Thoughts?
Although this had been said many times elsewhere, it warrants repeating. Most of the LFR staff worked in previous campaigns, and we know that there are many players that loved interactives. Many of us on the staff loved them too, and we wrote and participated in more than our share in previous campaigns. One of the first topics we broached with WotC was interactives. It is a topic we bring up quite frequently.
All that said, interactives as they existed in Living Greyhawk and other RPGA-sponsored campaigns are not going to happen anytime soon. Whenever we discuss new initiatives that WotC allows us to undertake, one of the first questions we have to ask ourselves is, "How are people going to try to turn this into interactives?" :-)
Although we will not see a return to interactives in the same format as previous campaigns, we continue to work on viable options to expand the campaign and make new and different play experiences. Some of the new adventure types mentioned by Chris Tulach will begin to move the campaign in new directions. Again, we are not going to see large-scale battle interactives, and these new offerings should not be judged on those terms. Instead, they should be played and evaluated on their own merits. More about these new adventures and adventure types will be revealed in the days leading up to Origins and GenCon.
Thanks,
Shawn
Woo-hoo!
Perhaps this isn't where LFR wants to reintroduce interactives but, as with every other rule in our game/campaign, players are going to use new freedoms to create what they want. I suspect this will be one more such case. At least, I hope to. ;)
There is too little released info to really know but, what I read and what has and hasn't been said seems to allow for DMs to have the creative freedom to coordinate with others to present one-shot multi-table adventures. It wouldn't be the same as the old interactives but, could benefit from the lack of needed approval so long as it stayed within the allowable creative confines.
Perhaps this isn't where LFR wants to reintroduce interactives but, as with every other rule in our game/campaign, players are going to use new freedoms to create what they want. I suspect this will be one more such case. At least, I hope to. ;)
Didn't Shawn just say that that is not what you are supposed to do with these new tools?
So... you're saying that there's a chance we'll see interactives again soon...
Woo-hoo!
Heh. There is not a jury in this country that would convict me, Kayserman!
Didn't Shawn just say that that is not what you are supposed to do with these new tools?
He said this:
My Realms adventures are meant to be created by one DM for one table (4-6 players) and played in a 4-hour time slot in the normal manner. They are not to be distributed in any way, including one person writing one and having other DMs run them.
As long as each table's DM is in coordination, seems like it works. Sure it's a grey area of an unknown rule but, if it delivers a good time and squeezes within what the rules eventually allow, why not? In my defense, I am bringing this up before the rules are released in hopes that they can address this.
Perhaps this isn't where LFR wants to reintroduce interactives but, as with every other rule in our game/campaign, players are going to use new freedoms to create what they want. I suspect this will be one more such case. At least, I hope to. ;)
And when they do, the My Realms adventures will have to be removed from the campaign, denying people who wanted to use them as they were intended to be used the opportunity to do so.
No one is stopping people from creating and running all the interactives they want. They just cannot do so under the umbrella of the Living Forgotten Realms campaign at this time.
And when they do, the My Realms adventures will have to be removed from the campaign, denying people who wanted to use them as they were intended to be used the opportunity to do so.
No one is stopping people from creating and running all the interactives they want. They just cannot do so under the umbrella of the Living Forgotten Realms campaign at this time.
Couldnt WOTC and the RPGA just find out the info for the GM's, Senior GM, Event organizer that ran them as an interactive and put them on the banned list for a year or something?
But I'm drifting here. People seemed to have a few questions in various threads about My Realms adventures. I am trying my best to answer them. I do not have the knowledge, time, or ability to get into discussing the reasons behind various decisions, since they were made by people who are not me.
Long story short: the My Realms adventures are for DMs who want to write their own material and present it to a table of 4-6 PCs in a regular, 4-hour time slot. The campaign staff was aware right from the start that people, being human, would try to make it into something different than it is meant to be. That is why I am stepping into the lion's den early, trying to be clear and honest about it. People abusing the intended purpose of the adventures will only be hurting the campaign in the long run.
While I do hope for a return of interactives, I also hope for such clarity and disclosure to appear in the printed guidelines. I got no problem respecting clear campaign boundaries.
My Realms seems like a great way to add variety to replays. It seems like a great way to allow aspiring authors a way to test some ideas or to give great DMs freedom. It seems like a nice way to win over those that see LFR and a home campaign as a hard either/or decision. This confines the creativity of a 'non-WotC-author' to a certain specific activity and likely will shut down DME in normal mods beyond helping keep the party on track and helping them have a good time. That should all be good for the game.
It does not allow non-authors to become authors and post their work, nor for flashes of genius by the player/DM base to become celebrated works. This is what we see with video game mods and such. This also curtails the possibilities for using this for interactives, though it could perhaps be used in a way that would carry a theme for a convention. For example, you probably could ask several DMs to run a My Realms along a theme, and the combination of a theme and a reputation for strong DMs could become a convention staple. Bring smart minds together and a cool plot, and there could be a real reason to visit the local con, or even to travel. It remains to be seen exactly how this works out.
There have been very few published 'adventure DME' efforts of late, so I don't think there is a big issue. Adventures have greatly improved over the past 6 months (just as the admins said they would), with greater plot and greater regional feel. Linked core mods are doing the same. It may not be exactly where every LGer would like it to be, but it is improving. You can play most recent regional mods and come away with an identification of what the region is like. You also generally find an appropriate challenge, a decent story, and some fun ideas. Sometimes you find some really good stuff. Authors are clearly getting more comfortable with the rules and admins are likely getting sharper (and perhaps playtest groups are becoming better at reviewing and commenting).
All of that is to say that I suspect there is little reason to worry about mass hacking of mods these days. My Realms is likely enough for most people to enjoy things, though there will surely be many disappointed they can't share what they came up with. I think that could have been managed, but one step at a time. WotC and RPGA is doing a great job of being responsive and of continually improving the offering.
And, with Shawn promising Interactives any second now... just kidding.
My Realms adventures are meant to be created by one DM for one table (4-6 players) and played in a 4-hour time slot in the normal manner. They are not to be distributed in any way, including one person writing one and having other DMs run them.
Can you say why it has this requirement?
I don't much care one way or another. But to someone who started playing RPGA games with LFR it seems arbitrarily restrictive, with the current information we have. (Having said, I didn't understand pretty much anything in your post beyond this initial paragraph. So if the answer to my question was there, I didn't understand it ;)).
Either I'm sure we'll get the reasoning eventually. I just thought you might know why they've come up with this limitation.
And when they do, the My Realms adventures will have to be removed from the campaign, denying people who wanted to use them as they were intended to be used the opportunity to do so.
If the RPGA removes everything that's abused, they'll need to remove people's characters and the access to the mods. Because out of the thousands that play, some people abuse them.
At the moment the RPGA seems to do pretty much nothing to curtail cheating and "abuse" of the current resources. Instead we use an honour system. Which is fine. IMO its actually our best option considering the mess that is the Character Database.
However to react to cheating in one aspect of the campaign (people sharing their My Adventures), while allowing it to run rampant in other parts (doing nothing about people who claim to have played a mod with a character but actually haven't), seems arbitrary and unfair.
Can you say why it has this requirement?
I think we need a thread merge:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1188524
I think we need a thread merge:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1188524
Thanks
That does explain a lot.Can you say why it has this requirement?
I don't much care one way or another. But to someone who started playing RPGA games with LFR it seems arbitrarily restrictive, with the current information we have. (Having said, I didn't understand pretty much anything in your post beyond this initial paragraph. So if the answer to my question was there, I didn't understand it ;)).
Either I'm sure we'll get the reasoning eventually.
I wouldn't hold my breath on WotC explaining why the limitation is there. The current best speculation is it's all about the IP, baby.
Since you started playign with LFR, here's a little background.
I started with LG, and at least in that campaign, at first they paid mod authors a nominal fee for writing a mod and at the end of that time the rights reverted back to the author. Later it became purely voluntary. They didn't care too much as they weren't actively developing the Greyhawk setting so the regional Triads could do what they wished with their story.
Fast forward to LFR. FR is an actively developing property (novels, etc.). as such they have a story team assigned to the property. In LFR, if you write a module it goes through a vetting process to make sure it's not treading on any story issues and that it fits within the setting. Because, essentially, what happens in LFR is canon for all intents and purposes. It wouldn't do to have a module set in Luskan where the PCs drag the people out of the dregs of their existence and instill a prosperous government if they don't intend for that to ever happen in the setting.
So they give the final yea or nay on any story concepts for a mod and recheck it later in the process to make sure things haven't gone off track. They then also pay the author for the mod. This allows them to buy all the rights to the mod. They own it. Thus it also allows them to protect their IP because they have gievn it theior stamp of approval and paid for the rights to it.
None of that will happen with My Realms adventures. So in a way, WotC is potentially opening a can worms by allowing this. They did it in Mark of Heroes with the DMs Mark mods, but it was a different campaign structure, different setting, and a different care towards setting continuity as they are in FR. My Realms adventures will have no IP Continuity vetting.
So my bet goes on this fact alone as the reason they cannot be distributed. It only takes one con to run a My Realms as an "interactive" and people to not know it's a MR mod and suddenly people think Drizzt is dead (or whatever iconic character the author may loathe), or Spellplague is "cured," or the Zhents are destroyed, etc.
It makes a big headache for WotC.
It was fun while it lasted, but the Greyhawk Wars were a triffle compared to the changes wrought.
I can imagine people want a bit more control for FR.
Gomez
I should add that in LG, due to that freedom, kings queens, leaders, whole nations were dropping dead and burning to the ground all over the place. Artifacts were found, nations invaded, and you have to look very hard to find a nation that ended up with the same government when the dust settled.
It was fun while it lasted, but the Greyhawk Wars were a triffle compared to the changes wrought.
I know you know this, but it bears saying that that is an intention of the setting. The world of Greyhawk has always been poised at the brink of either chaos or lasting peace. It makes lots of sense for this to have happened.
It only takes one con to run a My Realms as an "interactive" and people to not know it's a MR mod and suddenly people think Drizzt is dead (or whatever iconic character the author may loathe), or Spellplague is "cured," or the Zhents are destroyed, etc.
It makes a big headache for WotC.
I understood everything up to the term interactive. If by interactive you mean "the adventure mods we've had up until now" then I fail to see how restricting the author to be the only one who can run it will (realistically) avoid the above scenario. The above scenario requires the DM to not inform the players that this is an MR. Its just as easy to do that if you wrote the adventure as it is if someone else wrote the adventure.
But perhaps it will become apparent once we get the guidelines.
I know you know this, but it bears saying that that is an intention of the setting. The world of Greyhawk has always been poised at the brink of either chaos or lasting peace. It makes lots of sense for this to have happened.
But from a designer's viewpoint, you don't want all of that to happen *simultaneously*.
If the nation of Sunndi is invaded, and Onnwall rebels oust the Scarlet brotherhood, and the Great Kindom and Ahlissa go to war, and the Verbonbonc Viscount is deposed by an evil tyrant, and the theocrat is deposed, and Iuz takes over a layer of the abyss, and the Baklun go to war over the relics of Al-Akhbar, etc etc.... you generally want that to happen over an extended period, rather than in a few years of time.
It worked fine in Greyhawk since designers didn't bother. It just won't work in the Realms.
Gomez
But from a designer's viewpoint, you don't want all of that to happen *simultaneously*.
It worked fine in Greyhawk since designers didn't bother. It just won't work in the Realms.
Happens all the time in the Realms as well. Probably even more so, since events in the Realms are largely disparate from each other. When Lolth goes silent, the Netheril reappear over Anauroch, and Bane reappears out of his son, no one freaks out (DR 1372). It's just another busy year in the Realms.
Just look at what has occurred in the Realms in the years that match the 3.5 edition setting (in-game) -- just before the Spellplague. The "Grand History of the Realms" sourcebook will be extremely helpful in that regard. Answer: There was a *lot* that occurred!
(The Realms has a lot more book authors, and they each tend to do their own thing. It's hard for even them to keep abreast of everything that is going on in the Realms.)
Many power centers in the Realms are effectively not much more than city-states, with little ties to regions and events elsewhere in Faerun.
Besides, I think you'll find it hard to convince people that LG was a "bad" experience. ;) It felt vibrant, it felt alive, and PC actions actually had an effect on the region and the region's plot. Yes please!
I should add that in LG, due to that freedom, kings queens, leaders, whole nations were dropping dead and burning to the ground all over the place. Artifacts were found, nations invaded, and you have to look very hard to find a nation that ended up with the same government when the dust settled.
It was fun while it lasted, but the Greyhawk Wars were a triffle compared to the changes wrought.
I can imagine people want a bit more control for FR.
I'm curious to see how the campaign is going to handle Paragon modules then, let alone Epic.
Unless the campaign completely overhauls how we do adventures, I would expect that the Epic tier will have world- and plane-shattering events happening on a routine basis all around the continent... or, well, the adventures will turn into helping Billy the Demigod get his angelic kitten out of the extraplanar tree, but no one really wants to see that.
I'm curious to see how the campaign is going to handle Paragon modules then, let alone Epic.
Unless the campaign completely overhauls how we do adventures, I would expect that the Epic tier will have world- and plane-shattering events happening on a routine basis all around the continent... or, well, the adventures will turn into helping Billy the Demigod get his angelic kitten out of the extraplanar tree, but no one really wants to see that.
I personally will not be playing the Epic levels. I will be surprised if I play a character thru to 20th level actually. I hope that the campaign stops at 20th and then does some special modules for epic levels like LG did for characters at retirement level etc
I understood everything up to the term interactive. If by interactive you mean "the adventure mods we've had up until now" then I fail to see how restricting the author to be the only one who can run it will (realistically) avoid the above scenario.
Interactives were multi-table adventures. Most often what you saw was the "Battle Interactive" where everyone was playing to a common goal. (usually
)Sometimes every table ran through the same scenario (A) and then success and failures were tallied up to see if it was successful overall. If it was, then you went on to scenario B1, if it was an overall failure then you went on to scenario B2. And so on and so forth. Sometimes different tables had different scenarios to play through and each one was a critical point in some larger battle. Some of them pitted two sides against each other and the side with more success gained an advantage, etc. (that happened a lot in Arcanis)
There were RP intensive interactives (my con hosted one in LG where you hob nobbed with the movers and shakers of Veluna to try to determine what to do about a certain noble that appeared to have gone rogue. I was unsuccessful at convincing them that assassination was the correct course...).
They were grand events. A lot of fun and were usually a big plot point in the region's/campaign's overall story and gave you a more direct way to influence the direction of the campaign. Henry Lopez of Paradigm Concepts (who ran Living Arcanis) had a 6 year plot planned out. He complained (jovially) that he hated the interactives because every time they ran one the players came out of left field and screwed up his plot and he had to rewrite it to account for what happened.
So what the OP was saying was that he was hoping that he could use the My Realms mod to essentially recreate an interactive. However, by definition, it's not one DM and one table. It's one author, many DMs and many tables and is stretching the concept of what the My Realms adventure is supposed to be.
I heard mentioned somewhere that a local con in the US "re-skinned" an LFR mod to provide an interactive for their event and got some sort of beat down over it (I heard there were even legal threats made by the author of the mod, which makes sense seeing as they were changing what they wrote and "selling" it draw con attendance which = $, but that's a whole other topic). With the My Realms mods, it coudl very well be WotC ordering a cease and desist (or more likely just scrapping the whole MR mod concept). So as usual, it's always best to err on the side of caution.
I personally will not be playing the Epic levels. I will be surprised if I play a character thru to 20th level actually. I hope that the campaign stops at 20th and then does some special modules for epic levels like LG did for characters at retirement level etc
I hope not! How many LG mods were produced for LG characters that retired? Yeah... no more false promises/dreams please.
4e is giving us the promise that all 30 levels are playable. That every PC level is exactly 1/30th of your career, and that you get retired past 30th level. Let's see it!
So what the OP was saying was that he was hoping that he could use the My Realms mod to essentially recreate an interactive. However, by definition, it's not one DM and one table. It's one author, many DMs and many tables and is stretching the concept of what the My Realms adventure is supposed to be.
Just to be clear, my concept would be a group of DM/Authors coordinating to write and run a linked multi-table adventure.
As I understand WotC guidance/goals, stretching the My Realms adventures to allow the traditional interactive is beyond WotC's intention. They are all about creating more depth of experience which can be more focused on your specific group of PCs. You could cater to the theme of an adventuring company, for instance. However, the My Realms adventure outcomes are strictly personal and not canon.
Keith
LFR will have Epic Tier adventures, although currently the plans limit that Tier to CORE and SPEC adventures. I don't expect a lot; to take more than one PC from 21th to 30th level, you may have replay the entire set of Epic Tier adventures. Just my opinion and sometimes things change.
That would be too bad. Either way, as long as we have My Realms adventures for the Epic tier, then we could at least write our own for our PCs. Epic level play is supposed to be 1/3rd of a PC's adventuring career.
Without at least one set of adventures to take you to 30th, it would be like releasing a product missing 1/3rd of the features.
That would be too bad. Either way, as long as we have My Realms adventures for the Epic tier, then we could at least write our own for our PCs. Epic level play is supposed to be 1/3rd of a PC's adventuring career.
Without at least one set of adventures to take you to 30th, it would be like releasing a product missing 1/3rd of the features.
You may have misunderstood what I said. I think LFR will produce enough Epic Tier adventures so that a PC can progress from 21st to 30th level. I speculated (casting doubt) that it would provide enough LFR EPIC tier adventures for multiple PCs to progress from 21st to 30th level without any replay.
The WotC expectation is that everyone will play characters in Heroic Tier. (Think about it; sort of a truism). Many will play characters in Paragon Tier and few will play characters is Epic Tier. Feel free to argue why another model is more likely, but it is a tough sell. So the logical decision is to publish adventures to fit the anticipated demand.
If the My Realms adventures do well, they MIGHT progress to higher tiers, but no one has currently promised that.
Keith
The WotC expectation is that everyone will play characters in Heroic Tier. (Think about it; sort of a truism). Many will play characters in Paragon Tier and few will play characters is Epic Tier.
Over the course of the campaign, it's difficult to argue with that, but I will be curious to see what the play pattern shifts to in any given month as of the end of this year.
At that point, with the quick advancement pace, I would expect to see much more Paragon play in a given month than Heroic play. With the narrow level bands, it is quite possible that a given gaming group might see only Paragon/high Heroic play (and eventually just Paragon play), as most players have all of the low-level PCs they desire.
A local gaming store, for example, that runs two or three tables at a weekly game night is gradually going to start shifting up the levels, and by the end of the year, it's unlikely that a L1-4 module will be one of the options. This bodes poorly for new player intake.
The new mini-campaign will help, but that's just a stop-gap measure, as even new PCs started for the mini-campaign will eventually age out to mid-heroic. (That also presumes that PCs who started in other modules can join the mini-campaign, as otherwise that's no help at all for new players who played a module or two elsewhere.)
It's probably looking too far ahead, but I'm hoping that the mini-campaign is a sufficient success that another one is released in 2010. Especially if it meshes well with the new races/classes from PH3 (say, a Yaïmunnahar- or Shou Lung-based mini-campaign, given the addition of the monk and the idea of "ki as psionics"), that might help in encouraging experienced players to start yet another 1st level PC. (Still just another stop-gap measure, but string enough stop-gap measures together, and it starts looking like a solution.)
Interactives were multi-table adventures.
Aaah, thanks. In that case I can see why WotC would wish to avoid having My Adventures turned into interactives.
The WotC expectation is that everyone will play characters in Heroic Tier. (Think about it; sort of a truism). Many will play characters in Paragon Tier and few will play characters is Epic Tier. Feel free to argue why another model is more likely, but it is a tough sell. So the logical decision is to publish adventures to fit the anticipated demand.
And if it turns out there is much more demand then anticipated, WotC can always change its plans. Nothing need be set in stone.
Epic level play is supposed to be 1/3rd of a PC's adventuring career.
I don't know how often that will turn out to be true in practice. I'm writing a home campaign and so far I'm anticipating that I'll be able to create enough relevant content that will interest the players to reach about 25th level.
So the logical decision is to publish adventures to fit the anticipated demand.
Come on now... in the last year or two of LG, how many games do you think were played at APLs 2-4 vs APLs 8-12? All I have to do is look at Warhorn registrations for Cons.
It would be even higher APLs if it weren't for artificial limits on the number of scenarios past APL 12. And I see the same pattern repeated here. All I have to do is scroll up in this topic. Self-fulfilling prophecies...
Mind you, LFR is a different beast. We're pretty much forced to create tons of new PCs due to the quick advancement rate and the tight level bands. So it's not really fair of me to compare it. Yes, I agree with you that there will always be a need for lots of Heroic adventures, due to the way we're forced to constantly create new PCs.
If the My Realms adventures do well, they MIGHT progress to higher tiers, but no one has currently promised that.
Seems like a no-brainer to me. It's *free* for WotC to do after all (compared to paying authors, at any rate), and it will fill a need. That would be "logical" to do, as you say.
It's all good though. I'm not getting my hopes up -- it's too painful to go through that again
I don't know what the endgame of LFR will look like; I don't know when that is and no one has discussed it. Right now we have the guidance to keep story arcs short, none of these 8-9 adventure story arcs more common to LG, so endgame planning is likely to be simplier. It is possible that the goals might change in the endgame. My perception is that many LG gamers dropped the campaign like a hot rock when the end of the campaign was announced so I am not sure what approach would be best for endgame, if you don't have an epic, finite duration campaign.
Sure, an individual home gaming group might be all ready to advance to low Paragon adventures right now, but that does not mean another individual home gaming group might be considering starting LFR right now. The established, higher level gaming group is less likely to draw in newbie players, and if the group mix changes, then they will need to start 1st level PCs (if they don't already have a level 1-4 PC). The WotC goal is to draw in more people to play D&D; not merely feed the unending appetite for adventures of hard core gamers who are already committed to D&D.
If LFR stops acquiring new players, then I suspect WotC will be considering more than just rebalancing the mix of adventures across the Tiers. So keep supporting gaming events for newbies. :D
Keith
My perception is that many LG gamers dropped the campaign like a hot rock when the end of the campaign was announced so I am not sure what approach would be best for endgame, if you don't have an epic, finite duration campaign.
I don't think that the drop in LG play had as much to do with the ending as it did with how the ending came. LG originally "ended" after 5 years and you can't tell me that folks stopped playing halfway through the middle of year 5 because they thought it was ending. Oh heck no, people were lined up out the door ready to play the last interactives and games because they wanted to see what happened at the end.
LG's year 8 ending came, on the other hand, with a drop in support from WotC, the announcement of a new version of the game, the impending arrival of a new campaign and a lot of split attention on everyone's part. I saw GMs, writers and Triads all "vanish" in short order because folks saw the ending ... and realized there'd be no time, or support, or just plain enthusiasm for it, because hey, 4E and LFR is here!
Not that I'm bitter or anything.
So, I hope that LFR learns lessons from what LG year 8 ... even the end of year 7 ... was like and does not repeat that.
If LFR stops acquiring new players, then I suspect WotC will be considering more than just rebalancing the mix of adventures across the Tiers. So keep supporting gaming events for newbies. :D
At some point, LFR will plateau, or at least level off, unless someone decides to pull the plug on the way up instead of once LFR reaches a steady state ... or heads on the way down. When that happens, I expect somewhere in there to be the usual "so, have we jumped the shark yet?" conversation in prelude to a decision to end the campaign or keep it running.
Conversely, they could just go with a fixed story line/plan and conclude the campaign whenever it is planned to conclude ... with the common sense understanding that if they make a 3 year plan and no one is playing in year 3, that it will just get cancelled.
So, I hope that LFR learns lessons from what LG year 8 ... even the end of year 7 ... was like and does not repeat that.
I don't think it's just a singular phenomenon. I've been active in the RPGA for 8 years, and been through the ends of a lot of campaigns (some planned, some sudden), including Living Force, Living Death, Living Dragonstar, and now Living Arcanis, as well as Living Greyhawk.
In every case, once the ending of the campaign was announced / drew near, I saw loyal players drop out. This was even the case in Living Force and Living Death, campaigns where the end-date of the campaign had *always* been publicized and known. Even so, there seem to just be some folks who lose interest when they become aware that the campaign's not going to last forever.
Then again, I didn't play LG. But they sound like fun.
Each of these points makes them slightly unattractive to WotC: the idea for LFR was reducing barriers to play - as seen with the removal of the 'you must be in a particular geographic region to play regional adventures' rule and the (delayed) availability of special adventures to all play locations. WotC also wants to keep a tighter 'rein' on the way the overarching plot of the campaign goes, as the Forgotten Realms is an active WotC campaign world and (particularly) an important novel setting. The repeated changes in rulership that happened in LG Nyrond would be inappropriate in this campaign.
There is also the fact that some interactives included cosplay/live-action elements, and there isn't much that divides the rpg hobby like that, I think.
I can imagine some set-ups which could reduce WotC's opposition - particularly something like Weekend in the Realms - you could even have a 'worldwide' interactive where locations which could run multiple tables could do something 'interactive-like' but everyone who could play on the set dates could run the event. That might be the best solution for 'world-shaking' issues, and I can imagine ways it could work, but the days of regional administrators having relatively unconstrained control over the development of their section of the game-world are gone, at least for this campaign.
I must be missing something... I don't understand WotC's resistance to multi-table adventures.
To the best of my knowledge, WotC has no ultimate objection to multi-table adventures. The issue is that "interactives," in the form they took in Living Greyhawk, do not mesh with the goals and mandates that WotC has for LFR.
All of the Global Admins, and most of the Regional Admins, have been involved with creating, running, and playing interactive events in previous campaigns. We are aware of what they meant to the players, and what they meant to conventions. We are aware of their positives, but we are more aware than most about their drawbacks. For the most part, all of us were big fans and supporters of interactives.
Breaking things down might help by looking at why interactives were popular, how those very aspects are at odds with goals of the LFR campaign, and what we can try to do as a compromise:
1. Unique content
Popular: Interactives were popular because they gave players the chance to do something unique, that only players who came to an event could do. This often also meant unique rewards. However, it needs to be noted that for every player who was drawn to the campaign because of this, I would guess that 4 players were turned off because they had no way to access this.
Result: While this aspect of interactives created a small and rabid core of hardcore LG players who would travel the world for a convention offering an interactive, it also worked to limit the growth of the campaign by alienating at least as many people as it drew.
WotC Goal: Make almost all content created for LFR available to everyone.
What can LFR do: There is not much we can do about this. The conflict between the two (unique content versus universal play opportunities) is so diametrical that it just is what it is. You can play around a bit with release schedules to make content available sooner to some, but in the end, in this case, unique is the opposite of universal, and never the twain shall meet. Some unique content has been used (Weekend in the Realms) and will probably be used in the future, but for the most part everything released will be available everywhere.
2. Huge, nation-shaking events
Popular: Interactives were popular because it gave players the chance to shape the destinies of the various regions through huge upheavals happening almost every weekend. Ironically, one of the mandates I remember from my time as an LG triad member was that all important events should take place in released adventures, not interactives, so all players could participate. This mandate, if it carried through after I left the campaign, was certainly not followed.
Result: Like the above, many people were turned off to the campaign because they could not take part in the direction of their region, since everything seemingly important that happened, happened in an exclusive interactive. Also, it became a running joke that the fate of whole nations seemed to change week by week by week.
WotC Goal: Since Greyhawk was a game world that WotC was not using much, it was not unreasonable to turn it over to the RPGA and let things run a little wild. With FR being the important game world and setting that it is to WotC, there is no way such things could be done there.
What can LFR do: We continually strive to coordinate with WotC to offer plots that the players will like and that satisfies the various groups at WotC with a vested interested in maintaining the continuity of FR, especially R&D and Novels.
3. Amount and quality of content
Popular: Interactives were a great draw for conventions, because simply offering one could mean filling a convention, and not much work HAD TO be done. And that work could be terrible, or not even really done completely, to be a draw. And no one at WotC, and sometimes not even the Triad folks, ever say the work before it was released in a few cases. (Let me be clear here. Many astounding interactives were done that took an incredible amount of work. But there was also a lot of really, really pathetic and offensive stuff done as well.)
Result: A great deal of content was provided to players under the LG banner that was bad, and that put WotC and the RPGA in a bad light. And WotC had no control over it whatsoever, but they took the heat for it.
WotC Goal: All content released by WotC, be it through normal channels (published products), DDI (digital products) or Organized Play (RPGA adventures) has to go through vetting and review. It also has to be owned by WotC, meaning fair payment must be made.
What can LFR do: We are putting out as much content, in new and different formats, as we possibly can.
4. Multi-table "battle interactives"
Popular: These types of interactives often saw the effects of success and failure at one table affect other tables, either in real time or in later encounters. This fluidity was great when done right. When done poorly, it could lead to a poor play experience. To be done well it took a great deal of coordination.
Result: Lots of fun play experiences, but also situations where you sometimes had 30 people playing at the same table, people getting to act once every 60 minutes or more, etc.
WotC Goal: The game is best played with one DM and 4-6 people, where the DM has the flexibility to make the game fun for the players and making changes to what he or she is running.
What can LFR do: We are investigating and implementing new offerings, where we get some of that multi-table, fluid-play excitement in a format that doesn't break down and turn into a logistical nightmare.
With all of that said, I have participated in this discussion many times over the last 18 months or so regarding LFR, and for many years regarding LG and other RPGA (and non-RPGA) campaigns. There are other angles and other considerations out there, but I think these are the basic ones. Also, let me be clear that all of this comes from me as an RPGA veteran, and not as anyone with special insider knowledge. The WotC goals are my interpretations of things I have seen stated publicly.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
Thanks,
Shawn
I hope that clears things up a bit.
Thanks,
Shawn
Totally. So, like, next week we should see rules for interactives, right?
Just kidding. Excellent post. I'm looking forward to seeing how My Realms provides creative outlets for DMs.