Community

The_Jester wrote:

Because they're different things and different games.

Old saying...maybe you have heard it. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Why should being the same be a goal?

As mentioned in a previous post sameness is desirable when the results were good and undesirables when the results were bad.

And it's pretty clear from the discussion here that interactives DON'T work as intended .

Interactives work exactly as they are supposed to. They are a big con draw and they allow players to influence their regions. the only negative disscussed in this forum has been the amount of extra work involved in setting them up and running them.


As long as that feel mirrors LG and not XE, right?

No, I am all for free inter region play. I look forward to the game table. Guests cards and the quests sound like a cool idea. I can live without TU's if they go that way. I am all for a better access system.The setting is completely different and the world is completely different and we are going to be playing 4th ed so I doubt it will feel much like LG no matter how much LG we bring along and thats ok.
There will still be special missions and con-specific adventures.


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?

Technically nothing they never updated the gazetteer. In region we saw changes in local government, retired players becoming the heads of meta orgs and story NPC's, we organized treaties, defended towns, failed to defend towns and saw them burn( Flameflower is gone....sorry elves). Lots of things in each region are different now than when the gazetteer was published and many of those changes were dependent on the outcome of the interactives

For legal reasons I don't think any of the changes in each region are likely to show up in a future setting since WOTC doesn't own the rights to a lot of that material. I think the stuff written for cores will end up in the new LGG but that was never influenced by players.

Bottom line the things we did in interactives changed the story in the world in which we played and thats what I care about. I doubt if anyone care if it makes it into the new book, we don't need to read about it......we lived it!!

The_Jester wrote:

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?

The Pale began with a unique interactive that determined the relationships among the important NPCs.

The_Jester wrote:

Which is a pretty damn good reason not to have them identically done in LFR.

In LFR all authors will be paid a token amount so that material is owned by WOTC so this will not be a problem. Also I did not say interactives should be done identically. We should change them so they are better. My point is that we should keep them not just dump them.

Dempster wrote:

I agree!

I can see some excellent convention specials which shape the campaign in the same {way} as interactives, only not localized to a single location. If handled well they could be region-wide.

My suggestion is that they be run at all campaign staff approved cons in the region for a limited time( a few months). The results at each con could be reported to the writing staff so we can still have an influence on the plot in our area. I suggest 2-4 a year.