|
5 years ago ::
Mar 18, 2008 - 10:58AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
I am fine with a few interactives a year being replayed at a couple of cons each but, all-together doing away with them would be a major diappointment to me. I like the larger format that takes advantage of how many players show at a con versus a home game or small game-day.
I like the idea of better kept schedules and deadlines but, I'd hate to see fewer or no interactives even if, they ended up being a bit more of a cookie cutter design.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 18, 2008 - 2:08PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2005
|
There are interactives and there are battle interactives. I don't mind some intereactives being large-scale battles that go beyond table limits, but I would also like to see the return of peaceful interactives, like festivals, with other forms of inter-character interaction beyond the limits of a table.
Tom Bollis
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 18, 2008 - 3:20PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2008
|
Speaking personally, the interactives were the only reason I stuck around LG.
Now, don't get me wrong here - I loved the campaign setting, and many of the adventures were top notch (Dorakaa comes to mind); however, all in all, other than the interactives there was nothing LG offered that couldn't be found in a home game.
The opportunity to interact with 100+ PCs simultaneously in a structured setting was the draw that kept me coming back. All of my best experiences in LG were from interactives.
This doesn't mean that LFR won't be able to succeed without them; however, I strongly feel that in order to make the campaign successful, there needs to be something unique to it which sets it aside from the everyday home campaign. Even if every module produced for the campaign is exceptional, unless there's something that can pull the world and the players together and make it feel like a truly "living" campaign, and not just a sequence of adventures, then I don't see a purpose to this expenditure of effort.
For LG, the modules may have provided the story, but it was the interactives that were the glue that held it together.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 19, 2008 - 10:30AM
#14
|
|
|
The opportunity to interact with 100+ PCs simultaneously in a structured setting was the draw that kept me coming back. All of my best experiences in LG were from interactives.
For LG, the modules may have provided the story, but it was the interactives that were the glue that held it together.
I agree 100%. Without the interactives it will feel more like Xendrick and less like LG.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2008 - 11:42AM
#15
|
|
|
I agree 100%. Without the interactives it will feel more like Xendrick and less like LG.
But it's NOT LG. It's LFR. It's its own thing and should different instead of just LG for 4e.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2008 - 12:47PM
#16
|
|
|
But it's NOT LG. It's LFR. It's its own thing and should different instead of just LG for 4e.
Why should it be different? Why should being different be a goal? I agree that when something doesn't work you should to change. I agree that LFR should have its own feel. However the first letter in LFR is L, living. Most of the actual influence the characters had on LG was through interactives and special missions. Thats what made it a living campaign. Without a chance for characters to influence the game world there is nothing living about it. It is just another D&D campaigns setting like Xendrick or Green Regent.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2008 - 1:44PM
#17
|
|
|
Why should it be different?
Because they're different things and different games.
Why should being different be a goal?
Why should being the same be a goal?
I agree that when something doesn't work you should to change.
And it's pretty clear from the discussion here that interactives DON'T work as intended .
I agree that LFR should have its own feel.
As long as that feel mirrors LG and not XE, right?
However the first letter in LFR is L, living. Most of the actual influence the characters had on LG was through interactives and special missions.
There will still be special missions and con-specific adventures.
Thats what made it a living campaign. Without a chance for characters to influence the game world there is nothing living about it. It is just another D&D campaigns setting like Xendrick or Green Regent.
Quick, name ten things that changed in the Greyhawk campaign setting during the Living Campaign.
And how many were influenced by players and how many will show up in a new edition of the campaign setting?
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2008 - 2:41PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2001
|
Quick, name ten things that changed in the Greyhawk campaign setting during the Living Campaign.
And how many were influenced by players and how many will show up in a new edition of the campaign setting?
Ooh, one of my favourite topics! Changes from the status quo as presented in the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer that I'm aware of...
1. Tenh being eaten. Not a player-influenced thing as such.
2. Duke Labahlah rose to power in Tenh as a result of the campaign consequences from War of the Dust - though, admittedly, it was pretty obvious it was going to go that way.
3. Scarlet Brotherhood got kicked out of Onnwal. Result of some four years of regional modules and campaign consequences.
4. The Brotherhood blew up Scant in retaliation. I understand this was the result of a single, high-level table failing in an interactive.
5. The ruler of one of the Urnst states got killed, and to my knowledge, stayed dead. I've no further knowledge of how, by whom, and what happened then.
6. In Nyrond, there was a bit of a coup d'etat for a moment, resulting in their long-time BBEG, Prince Sewarndt, being killed. Despite appearances, it is subject to some debate whether the players actually had anything to do with it.
7. King Hazendel I stepped down in Sunndi recently. I do not know the precise circumstances, but there was an interactive involved.
8. The ruler of Hardby, Ilena Norbelos, died and was replaced by her daughter. Considering the details in the Bright Lands arc summary don't bear the slightest resemblance to the situation described in the module, I've no idea what, if any, effect the players had on this.
9. The module Immortal Longings must have resulted in something, though I'm not entirely certain what that is. Player-influenced campaign results.
10. The Icespire, overlooking Dunhead Bay, is melting, as per the campaign consequences of The Frozen Spire.
It seems to me that the most player influence on events happened on the regional level, with the Cores being written so despite an illusion of choice, there was only one outcome that was actually possible. Despite it being possible to side with Rary in the Bright Sands arc, I don't think anyone actually expected him to win in the end. The summary has that Hardby weirdness, though.
The campaign setting book question can only be answered by the person who may or may not end up writing it.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2008 - 7:34PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2008
|
Why should being the same be a goal?
The null hypothesis for any system is "no change." That is to say, lacking a substantive reason for change, leave things alone. "It's new, so it should be different!" is not a substantive reason for change.
And it's pretty clear from the discussion here that interactives DON'T work as intended .
Er, no. No, that's not clear at all.
/Some/ interactives did not work as intended. That is not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2008 - 10:47PM
#20
|
|
|
Ooh, one of my favourite topics! Changes from the status quo as presented in the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer that I'm aware of...
11. The Viscount in Verbobonc has changed, with the legitimacy of Langard's claim to the position brought into doubt (and then Langard himself vanishing while en route to Veluna).
12. The heads of most of the noble houses in Verbobonc were assassinated, at least in part due to player choice and failure of several tables at a recent interactive.
"Of course [Richard] has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"
|
|
|
