5E and RPGA/WPN sanctioned games....and so forth.

Being a big fan of organised play, I hope WotC will consider making available another living campaign for us convention goers and gameday junkies can explore. BTW, I think they did a great job with Living Forgotten Realms!

However, I would like to propose a couple of suggestions.

1.) Keep found items FREE! I played Living Greyhawk back in 3E and thought it was just plain wrong to make characters pay for items they found during a module.  

2.) Keep the rule that allows for multiple copies of found magic items  to be taken when treasure is divided up at the end of the mod. This way everyone gets something cool and noone walks away with sore feelings. Example: Back when I played Living City, there was a cert for +3 Leather Armor and as my rogue didn't have any magic armor, I asked if I could have it. The player whose fighter already had +4 Plate Armor decided he wanted it too. The DM had us roll off, I of course lost, and the armor went to the fighter. I asked the player what his fighter intented to do with the +3 Leather Armor since he already had +4 Plate. He said: "Sell it!" So please keep the multiple found items rule.


Just my two cents!
  
If I were you, I'd be a little more worried about how they're going to create any kind of standardized format for play in a game whose primary rule for task resolution is "ask your DM".
If I were you, I'd be a little more worried about how they're going to create any kind of standardized format for play in a game whose primary rule for task resolution is "ask your DM".



Yeah. That is going to be a big issue.

The core sounds like it would require so much DM intervention that core play would be too variable to use as a standard. Can't have one DM with the advanced tactical mod but no themes and doesn't allow flanks with another set of modules and improvisition views.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Being a big fan of organised play, I hope WotC will consider making available another living campaign for us convention goers and gameday junkies can explore. BTW, I think they did a great job with Living Forgotten Realms!

However, I would like to propose a couple of suggestions.

1.) Keep found items FREE! I played Living Greyhawk back in 3E and thought it was just plain wrong to make characters pay for items they found during a module.  

2.) Keep the rule that allows for multiple copies of found magic items  to be taken when treasure is divided up at the end of the mod. This way everyone gets something cool and noone walks away with sore feelings. Example: Back when I played Living City, there was a cert for +3 Leather Armor and as my rogue didn't have any magic armor, I asked if I could have it. The player whose fighter already had +4 Plate Armor decided he wanted it too. The DM had us roll off, I of course lost, and the armor went to the fighter. I asked the player what his fighter intented to do with the +3 Leather Armor since he already had +4 Plate. He said: "Sell it!" So please keep the multiple found items rule.


Just my two cents!
  

They need to bring Greyhawk back! "Tomb of Horrors" and "Village of Homlet" and "Revenge of the Giants" should have been a Greyhawk supported system and not this Points in the Light madness
At this point, I play D&D exclusively in the WPN - Encounters, Lair Assualt, Game Day.  I'm glad there are others who are concerned about D&D Next continuing to support organized play.  Organized play isn't just a conveneint option, for some of us, it's the only option.  

My concern is less with DMs needing to make rulings, even 4e DMs have to make some, but with the "modular aproach."  If modules are used both as toxic waste dumps for broken options, and as catch-alls for classes and options beyond the traditional basics, organized play is left with a dilema.  Allow everything, so everyone can play what they want, and have broken mis-matched mess.  Or go core-only and have very little player choice.  

On the other hand, if organized play instead goes with different module combinations for different events, then the apeal of each event would be narrowed.
- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Perhaps they could setup blocks, say five, of games at each event that cater to the different styles WoTC are trying...

Nevermind, that just exagerates the game divide instead of bringing them together.  Welp, here's hoping they've got some idea that fits their goals.

 
At this point, I play D&D exclusively in the WPN - Encounters, Lair Assualt, Game Day.  I'm glad there are others who are concerned about D&D Next continuing to support organized play.  Organized play isn't just a conveneint option, for some of us, it's the only option.  

My concern is less with DMs needing to make rulings, even 4e DMs have to make some, but with the "modular aproach."  If modules are used both as toxic waste dumps for broken options, and as catch-alls for classes and options beyond the traditional basics, organized play is left with a dilema.  Allow everything, so everyone can play what they want, and have broken mis-matched mess.  Or go core-only and have very little player choice.  

On the other hand, if organized play instead goes with different module combinations for different events, then the apeal of each event would be narrowed.


     An LFR essentially has one DM, who is not the one at the table.  It will have to be core.  Very few rules options can be allowed.  Now player options are another matter, and most of those will be allowed [But notice that Dark Sun was rejected wholesale].  A major factor will likely be how much WOTC is willing to support any new game.  They will want to include just about every product they can, while a free LFR may be more choosey.
Whatever happened to LFR anyway? All I hear about now is Encounters/Lair Assault...
    WOTC cut off the support, in part in favor of Encounters and Lair Assault, and it has seriously shrunk [as far as I can see at least].  But it is still around.
If I were you, I'd be a little more worried about how they're going to create any kind of standardized format for play in a game whose primary rule for task resolution is "ask your DM".



Yeah. That is going to be a big issue.

The core sounds like it would require so much DM intervention that core play would be too variable to use as a standard. Can't have one DM with the advanced tactical mod but no themes and doesn't allow flanks with another set of modules and improvisition views.



This.

I'm quite curious how WotC will go about choosing a standard ruleset for organized play, when they've been pushing how 'modular' the approach will be.

A nightmare scenario I can envision if WotC doesn't choose a standard ruleset for organized play of D&D Next is a group meeting up for the first time, only for them to realize that everyone there, including the DM, is using different rules and has different expectations for what the game will be like.
Wouldn't the most practical approach be a tournament module?

What's with the thread necromancy?

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

That's possible, but I was wondering about, say, a group that wants to play sanctioned games on a semi-regular basis. And if tournament modules are the answer, that would imply a consistent ruleset between said modules, so they'd still be choosing a standard ruleset, effectively... making 'modular' play increasingly difficult for anything other than homebrew or more casual play.

The flexibility they seem to want to provide players with just seems fundamentally at odds with highly structured play, to me.

As for the thread necromancy, I figured that was better than making a new thread, only to be told one already existed for the topic.
I am not seeing the difficulty.  But I may not understand your point. 

Seems to me a tournament bible would be the way to go.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

I'm not quite sure what you mean by tournament bible, but my point relates back talk of D&D Next allowing everyone to play their D&D- the version of the game and selection of rules that works best for them. As I understand it, this is supposed to reconcile people coming into Next from different editions, play styles, etc.

However, what isn't clear to me is how this "have-it-your-way" approach can be feasible for organized play, which is presumably standardized. Related is the issue of determining what the core, essential rules are, without alienating any of the player bases coming into Next. In order to do this effectively, the core rules would have to be bare-bones staples of the game that transcend specific editions (at the very least, rules that are featured in a majority of editions or have consistently appeared in the same way, etc.).

Again, as I have come to understand it, the different editions disagree on quite a few rules of the game, both core rules and rules that are more on the order of minutia in the scope of things. This, to some, might lead to the conclusion that anything the editions disagree on should be omitted from the basic, core rules, and left to each group's (or even each player's) discretion. Seems like an amicable enough solution for everyone.

The bare-bones system that would result from this would be pretty bland and boring, in my mind. But that's where all the opt-in stuff comes into play, right? Well... in homebrew, casual campaigns, sure. I'm just extremely skeptical about the prospects for RPGA having any consistency and structure when groups are empowered to tweak with the core rules. This, left completely unchecked, would cause enough problems that I think there will have to be some standardization in any 5E incarnation of RPGA; some concrete rules that cannot be modified by groups that want to play sanctioned, organized games. This seems antithetical to Next allowing people to play their D&D; it also seems like it will be hard to delineate what features and aspects of the game are truly the most 'core' and which are ultimately just a matter of preference.

My assessment of the situation might be wrong; it's also possible that steps have been taken to resolve these pitfalls, or that solutions are currently being explored and tested. These are just concerns I have about making D&D Next both the game for everyone, allowing them to play their D&D, and a game that can have official, organized play with a presumably standardized ruleset.

If you're signing up for organised play, you're basically signing up for their game. Not yours. Any expectation that a single organiser will be able to let you play your D&D is half baked and bordering on total insanity.


The organiser is going to have to hand pick what they use. There's nothing wrong with that and the modular aims for the system could give rise to a variety of organisers offering all sorts of different games.


This could really work in everyone's favour by creating a whole ecosystem of organisations who pick the bits they like and the player is then free to pick what flavour they like. Honestly, that could be the best thing that's ever happened to organised D&D.


Not that I'd touch organised play with a barge pole but I do understand how important a well considered communal game is to the survival of a product. WOTC would be totally crazy to not allow folks to organise games.


If you're signing up for organised play, you're basically signing up for their game. Not yours. Any expectation that a single organiser will be able to let you play your D&D is half baked and bordering on total insanity.


The organiser is going to have to hand pick what they use. There's nothing wrong with that and the modular aims for the system could give rise to a variety of organisers offering all sorts of different games.


This could really work in everyone's favour by creating a whole ecosystem of organisations who pick the bits they like and the player is then free to pick what flavour they like. Honestly, that could be the best thing that's ever happened to organised D&D.


Not that I'd touch organised play with a barge pole but I do understand how important a well considered communal game is to the survival of a product. WOTC would be totally crazy to not allow folks to organise games.




I think I see what you mean... hmm. The organizations you allude to could be either be the RPGA officially split up into different 5E subgroups, or something more unofficial, closer to the DM/group level. Either way, that could allow for some middle ground.

 I'm not normally interested in organized play, either, but if WotC can do this right, and promote something like the ecosystem of organizations you mentioned, that might convince me to give it a go.