance info, neither do those of us in OP.

The book also isn't banned in the DnDAL. It will be incorporated to some level in the future. However, as a general rule we do not change the rules midseason. The endless rules updates of previous campaigns often led to confusion, so we prefer to update the ALPG right before each season starts. Everyone knows when that is, and where to get it, so there is less confusion. When this book comes out, the season will be more than half over (11 of the 16 adventures will have premiered), and we are not offering wholesale rebuilds, so it wouldn't fair to say "Once we get the book and read and decide what/how we will adopt it, it will be legal for season 3. Hey, enjoy it for the roughly 3 adventures that will be coming out after we announce, but if you already made a PC, you played it, so no cool toys for you." Instead its much more balanced to do it right, actually take time to see the book, and then adopt it at a time that is fair for everyone.

Greg Marks

DnDAL Associate Resource Manager

#14

TiaNadiezja

Aug 28, 2015 9:09:40

Skerrit wrote:

#15

TiaNadiezja

Aug 28, 2015 9:21:30

Also, if WotC is trusting y'all to be effectively the public portion of their marketing arm, without paying you?

They can trust you with advance copy of the books.

EDIT: I'm trying to make clear: My primary issue here is with WotC's handling of their relationship with Adventurer's League, which I think is actively harmful to both AL play and their own marketing efforts. They're the ones who the money goes to; they're the ones who need to act to make sure everything works properly.

#16

Nozareem

Aug 28, 2015 11:10:09

Skerrit wrote:

#17

TiaNadiezja

Aug 28, 2015 11:57:25

Nozareem wrote:

(Reply to #16)

TheBreen

Nozareem wrote:

#19

Ravix

Aug 28, 2015 13:25:10

Breen is correct.

#20

Nozareem

Aug 28, 2015 13:35:25

Ok my point is that on the issue of the not fair problem if it was legal to some players issue. Those people who have characters between lvl 1-4 that might be intersted in what's coming out in the SCG should not play encounters or mods that would level their character beyond level 4. This is in the idea that if the SCG was made legal that those people who would have wanted to change something but now can't because of being above level 4. This in turn kicks we don't want it to be unfair for those players idea out the door.

Ok on the thats not fair reason for the Origins story issue yes it could be a slight issue, but most people care more about what new races there will be and new subclasses like what has been stated in other posts.

The problem is that WOTC seems to want to do something with D&D but they do a halfass job while doing it! instead of coordinating their products and season to coincide with each other like how they do Magic they have the left hand who are WOTC and right hand who are the encounters and conventions and expeditions and neither real communicate well or WOTC is more of "I don't care just make use money."

If only WOTC showed they cared for D&D as they do for magic then we wouldn't have this problem.

#21

CoreyartustheSecond

Aug 28, 2015 17:10:51

Nazareem, I think as an AL participant, I'll wait patiently for the books to be combed through by the AL staff to ensure there aren't any snares that could further complicate the OP. We've seen how being on the tail end of content as it is released can result in frustrating "clarifications" for the OP, and my desire to use what's offered isn't as important as deferring to the Admins for the betterment of the whole. If this is the only way WotC will let them prevent those kinds of things happening then I say let the Admins have their space and time to do it. I can hold on despite whatever misuse of words WotC used on the cover or in press releases that implied something different when it comes to the OP. Having a book "early" for the next season in public release could, in some ways, actually be a great boon if the opportunity is used well.

But I agree with other aspects of what you're saying. There does seem to be a lot of unnecessesary "IP protection" that undermines how different aspects of their own endeavors operate. In my opinion, at a certain point, they have to decide if AL is authentic to WotC or not. But I think that over the last year, WotC has been the recipient of a lot of feedback that expresses that exact frustration, so I bet they're aware of the problem. The question is whether they want to do anything about it, and what steps they feel comfortable taking. It's numbers are small, but it seems apparent they're getting a LOT out of it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Sadly, it's completely obvious (they've admitted so) that they regularly make substantial changes to everything they release way up to the last minute before press, so I can see how it's difficult to potentially share any content at all with the OP (if they even wanted to) if they don't know themselves what they're going to actually keep. But in the end, they need room for trial and error if they decide to change their working process, so it may take a couple seasons to work out kinks if it's an important enough priority for WotC for their OP. But I suspect they're aware. They can't not be. We've all been very very vocal about it... hehe...

Remember, WotC writes and sanctions the ALPG. They purposely didn't include SCAG as a legal rules source for Season 3. As a result, they've effectively given their own OP months of prep-time to address the new content for Season 4. That's seems more than they've ever done before. Yeah, it seems backwards, but at least it's something.

Perhaps we'll know in a few weeks if that feedback has had an impact on RoD, OotA, and SCAG. If it hasn't, that will be very telling. If it has, I bet we can look forward to a much more satisfying experience in the future.

#22

Kalani

Aug 28, 2015 16:43:07

Keep in mind also - the blurb about SCAG makes perfect sense once you realise that Green Ronin are the authors of both the SCAG and Out of the Abyss. Cross-promotion of their products is perfectly reasonable in this instance, especially in light of the fact that these products are not made with AL in mind, but rather - are targeting the D&D community as a whole.

#23

Coredump00

Aug 28, 2015 19:08:39

And lets not forget.... the admins are mostly volunteers. So its no favor to them to dump something like SCAG on them and say "Hey, you have 6 days to adapt this stuff for OP"

OP is free for us. They put out a lot of content and aids and organization for us.... having the 'wait' a few months to incorporate some extra content just isn't that big of a deal.

#24

Enevhar_Aldarion

Aug 28, 2015 21:39:41

And let us also not forget that Robert, Greg, and the rest of the folks running the AL do not write the Player's Guide. They do not have the final say on what is legal and what is not from a new book. WotC listens to their advice and suggestions, but WotC makes all the final decisions. Robert and company can make little tweaks and add a bit of extra content by way of the organizer's website, but nothing major.

And while the Sword Coast book will not be legal before Season 4, my hope is that at that point it will be treated as evergreen and be legal for every season starting with 4. Maybe they will even make it backwards compatible with seasons 1-3 at the same time.

#25

Mirtek

Aug 28, 2015 23:39:41

Skerrit wrote:

(Reply to #25)

CoreyartustheSecond

Mirtek wrote:

#27

Nozareem

Aug 29, 2015 8:12:20

It's never fun being treated as a "red headed step child" as we are by WOTC while the favored child like Magic is well taken care of. This feeling will only grow as the D&D community grows and new players start to feel as we do. So from the shadows we watch as other more favored properties of WOTC get to play in the light. I hope that at some point WOTC gets there **** together and treat us as they do the other properties because at some point people will get tiered of it and decied their business is best spent else where!

Lets be honest the way WOTC is handeling the SCG is the dumbest way ever! It's like saying on Holloween night you tell a child after "trick or treating that they can't eat any of thier candy for a few weeks because you don't feel like checking the candy any time soon! Or it's Christmas Day and after opening gifts your told you can't play with that awsome toy until after the new year! I find this pathetic on

WOTCs behalf! There will be a lot of

up set AL players when this guide comes out, and this will only get worse when it happens again next time another cool

guide with crunch comes out as is

handled poorly again!!

#28

ZHDarkstar

Aug 29, 2015 8:42:14

Nozareem wrote:

#29

Skerrit

Aug 29, 2015 10:05:14

As CoreyartustheSecond said, the way WOTC works, they are changing whats in the book up until it is sent to the printers (which is only a short time before the book is delivered). Timelines on these products are MUCH shorter than they were once upon a time. Also remember that WOTC chooses what's legal in the PG before a season starts. So if I am hearing correctly, the general opinion is, you would prefer a book be listed as legal (list the whole book since not even WOTC knows what will all be in it) and then after it comes out, the Admins look it over and if necessary, we mid-season retroactively ban or nerf things your characters may have been using. That is you preference rather than waiting a few weeks and including it in the next season. I will forward those comments along and see what we can do to make that happen in the future.

#30

Coredump00

Aug 29, 2015 11:15:07

For the love of god people..... such whining....

Look, we get a ton of free adventures, free packets, free certs, and its even organizing it is no cost to us. And the response is to complain that we don't get every single option the minute it is available.... really?

Yes WotC is giving the free stuff away for its own purposes. Yes it helps 'their' stores, yes it helps build awareness... but we are still getting it for free.

You want the entire AL process, or the entire SCAG development process... to be modified so that we can get the shiny toys to use with our free content.... Well, I want to competely change their development schedule so the book comes out right before my birthday... it would make a great present. Sheesh people.....

Do you really think it would be a good ideas to push back the Season 3 start to November? Do you really think they should skip Gen Con, Dragon Con, Pax, etc?
Do you really think they should ignore the Christmas buying season, and force the book to be published in August, and compete with all the back to school shopping?

And why? Because when you play free content you want to be able to use all of the new toys immediately... no waiting for you....

#31

Coredump00

Aug 29, 2015 11:17:04

As for the 'red headed step child'..... magic makes them a ton more money... this has nothing to do with being 'unfair'... each game is treated on its merits and delivery.

And yet... did they let Magic have a 2 year playtest that generated almost no income? Are they creating a bunch of free content and handouts for use at Friday Night Magic?

No... I didn't think so...

#32

Mirtek

Aug 29, 2015 14:19:21

Skerrit wrote:

#33

Skerrit

Aug 29, 2015 14:54:54

Mirtek wrote:

#34

Nozareem

Aug 29, 2015 16:47:53

Ok this how WOTC should do AL! The season thing is great but when releasing chrunch like SCG it should come out the following month after the release RoD or new season campaign books. So a couple weeks before street release the RCs should get in contact with LCs or any need to know people and have a AL meeting about the new material and go over what will be allowed in AL and what won't. So on release day a AL PDF will be sent on D&D website for what is legal. Any thing like SCC with crunch should always be released this way for maximum use by consumers business 101. There should never be AL crunch possiable content released mid season that is stupid as hell and poor business practice or WOTC must not really care about AL.

#35

Kalani

Aug 29, 2015 17:04:53

It is not as simple as that. These products are outsourced to a third party, and as such - the needs, limitations, and interests of that third party also need to be factored into the decision making. I suspect that the November release was the soonest that this product could be launched, and that while they could have delayed release to coincide with the start of season 4 - neither Green Ronin or WotC would be happy to miss out on the potential revenue over the Xmas period.

Green Ronin itself would have had to fit the development of OOTA and SCG into their schedule, and knowing the kinds of products they release - I suspect their product schedule is planned several years in advance.

(Reply to #32)

Coredump00

Mirtek wrote:

(Reply to #34)

Coredump00

Nozareem wrote:

#38

Skerrit

Aug 29, 2015 18:42:56

We've heard your various thoughts and suggestions and we'll add them to the list of things we'll discuss as we start to talk about implementation for seasons 5 and 6 (as 3 is done and we're in the process of 4).

#39

BRJN

Aug 30, 2015 7:42:39

Skerrit wrote:

#40

Skerrit

Aug 30, 2015 7:45:20

Everything is on the table. I'm happy to listen to everyone's suggestion and if the majority overwhelmingly angrily want random retroactive removals of content as long as they can have it the second it comes out, we can talk about among the admins. It seems like a bad idea to me, but I don't claim to see every angle.

#41

TiaNadiezja

Aug 30, 2015 8:04:06

Yeah, Skerrit, if you're responding primarily to me, you're misreading what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that the correct response to the current situation is to allow everything then retroactively ban stuff. It's to look at the situation AL has landed in, and have WotC work with both AL and its contractors so that AL doesn't land in this situation again, because having gotten here in the first place is absurd. It means AL, WotC, and Green Ronin aren't coordinating or communicating in any meaningful way about marketing and organized play, and it's an absolute mess that is going to lead to confusion at tables, lost sales (however small - game stores run on razor-thin profit margins) for game stores, and anger from new players at not getting to use a book for precisely what it's being marketed as. It's a mess, should not have happened, and should be avoided in the future.

I'm not saying AL needs to change course - there might not be a better response to where things are now than what you're doing. I'm saying where things are now needs to not happen any more.

I'd like to address a few points that have been made here:

1. Yes, they've given us a ton of free content, and for that I'm exceptionally grateful. However, for those whining about people whining (congrats on getting so meta, by the by), I'd like to point out two things: A. This is the first paid supplement the game's gotten. I've actually been itching to spend money on 5e since about two months after the DMG came out, because I love the game and want to support it, but all they've released since then is modules and I design my own adventures for my home game and play AL occasionally in store so I don't need to buy modules. Getting to buy then use the SCAG sounds lovely. B. AL isn't free for a lot of people. Even discounting the fact that they want our most precious possession (our time) in order to play it, many game stores, including all of them in my immediate area, charge for table space. You want to play, you've gotta pay, and players deserve the maximum return on investment for the cost in time and treasure.

2. The "story origin" system is completely broken - and not in an "overpowered" way. In an "It just doesn't work" way. It's counterintuitive and nonfunctional. At the moment, there are three story origins available (Tyranny of Dragons, Elemental Evil, and Rage of Demons). Players showing up to their game stores to play Encounters will see ads all over the place for Rage of Demons, so when asked to pick their story origin they'll pick Rage of Demons. But wait! There is nothing meaningful that RoD adds in terms of player options that isn't available in EE. There's nothing at all in ToD that isn't in EE. Literally the entirety of ToD's options, and all the notable options of RoD, are a subset of EE's options. The Elemental Evil story origin is better, and that's ludicrous. If there isn't an interaction that breaks things between the new material (of which there is none in RoD's creation rules) and the old material, the old material should be allowed in the new season. I get being cautious, but banning old material while adding nothing in its place just gets my goat. It creates a newbie trap that could be avoided with the slightest effort by WotC's folks.

3. It's been mentioned a few times in this thread that book releases shouldn't be timed around AL play because AL's players are a tiny subset of the total playerbase of the game. I agree entirely - AL seasons should work to book releases more than book releases do to AL's seasons. However, it's also been pointed out that the reason for placing seasons where they are is to debut adventures at conventions, and that makes me actively want to bang my head on the wall. If we're going to end up banning a book from AL play during the adventure the book was specifically written for in order to keep a schedule, and not move the book because the people working from the schedule are a tiny subset of the game's playerbase, why would we schedule around conventions when conventiongoers are a tiny subset of that tiny subset? Why worry about the conventions at all? They honestly and seriously don't matter to anyone who isn't there, and the set of people who are there is insignificant. I just... I don't get it.

#42

Kalani

Aug 30, 2015 8:06:52

I concur. I think it is a terrible idea to have things get hit with the nerf-hammer (or ban-hammer). Just look at how many players complained about the minor nerfing of their characters due to the recent PHB errata. Players are going to complain if they have to wait for something, but they will complain even more if you take their shiny toys away after the fact (due to a revision of the allowed rules).

#43

Skerrit

Aug 30, 2015 9:17:08

TiaNadiezja wrote:

#44

Enevhar_Aldarion

Aug 30, 2015 10:13:01

Skerrit wrote:

#45

ZHDarkstar

Aug 30, 2015 13:10:31

TiaNadiezja wrote:

#46

Skerrit

Aug 30, 2015 13:20:55

ZHDarkstar wrote:

#47

Nozareem

Aug 30, 2015 14:33:57

ZHDarkstar wrote:

(Reply to #47)

Coredump00

Nozareem wrote:

#49

Skerrit

Aug 30, 2015 17:03:38

After thinking about this thread some more, I think I know what the problem is. Some players are upset because they feel like they are not listened to because they do not represent enough of the market, while others say those players are whiners because they are getting it for free so how can they complain? I think the answer is money. Maybe we should charge for adventures and certs and pretty much everything. If people were paying, they could expect more and their complaints wouldn't be as easy to drown out. The average pathfinder society adventure is four dollars, so something in that neighborhood would seem a good idea. Then if you want tradable certs, maybe WOTC include a way to get those mailed to you for the appropriate cost, maybe another few bucks (or maybe its something stores could sell them so there's more love for them since several players have mentioned in this thread and others about finding ways to monatarily support local stores)? I think you guys may have hit on something here that was talked about when AL was first being worked out and maybe it should be revisited. What we need is less free stuff and more for money stuff so that there is a larger reason to address your issues when they come up and overall help the health of the gaming market.

(Reply to #49)

CoreyartustheSecond

Skerrit wrote:

#51

TheBreen

Aug 30, 2015 18:28:38

Maybe the answer IS money.

In 1987 I joined a new (to me) organization called the RPGA, which launched its own D&D campaign in the Forgotten Realms.* For $20 per year I got a thin plastic membership card and a very skinny, black-and-white "magazine" every other month. I thought it was wonderful.

The new campaign, which let us create our own characters and play them in adventure after adventure, gaining experience points and treasure, started out slowly. There were only two or three adventures per year for the first couple of years. They were ONLY available for play at conventions. There were no such things as "game days," or playing at a game store. Playing at home was strictly forbidden, and of course in 1987 playing online was practically unheard of. That means, of course, that there was no way to play without paying.

Somehow, the campaign caught on. There were official materials published for purchase in stores, there was a campaign newsletter, metagame organizations and eventually thousands of players. The organization spawned lots of other campaigns as well, including one based on Masque of the Red Death™, a pretty interesting setting.

I'd happily go back to a paid system. I imagine that dues would have to be much more, say, $50 per year on top of paying for other things. Even though the current adventures are easy to obtain as PDFs, I'd gladly pay to get them in a slightly more polished, printed form. I'd have no qualms about eliminating online or home play (though I don't see why that would be necessary). And I'd practically fight to be able to pay to get more sourcebooks and other campaign materials.

From time to time I read about other RPGA old timers who are willing to pay to go back to the old days (as impractical as that probably is), but I'm sure there aren't a very large number of us. But if paying for what we get would increase the quality of the playing experience, by all means, sign me up.

*Yes, this was Living City, which ran and expanded for more than a dozen years.

#52

TiaNadiezja

Aug 30, 2015 18:43:45

Skerrit wrote:

#53

Skerrit

Aug 30, 2015 18:46:20

I am definitely not attempting to mock you. I think it might be a solution to your concerns and as you see, several others apparently agree. I'm not saying it is happening, just that is one option worth exploring if it gets to where you are asking us to go.

#54

TiaNadiezja

Aug 30, 2015 18:58:56

Skerrit wrote:

(Reply to #53)

Ghaliyah

Skerrit wrote:

#56

Ravix

Aug 30, 2015 23:56:56

I agree with revisiting the money thing you were talking about.

Looking at some of the posters here is very irritating, however.

You could say Tia is representing the 1% of the player base that I absolutely hate dealing with. People who do absolutely no research, show up and act entitled, and then complain when things aren't the way that they wanted them to be. I quit dealing with those people ages ago.

#57

Mirtek

Aug 31, 2015 3:24:39

I'd gladly pay for AL if this leads to the aforementioned improvments. I fully support that idea

#58

Nozareem

Aug 31, 2015 5:15:10

I to will gladly pay, so that in hopes that AL will get more attention from WOTC and at the same time get them involved again which is something many people complained about at Gen Con!

Plus I played with LFR in game store club which I payed for and also payed for a moment this year before the club stopped running AL due to over saturation in the local area.

I will add one more thing, if AL goes to a pay to play community then the cert issue will have to be addressed because money will then be involved and every one at the table will feel entitled to walk away with something. So just like in pathfinder the items per mod will have to be increased so everyone can get a item. This mean for a example 7 different items for seven people. So if only 4 people show up each person can pick one of the 7 items found in the mod then the cert for that item will be given.

#59

Tyranthraxus

Aug 31, 2015 5:39:04

You dont pay to play Pathfinder Society though. the DM pays for the scenario once and then can run it whenver. Comparing AL to PFS just dosnt work.

#60

ZHDarkstar

Aug 31, 2015 8:31:06

Tyranthraxus wrote:

(Reply to #49)

Pauper

Skerrit wrote:

#62

Skerrit

Aug 31, 2015 9:23:26

Pauper wrote:

#63

Mirtek

Aug 31, 2015 10:42:27

Pauper wrote:

(Reply to #62)

Ainulindalion

Skerrit wrote:

#65

Skerrit

Aug 31, 2015 11:36:41

Ainulindalion wrote:

#66

The_Hanged_Man

Aug 31, 2015 13:00:48

TiaNadiezja wrote:

(Reply to #66)

GideonBlackRose

You'll definitely see a substantial downturn in AL participation if there's a fee to play. I know in my town, AL has managed to attract many new folks to DND and older players like me who haven't been actively involved in the hobby for awhile. Through AL participation, I've seen many new players convert from casual play to more dedicated, long-term play. You can probably kiss that goodbye if AL starts charging.

The_Hanged_Man wrote:

#68

Skerrit

Aug 31, 2015 14:25:36

GideonBlackRose wrote:

#69

BRJN

Aug 31, 2015 14:56:15

Ghaliyah wrote:

(Reply to #68)

TheBreen

Skerrit wrote:

#71

imaginaryfriend

Aug 31, 2015 19:05:28

Hmm, the money thing might be worth exploring, but I have my doubts. The amount of money it would take to positively (in the view of those that feel wronged) influence the percieved issues between AL, WotC, publishing schedules ect. is likely to be beyond what the AL community can generate without hurting its mission.

In the work I have done for organized play over the years I have never once considered the playerbase to be "customers" entitled to anything (rather I view them as a community to attempt to please). I would certainly have been willing to do so, but then I also would have wanted to be payed somewhere near my normal $100 hourly rate..... Well ok, maybe not really, but it does illustrate a potential issue. Right now it is mostly volunteer work, if you turn it into a decidedly more commercial enterprise, that is going to have effects on the creation side of the content chain as well.. And those changes will not all be good.

(Reply to #70)

imaginaryfriend

TheBreen wrote:

#73

Tyranthraxus

Aug 31, 2015 19:34:57

My players basically had fits of giggles for most of Cloaks and Shadows. One lady was laughing so much over something in a certain scene she actually had to leave the table.

I think thats got a little to do with the time factor ( I run in a gamesday environ.. whilst I do have a time limit .. im not pushing out players by 4 hours). I think its certainly different than a convention run of the game which does have some pretty restrictive time constraints. We also have people who ONLY game at Coventions (I have trouble even imagining it). I think the Authors have certainly hit their stride as the writing is quite tight and there is continuity between scenarios.

Actually so much so that, one of my players who used to play Living Greyhawk said he though the Continuity was too much. THere was too much interconnection between the scenarios. I dont pay that view much heed though. Id prefer a Babylon 5 to a Star trek.

Sure the maps could be better, and I think they slowly are.

#74

AndrewJO

Aug 31, 2015 19:51:44

I have no problem with our DMs or fellow players in AL right now, but if it goes to pay-to-play, I'm out. Due to one of our DM's and a few of our player's lack of experience, we often spend much longer to finish a module than it should take. It took us 4 sessions to finish DDEN 1-3, which at $5 per session would be $20. What would I have gained for my $20? Only 1800 exp and 300 gold, and a mediocre gaming experience. AL pulls in new players who then buy WOTC products, start charging for AL and we'll just start playing home games instead, with no real need to buy new products. Sorry for the rant, just my 2¢

#75

Skerrit

Aug 31, 2015 20:25:02

I don't think anyone has suggest pay to play. The only suggestion I heard was to stop giving the adventures for free. The comparison was made between and An Expeditions adventure and a Pathfinder Society adventure (which costs $4 to purchase and is not given out for free).

#76

Enevhar_Aldarion

Aug 31, 2015 20:30:10

Skerrit wrote:

#77

CoreyartustheSecond

Aug 31, 2015 23:25:08

I think it's becoming clear through these posts that our individual understandings of what "monetization" might entail (and even its effectiveness at garnering whatever we feel it's supposed to accomplish) is completely different depending on each individual poster's experience with AL and other OPs. We may be making assumptions about what "monetization" means based on those experiences...

For example, to some it means AL becomes like the old RPGA "membership". For others it means a commensurate "upgrade" of quality or additional maps or materials. To yet others it means the adventures become available for public play. To some it means charging "per session of play". And to some it just means purchasing certs.

I think it's clear that when the word "monetization" is bandied around, it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. There are a million different permutations and ramifications to what that actually means and how it might happen, but all and any of them would be a fundamental change to AL that would never ever be made lightly, I am sure. There are tons of pros and cons to any aspect of monetization, and it has to be very carefully considered no matter what form it might take. It's not something that can be done easily, swiftly, nor "experimentally" and certainly deserves a careful examination of just exactly why it might be undertaken. When anything gets "money" involved, expectations change. It's obviously a huge shift that would need to be pondered very very carefully, as the ripple effect would be profound and extensive.

But our individually developed understandings of how AL might make monetization a reality don't necessarily mean those things are going to happen by default. It might not mean AL automatically becomes like the RPGA. It might not mean the content of what's availabe in those adventures changes form. Following Pathfinders publicly available PDF example isn't necessarily the path AL is obligated to choose to go down. And paying for "per session" of play has all kinds of inherent problems at the local level.

The deep changes that monetization in any form might mean would be significant, and I know that's not lost on anyone. But in the end it all comes back to "why would it be beneficial"? It seems to me the entire reason the idea of monetization was brought up at all was to somehow provide "clout" so AL could have more of an active and prepared voice in WotC's development process instead of having to deal with things like SCAG's mid-season release and the confusion and frustration it creates for AL's participants before and after the fact. It was brought up as an option to address AL's apparent inacapacity to be part of the conversations when dealing with material written for Homeplay which they're obligated to incorporate in the OP and they know nothing about before it's released. It was percieved as a tool that would provide leverage for participant voices that don't have any currently, so AL would have some justified capacity to know what's coming up... And somehow prepare...

The Expeditions program is so effective, in part, because AL has much more autonomy regarding the material and all that entails. If there is a different answer than using "money" as the justifying vehicle that would enable AL to be more prepared with WotC's release schedule, then it should be carefully considered before making that choice.

If monetization doesn't provide that "clout", then in my opinion monetization isn't the answer, no matter what form it takes. If it doesn't provide a mechanism to help AL be prepared with WotC so more SCAG confusion and Homeplay shoe-horning is less of a problem, then it's not the answer.

#78

Cascade.rpga

Sep 04, 2015 6:32:32

Maybe do a little of both...

A regular schedule of free adventures (even PFS does that).

Then a similar schedule of paid events, like the major cons, special events, even home play options.

Make it so the fee comes with printed certs as part of the process; just like buying the adventure.

I see it this way, previous player oriented living campaigns were player driven and allowed some autonomy, which seems to be how AL is except for published hardback content.

Living Greyhawk is the best example. You could purchase the events for a very small fee but the adventures and story were driven by local teams of volunteers. The campaign was so rich that the stories took a life of their own.

IMHO...

Living City was the first - run ok for a first time but really con based and you had to be an insider to enjoy it.

Living Greyhawk really peaked with player interaction and story. maybe too much player / triad variety and lost focus as the years went by.

LFR started reallly well but bogged down with constant rules changes and over complication of too much content.

PFS has been progessively getting better due to expanded story, dedicated volunteers and a company driving printed content (although maybe a bit too much). It really gears to the players on the financial side; gifts, free stuff, swag, etc. expecting a payback latter. I don't see WOTC doing this.

I think there are plenty of people willing to redo LG days but you need a strong central "authorized" management.

(Reply to #78)

SteveMND

Cascade.rpga wrote:

#80

Coredump00

Sep 04, 2015 7:28:50

I never played LFR, but from everyone I have spoken with 'taking a different approach' is a very good thing. They are simply filled with horror stories of how LFR went bad...

#81

RCanine

Sep 04, 2015 8:53:36

I always run out of D&D stuff to buy long before I run out of budget. Especially in this new 5E age of the only for sale content is mega adventures I'm never going to be able to find a group to commit to playing all of the way through.

My preferred solution to this has always been a "why-not-both" strategy of offering the free content via PDFs as they are today, along with higher production value copies with everything you need to run them (maps, minis) for sale.

#82

RCanine

Sep 06, 2015 10:07:13

I was trying to think how we could do this in a model similar to Magic: The Gathering. The brilliant thing about MTG is that you can buy a ton of cards and play forever for free, but certain ways to play also require a constant investment into the hobby (e.g. booster drafts). A constant release schedule incentivizes the hardcore players to continually buy cards, even they do so only in cyclical bursts.

To make this model work, they could keep the OP free as it is now, but lock everything outside of the Basic Rules behind a cert.

Playing a warlock? Cert.

Playing a gnome? Cert.

Taking a feat? Cert.

Elemental Evil Spells? Cert.

Certs could be earned via OP events or purchased (possibly in booster packs).

This would require a pretty big re-architecture of AL (and I'm not saying it doesn't have potential problems), but it is a way to bring money into the hobby without destroying the free-to-play model as well.

#83

Enevhar_Aldarion

Sep 06, 2015 10:34:03

RCanine wrote:

#84

RCanine

Sep 06, 2015 20:04:20

Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:

#85

Tyranthraxus

Sep 06, 2015 20:48:09

RCanine: At conventions? Like most organised play campaigns the mechanics of a character are rarely checked because of the artificial time constraint. Some PFS conventions however even have a table you can go to however and get your character checked for validity.

At the game store table or home games? There is the time there to check over log sheets at least. Im still not convinced the majority of dms do it. I did it 2 weeks ago before the game at one of my tables of expeditions because people seemed to have a LOT more gold that I would expect. One guy had 12 more hp than he should of had.. and as a barbarian thats possibly 12 more virtual on top of that because of rage. In terms of DND its a LOT easier. You need the PHB and thats about it. There just arnt that much physical books to take to sessions unless you are the dm and even then you dont need the mm for expeditions.

I personally think everyone playing in an AL game should have the latest version of the Season players guide on them as a base. Then we work out to the PHB. If you are playing a Spellcaster, its simply not fair on the table that you need to be reaching for another players phb to look up your spells. What happens if NONE of the players at the table have a phb and have to rely on the DM for his/hers ? (assuming of course the dmg brought his).

Ive actually had to stop people at the table from using phones and ipads because sadly people are playing games on their phones, checking messages , watching videos etc during the combat round. Ive actually skipped players turns when i call out their character name for their action and I get no response. Im in the position where I can print out blank character sheets for people ... which is a good thing because sadly a lot of people are just hoping I have copies to give them.

#86

RCanine

Sep 06, 2015 21:21:48

Tyranthraxus wrote:

#87

Tyranthraxus

Sep 06, 2015 21:38:05

Thats perfectly fine RCanine. Im having to actually turn players away at the moment as I still cant find anyone willing locally to step up to run a second table of expeditions and im often getting 7 player tables. (Im not going to get offended by anything said to me on the internet) I also DM for kids. Kids on a table with adults often dosnt work but sadly its the way it is at the moment. . Nobody is access their web based character sheet at my table.

#88

SteveMND

Sep 07, 2015 7:03:36

Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:

#89

Ravix

Sep 07, 2015 12:26:05

I don't let people play spellcasters at my table if they do not have access to a PHB or list of their spells.

#90

Angry_Steak

Sep 07, 2015 14:27:38

Ravix wrote:

#91

EthanSental

Sep 08, 2015 19:17:35

I was under the impression that PFS is now only core book only so bringing a splat book meant nothing. Have they backed off the core book only in PFS?

#92

Tyranthraxus

Sep 08, 2015 19:48:13

I stopped played PFS, but they now have 2 'modes' within their Organized play structure. One is the 'anything goes' standard PFS and the other is CORE book only, which limits players essentially to making character from the Core book. We dont really have the book bloat issue in AL (and I dont think we will ever have it).

The rule when I was playing is that you had to either produce the book or a photocopy of the pages used (from your owned copy).

Core had only really just started when I stopped playing , and it wasnt hugely popular yet., but essentially it was introduced because of the whole view 'Ive gotta carry too many books to each game!' crew/view.

#93

Kalani

Sep 08, 2015 22:11:20

It was also introduced because of DMs and casual players complaining about the optimizers running roughshod over the adventure; and optimizers complaining if a casual player showed up with a non optimized pc

These same complaints arose in LFR (in addition to the complaints about frequent errata). It also creates an arms race between optimizers and mod writers.

These were the primary reasons for PFS core only and the AL story origins.

#94

RCanine

Sep 08, 2015 22:16:52

Kalani wrote:

#95

SteveMND

Sep 09, 2015 6:57:11

Kalani wrote:

#96

Cascade.rpga

Sep 09, 2015 7:48:20

RCanine wrote:

(Reply to #62)

Pauper

Skerrit wrote:

(Reply to #63)

Pauper

Mirtek wrote:

(Reply to #82)

Pauper

RCanine wrote:

(Reply to #98)

Ainulindalion

Pauper wrote:

(Reply to #100)

Pauper

Ainulindalion wrote:

#102

Mirtek

Sep 10, 2015 11:53:30

Pauper wrote:

(Reply to #102)

Pauper

[quote="Mirtek"]

That's not what the AL website says:

Lastly, if you don’t have a store that can sponsor you, you can contact customer support by filling out this support form. Be sure to select D&D Convention Support under the products drop-down as well as all other pertinent information. Once sent off, you may qualify to receive a Convention Support Package (D&D Expeditio