It's available at the following location:
http://www.4shared.com/file/80463147/7fb1bb08/CORM1-1_R-TLD.html
EDIT: I had to update it, so it's now the following link:
http://www.4shared.com/file/80483726/e551eecb/CORM1-1_R-TLD.html
The goal of a re-imagined scenario is to offer players a new experience, and is intended for replayers. As a judge you must also have the original scenario in hand, as a re-imagined document only lists the differences from the original scenario.
Re-imagined scenarios are rated using a "Modification Rating", provided by Teos Abadia.
This re-imaged scenario, and the template, is shared with this forum in the hopes that other judges will do likewise, and save us all a lot of work!
http://www.4shared.com/file/80483726/e551eecb/CORM1-1_R-TLD.html
I'm actually glad for this thread. It brings out the issue and forces us to think it over as a community. The thread and document is being handled in a professional way, I feel, allowing for proper discourse.
I'll put my Arkanul changes together today and see what everyone thinks. Is it bad for the campaign? Good?
At the end of the day, we have DME. If someone wants to make changes, the game is better off if that someone can look at what another person has done.
I really opposed DME at first. I liked the LG concept of table equity. But, that day is clearly gone. I've embraced DME largely as a way to adjust for greater regional flavor, though I see its use for other reasons. I would like some boundaries to DME, however. The question is where to draw the line. My turning point was probably Weekend in the Realms. A few people put together word docs with maps and changes that really truly made the game better... my running of three tables was much better for having read through those ideas.
Teos
My turning point was probably Weekend in the Realms. A few people put together word docs with maps and changes that really truly made the game better... my running of three tables was much better for having read through those ideas.
Interesting! I guess there's no benefit in sharing their changes now, but what kind of things were modified?
And yes, that scenario needed some tweaking imho, and had a lot of open-ended questions that weren't addressed well -- so it would have helped us to brain-storm some good ways of handling them beforehand.
Based on a cursory glance, it looks like an entirely different adventure. Even though it is "unofficial" and you have made that clear, I'd be interested to see what the reaction to this is from TPTB (and also Mike Lee, the original author). This could be the start of a slippery slope.
Mike Lee appears behind Terry Duchastel...and hands him a hamburger.
I love it!
I think it's somewhat linear, and has almost nothing to do with the original adventure. But it looks like a fun romp through Arabel. I'd have left the cult as an alternative to the wizard tower, just to add some variance. And maybe left Sir Severin with some shred of mortality. The PCs could find a cure for Severin's curse at some point in the adventure.
When I wrote it, I intentionally left some loose ends to avoid boxing the DM in. However if the DM runs very literal, he may find the lack of definition to be an obstacle.
Personally I love the idea of "re-imagining" as it's been done here. It's apparent that this is not official, so nobody is confused. It's intended for replayers, and that's very clear. Teos even has a change rating system -genius. I honestly don't see the harm, but hey, I'm just a henchman.
So hats-off Terry. Great work!
Mike Lee appears behind Terry Duchastel...and hands him a hamburger.
I love it!
Woot! Very glad to hear that I haven't burnt any bridges with the original author. You may have already read this elsewhere, but I chose CORM1-1 specifically because I thought it was such a great scenario. I make no pretensions of "improving" it, and I even told my group of replayers that it was *not* as good as the original ;)
When our group got together and we were reviewing what mod to replay, we all felt CORM1-1 was the best of the bunch to replay. Still, I wanted to offer them something new, so I chose to reskin it in this manner.
I think it's somewhat linear, and has almost nothing to do with the original adventure. But it looks like a fun romp through Arabel.
Yes, it is admittedly very linear. It's not really "LFR Quality", but it was something that I put together in a weekend that would be entertaining. CORM1-1 is one of the few LFR mods that has a "nice" branching storyline (which already helps replayability) *and* has a nice "moral dilemma" in the scenario. I personally love scenarios that have grey areas and where there is no correct answer.
And maybe left Sir Severin with some shred of mortality. The PCs could find a cure for Severin's curse at some point in the adventure.
That's a good idea. I sort of punted on that issue, fully expecting my table of bloodthirsty gamers to kill him (which they did with no hesitation), but as I wrote up the reskin I realized that most tables would probably try to subdue him. Allowing for some way to redeem him would have made the story richer.
Personally I love the idea of "re-imagining" as it's been done here. It's apparent that this is not official, so nobody is confused. It's intended for replayers, and that's very clear. Teos even has a change rating system -genius. I honestly don't see the harm, but hey, I'm just a henchman.
So hats-off Terry. Great work!
It's very good to hear that you feel the overall concept of "re-imagining" is worthwhile
I really opposed DME at first. I liked the LG concept of table equity. But, that day is clearly gone. I've embraced DME largely as a way to adjust for greater regional flavor, though I see its use for other reasons. I would like some boundaries to DME, however.
I'm not a big fan of DME, either, but I see reskinning as completely win-win.
- WOTC appears determined to exert stringent control over the campaign. Pushing DME to its limits may lead to some sort of boundaries being imposed on the system.
- Alternatively, if reskinning becomes popular because of poorly-constructed modules (AKAN1-1, I'm looking at you), this may draw attention to those flaws and lead to them being corrected.
- Reskinning also opens up potential for conventions to offer something unique. You might not be willing to drive four hours for BlahCon, which plays the same modules you could play at home, but the drive might be worth it for ReskinCon. "Come join us this weekend at ReskinCon. We start on Saturday with a three rounds of a storyline set in the region of Vesperin, written by local authors, which then concludes on Sunday with a battle interactive. (Modules are reskinned versions of Core1-2, Bald1-1, Akan1-1 and Adap1-1, so make sure you bring PCs who have not yet played those modules.)"
-- Brian Gibbons.
I wouldn't want to see this at conventions or even as a regular practice as I feel its important for there to be consistent experiences that a player should be able to share across regions and playgroups.
In addition, even my least favorite modules involve a lot of work to be published. I don't know how fair it is to the authors to butcher their stuff. I think that seeking permission from them here would probably be a good idea.
I wouldn't want to see this at conventions or even as a regular practice as I feel its important for there to be consistent experiences that a player should be able to share across regions and playgroups.
I dont think i would mind as long as it was noted as a reskinned mod. For example if i go to a convention and they have a slot of Corm1-1 and a slot for RS-Corm1-1 i woul know that one is a reskin and only choose it if i have played it before.
I noticed today that Even tho i know what DME is by the forums i cant seem to find it in the RPGA guidlines ccg so may i ask were the guidlines are for DME? Im currious if ic ould take the last series of 1-4 mods and revamp them to fit a continuous ongoing story, sorta rewriting my own mini campaign for my players?
I dont think i would mind as long as it was noted as a reskinned mod. For example if i go to a convention and they have a slot of Corm1-1 and a slot for RS-Corm1-1 i woul know that one is a reskin and only choose it if i have played it before.
I noticed today that Even tho i know what DME is by the forums i cant seem to find it in the RPGA guidlines ccg so may i ask were the guidlines are for DME? Im currious if ic ould take the last series of 1-4 mods and revamp them to fit a continuous ongoing story, sorta rewriting my own mini campaign for my players?
There are no DME guidelines to-date.
However, we've been told by the Global Administration that after many requests, confusion, bribes, crying, and free pizza dinners that WotC/RPGA is going to capitulate and give us guidelines "soon".
The main problem, at least from what I am seeing, is this: LFR adventures are one of the many public faces of WotC. When a game store, for instance, offers an LFR adventure, the running of that adventure reflects on WotC. With that in mind, WotC wants to keep both their standards of content and their Intellectual Property maintained. Thus every LFR adventure goes through a bunch of hoops, including direct review by various departments within WotC. Allowing re-writing of the adventures, and then having them run under the auspices of the RPGA/WotC, completely undermines that IP and standards control.
Note this is just my opinion, and I am not saying that people's rewrites are necessarily poor quality. But it only takes one idiot creating a totally inappropriate rewrite--with objectionable content or making use of WotC IP in the wrong way--and running it for the wrong table with a person who gets angry enough to cause problems. Worst case scenario, the legal staff of WotC decides that it isn't worth the headaches, and we have no more LFR or even no more RPGA as we know it.
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
The text that allows DMs to slightly modify an adventure is at the beginning of each adventure. WotC, I believe, will soon be releasing a clarification on what they mean by this. It is likely going to reign in people who are re-writing adventures, and make it clear that the adventures need to be run more closely to the plot/scenario in the original.
Sure, but the basic problem is that WOTC seems to want to have it both ways.
You can have a campaign where everyone is playing the same campaign, with every table partaking in a uniform play experience pre-approved by WOTC.
You can have a campaign where the basic materials are provided by WOTC and the DM uses them to create a play experience customized to the players.
You can't have both at the same time.
-- Brian Gibbons.
We simply need clearer guidelines of what can be changed.
It probably is not in the game's best interest to have modules rewritten completely, used as interactives, etc. As Shawn wrote, you can easily end up with nightmare situations, with WotC/RPGA suffering for something they did not do.
From WotC perspective, and also the RPGA's, the last thing they want is to lose control/identity over LFR components. You don't want people to consider something else the 'definitive' source of a module. It would just destroy what you are trying to achieve. You do want some freedom for GMs to adjust modules to the table. But likely you want it to be on the fly or with some minor prep work, rather than enabling full rewrites of modules.
I say that as someone who put together moderate changes to AKAN1-1. I made those changes for two reasons: 1) The mod needed improvements to make it more interesting, challenging, and stimulating. 2) The mod needed regional flavor and my players were thirsting for East Rift regional flavor.
To be honest, the latest mods I have played have been really good, and I don't see those mods needing any moderate or extreme changes. Thus, having a tighter policy is not really a bad thing. If the mod quality were really low, then having a tighter policy might lead to push back from the player/GM community.
When it comes to regional flavor, the latest mods are much better. AKAN1-2 is night and day when it comes to bringing PCs into the setting of Akanul. While we still don't have an answer to the issue of players who want to have greater participation in their home region, the reasons for moderate to heavy DME are not as critical as they once were. We should be able to live with much more restrictive DME guidelines.
Teos
this wouldnt be too hard to impliment in this system especially since this system is s much more open than LG was
we could call them DME1-1 (upto DME1-4) (each year would have 4 of these but even tho every DME1-1 would be different they are considered the same mod and if replayed would need a seperate character.
this is just an idea, but its possible, I really like the adaptable mods and this would add a nice element simular to them (and also be a bennefit to some is people waiting for new mods to come out)
if it was up to me (wich we all know its not) i would have the DME mods equal to 2 mods of the same tier level, so the xp and gp cap should be double the amount and should e expected to be an 8 hour session (this would allow home players to complete it in 2 seperate sessions if needed)
It is going to make leveling new characters after PHB2 and Arcane Power come out a lot more of an adventure and a lot less of a grind.
I originally was not going to purchase the PHB2 as I did not want to play all of the level 1-1 mods for the 4th time each. I found it tedious. With reskins like this though I will be purchasing more WotC and 4e products to explore the reskins. I will probably need a new mini, so I will purchase one of the new minis sets and also another character record sheets pack. I hope to see more reskins.
why not just have DME specific modules that people can run that are just basically X amount of gold and x amounf of XP points, they did this with LG for a time towards the end, the modules were basically just a list of npcs that the players had to meet and a goal that had to be met,but how the goals and NPC fit into the story was etirely up to the DM. the only limit was they couldnt exceed the Xp or treasure limits (we could possibly have a list of pre set bundles and the Dm could choose 5 out of the 15 to use or something.), they were limited to 1 free form mod for every 3 months (you could play 4 in a year)
I didn't play the last ear of LG, but are you sure you aren't talking about the DMs Mark adventures from the Mark of Heroes campaign?
As for the whole DME issue, i don't think WotC is tryign to have it both ways as Mr. Gibbons suggests. I think it's a matter of them tryign to get away from the old RPGA paradigm which was: run the mod as written. DME allows the DM some leeway if the player's go off course, or if the player's are running roughshod over the mod and complain there isn't enough challenge, or if the players want more roleplay, etyc. It allows the DM to adjust or modify things on the fly (want more RP? Go ahead... don't like so many combats? Swap one out for a skill challenge... etc.).
why not just have DME specific modules that people can run that are just basically X amount of gold and x amounf of XP points
this wouldnt be too hard to impliment in this system especially since this system is s much more open than LG was
This is something that we are discussing for LFR. However, LFR is not a more open system than LG was. Just the opposite, in fact. So it will be tricky to implement, but we will work on it. Some of the D&D Campaigns like Xen'drik Expeditions had something like this called the DM's Mark, so we will see what we can do.
Thanks,
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
why not just have DME specific modules that people can run that are just basically X amount of gold and x amounf of XP points, they did this with LG for a time towards the end
Other campaigns, such as Living Spycraft, have done this as well.
The problem is that the less you provide, the harder it is to really motivate people to participate and also to get quality work from the average judge. As it stands, 4E and LFR make it really easy for anyone to up the level on a monster. It is a five minute activity the first time you do it and can basically be done on the fly anytime after that. But, really putting together good encounters and plot with lasting NPCs and memorable situations takes a long time. The more basic of a shell you provide, the more work and expertise it takes for that scenario to be crafted to a high standard of quality. The more detailed a module you provide, the easier it is for a average judge to make enjoyable modifications.
Even the two reskins we have on these boards likely consumed a large number of hours, and that's with a fully created mod as the baseline! A really good mod, from scratch, takes a really long time to craft.
I'm not completely opposed to the concept, but it can be hard to balance how much work to put into the shell. Do you work hard to provide something and then wonder why you just didn't keep working to make it an awesome module? Do you try to just provide some hooks and concepts and hope judges will put in sufficient time for players to enjoy the result?
Other campaigns, such as Living Spycraft, have done this as well.
The problem is that the less you provide, the harder it is to really motivate people to participate and also to get quality work from the average judge. As it stands, 4E and LFR make it really easy for anyone to up the level on a monster. It is a five minute activity the first time you do it and can basically be done on the fly anytime after that. But, really putting together good encounters and plot with lasting NPCs and memorable situations takes a long time. The more basic of a shell you provide, the more work and expertise it takes for that scenario to be crafted to a high standard of quality. The more detailed a module you provide, the easier it is for a average judge to make enjoyable modifications.
Even the two reskins we have on these boards likely consumed a large number of hours, and that's with a fully created mod as the baseline! A really good mod, from scratch, takes a really long time to craft.
I'm not completely opposed to the concept, but it can be hard to balance how much work to put into the shell. Do you work hard to provide something and then wonder why you just didn't keep working to make it an awesome module? Do you try to just provide some hooks and concepts and hope judges will put in sufficient time for players to enjoy the result?
i understand that is why i suggested having a limit to how many DME modules would be created per year (4 or so) so that way the main interest of the game is still the modules but the Dme adventures would be the Home games equivilent of the special mods. and just add some spice to the already greatness of LFR.
It is probably better to have a few very open 'rough draft' type scenarios that players can customize, plus some rules on how to do so (and especially on the naming of the scenario, perhaps with something like CUST1-1 and then you get to add the title you want to use).
While the quality might not be high at times, this would serve the process of delineating clearly what modules are complete player/judge rebuilds and which are going to be within the bounds of DME (under the forthcoming definition, whatever that may be).
The customizable mods would likely draw in more players/judges to try their skills at mod writing. Sending one in to an admin, for example, would be an excellent way for them to assess your capabilities to write a mod.
The mods would also give an outlet to those seeking the challenge of writing a module themselves. With some rules, these could even become the basis for how interactives might be written. (Take the Town Fair template in CUST1-4, then make some changes, run at any event... it ends up being much more fun at a con, but can still be a home game if desired).
Teos
As for the whole DME issue, i don't think WotC is tryign to have it both ways as Mr. Gibbons suggests. I think it's a matter of them tryign to get away from the old RPGA paradigm which was: run the mod as written.
I think it's a little more than that. I think you have tension between two different goals.
On the one hand, WOTC has the goal of presenting players with a polished professional product that they can be proud of. They want players to be able to see the sourcebooks, novels and campaign as a coherent whole, consistent with the image that WOTC wants to present.
On the other, WOTC has the goal of supporting the philosophy of 4e, which puts a lot of power in the hands of the individual DM of a session. They see shackling DMs as a bad thing and appear to see modules as tools used by the DM to create a fun experience, rather than the DM being a tool of the campaign staff to run a module.
Those two ideas co-exist together uneasily. The only way the end consumer is going to receive the WOTC-approved experience is by the DM running the module as written, but their philosophy is that DMs aren't supposed to just run modules as written.
Let's look at what LFR staff tells writers and DMs:
You are writing an adventure, not telling a story. What you’re doing by writing the adventure is laying the framework to enable the DM and players to have a great time and develop their own story from playing the adventure.
Make decisions and adjudications that enhance the fun of the adventure when possible. To reinforce this golden rule, keep in mind the following:
You are empowered to make adjustments to the adventure and make decisions about how the group interacts with the world of this adventure. [...]
In short, being the DM for a Living Forgotten Realms adventure isn’t about following every word on the page; it’s about creating a fun, challenging game environment for the players.
This sounds to me like a pretty clear statement that the primary goal of a DM is to develop his own story based on the module, and that adherence to the text of the module is far down the priority list as compared to creating a fun play experience.
Indeed, nothing in the RPGA rules indicate that an RPGA DM is that different from a normal home game DM, as far as their ability to change things go.
In order to play this adventure, you’ll need copies of the following D&D 4th Edition rulebooks: Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and the Monster Manual.
[...]
A great deal of good information on being a DM for a D&D game can be found in Chapters 1-2 of the Dungeon Master's Guide.
Whether an LFR DM has the full rights of a DM given in the DMG is arguable, but at the least, the module introduction clearly calls out chapters 1 and 2 as being applicable. Considering the advice on how to deal with published modules on DMG p. 18 involves feeling free to do an awful lot of customization for your particular group, I'd consider that meaningful.
On the one hand, WOTC wants materials bearing the LFR name to follow strict guidelines, which is somewhat meaningless if DMs can just ignore their restrictions and modify encounters. On the other, they're pretty clear that the WOTC DM philosophy is that the DM is the one creating the play experience at the table, not the module.
I'm curious to see what the end result of this tension will be.
-- Brian Gibbons.
Consider this, the LFR Writing Directors are getting feedback from WotC that in some cases the WDs have diverged from the original adventure proposal (which was reviewed and approved by both R&D and the Story team), and they are scolding us. So clearly they don't want to see LFR adventures which are not consistent with the approved plot.
Keith
If the RPGA/WotC is uncomfortable with the extremes that DME is being taken to, then they need to pick up their end. That means errata for old mods that have bad skill challenges. It means that significant rules questions get cleared up in a timely manor. There are real disagreements about character creation that have persisted through two revisions of the CCG that could have been ended months ago by one clear post on the forum and a single sentence in the next update.
So, either we are "empowered to make adjustments to the adventure and make decisions about how the group interacts with the world" or we are not. If we are, then the RPGA has abdicated the actual running of the campaign completely to the individual DMs. And that's fine, we are happy to run with it. We appreciate the provided weekly adventures but past that point it's in our hands. Now, if the RPGA would rather be the ones in charge of the actual campaign gameplay, they are free to take on the responsibility but it will mean that they will have to become actively involved in the day-to-day discussion and arbitration of the game. If the DMs are not able to say that such-and-such works like this-and-this then someone needs to be and it needs to be someone who speaks officialy for the RPGA.
*because the cake is a lie