Community

Alphastream1 wrote:

LFR needs a massive injection of ties between player/PC and setting. I know the campaign is six months old. Still, we just finished the second truly huge and popular living campaign, and that campaign had a number of awesome player-pleasing links between setting and PC. LFR should build upon what was learned, not weaken or merely restart with a slow climb.

Let me preface this by saying that I do not intend any of these comments to come across as defensive. I think it is fair to say that all of us on the campaign staff want the campaign to be as engaging as possible. That means different things to different people, but I certainly don't disagree with the notion that one of the things that can be great about a Living Campaign is the potential for drawing players into the setting and making them feel like they are involved in shaping the evolution of the story at both a regional and worldwide level.

With that said, I think you are perhaps passing judgment on LFR a bit too soon in this department. (I use the term "passing judgment" only because you went to the trouble to boldface the phrase "massive injection" in your post.) Yes, many if not most of the LG regions did a phenomenal job of developing plots, NPCs, and storylines that people cared about and that unfolded over time in a satisfying fashion. There were likewise a number of core plotlines that unfolded over several years and spanned many adventures. (Love him or hate him, you could only have an NPC like Brendigund in a Living Campaign.)

So I will be the first one to say that LG knocked the ball out of the park as far as offering opportunities for player engagement. They (or I guess I should say "we," since I did write or co-write a number of regional adventures and special events for my home LG region of Gran March) also had eight years in which to make that happen. So far you have seen two regional adventures from each region in LFR. Exactly how far down the rabbit hole do you think any given region could take you in two adventures? I don't remember unraveling a vast web of conspiracy and lies to set things right in my home region until at least the second year of LG. The first year was mostly spent establishing the regional "flavor" (which I would contend the LFR adventures are also doing) and setting up the things that were going to happen in future years.

I will grant that many avid LG players probably feel like they have "lost" a lot with the end of LG and the beginning of LFR. (I had a 16th-level character too, and I traveled to a number of conventions both inside and outside my region along with the "big shows," so I think my participation in LG was fairly representative of the most-engaged tier of player.) I am certainly not going to sit here and try to claim that LFR has the same breadth of opportunities right now that LG had by the time it ended. We don't (currently) have meta-orgs. We don't (currently) have battle interactives or other "sanctioned" special regional events. The writers for LFR have to meet a much stricter standard in terms of getting plots approved and not making certain types of changes to the continuity of the campaign world than the writers for LG did, because the Forgotten Realms is a property under active development by Wizards of the Coast, particularly through novels. This means that at some fundamental level, we flat-out do not have and probably never will have the same level of freedom that the LG staff and writers did. So, it's true -- in some sense we have "lost" some things. We may never have some of the things that LG had, and if we don't, I hope we will come up with clever and, yes, engaging ways to replace them. On the other hand, we might also gain some opportunities that LG never had, specifically because Greyhawk was not a property under active development.

But regardless, I think it is a bit disingenuous to compare the current state of LFR with the end state of LG. I don't remember LG having meta-orgs or tons of battle interactives or world-changing plotlines in its first six months of play either. It took a while for people to get their feet wet and start figuring out how best to provide those kinds of experiences in the context of a new campaign and a new (3rd) edition of the rules. We are in a similar position at this point in LFR's evolution (and it absolutely will continue to evolve -- look at all the differences between the initial release of the CCG and the current release, with another update coming this month). There is certainly a case to be made that LFR should not take as long to evolve as LG did, because LFR should (and, I hope, does) learn from LG, just as LG should (and, I think, did) learn from LC before it, but I still contend that we just have not had very much time, whether you measure time in terms of months or in terms of adventures.

I also think that it is not necessarily the case that everything that previously existed in LG absolutely positively needs to be recreated in LFR. For example, I personally think that despite multiple iterations, LG never really got meta-orgs quite right. Conceptually it's a great idea, and I certainly loved reading some of the 100+ page regional meta-org documents for the regions where I created characters -- but as a system, I think it got bogged down in a morass of rules and unbalanced benefits. It got better with each iteration, and I joined a few meta-orgs with a couple of my characters where it made sense from a story standpoint, but I always saw them as being far more trouble than they were really worth, both for the players and for the campaign staff. I don't know if LFR's version of Adventuring Companies will be the right answer, but I do know that they will be a lot less overhead, while allowing far more individual players to create their own ACs than were able to create their own meta-orgs, and on balance I think that's a good thing.

For that matter, I'm not sure that we need to (or can) have interactives in precisely the same way LG had interactives. (Bear in mind that I absolutely love these kinds of special events, and to the best of my knowledge I am the author or co-author of some extremely large BIs. I know exactly what it feels like to have 40+ tables with 300+ people simultaneously going through a BI that I wrote, where some of them traveled hundreds or even thousands of miles specifically to be there because they knew it would be a one-time-only world-changing event, and it is freakin' awesome.) But for every interactive or BI that I have ever participated in that was edge-of-your-seat gripping and ZOMG-plot-affecting, I also sat (or stood) through at least one other interactive or BI that was boring or unbalanced or just plan dumb. Heck, some people probably thought that about some of my events.

Just because every convention *wants* to have a unique event that no other convention can offer, doesn't mean that every convention actually *needs* or *should have* a unique event that no other convention can offer, because the work of producing those events is extremely high, at least if you want them to be done well and if you want them to be integrated within the larger context of ongoing story lines. Add in the fact that WotC currently expects every adventure outline to be reviewed not only by Chris Tulach, but also by R&D and Novels before the plot gets the green light, and I just don't see how it would be even remotely possible to sustain the same level of output in LFR that existed in LG. (And yes, I realize that some folks are using DME to "re-skin" adventures and offer them as convention specials; whether I agree or disagree with that practice is irrelevant to this discussion, since we are specifically talking about "engagement" in the form of allowing players to affect the ongoing plot, and by definition there is zero chance that a homebrew "convention special" is going to affect the ongoing plot or even necessarily conform to the established regional canon, such as it is.)

Now, to be clear, I am not slamming the door on any idea, nor do I think people are entirely off base with some of the suggestions and criticisms that have been aired in this thread and elsewhere. I absolutely appreciate all the feedback and comments that we get on the boards, in person at conventions, and in private conversations. In no way would I ever seek to discourage folks from telling us what they want to see. And if players are not feeling a sense of engagement with the campaign, then that is certainly something that I, and everyone else on the campaign staff, should be concerned about. It does not matter what the administrators think if the players all go away.

But I do think it is a bit premature to compare six months of LFR to eight years of LG and conclude that the former is hopelessly lacking by comparison.

soccerref73 wrote:

Let me preface this by saying that I do not intend any of these comments to come across as defensive. I think it is fair to say that all of us on the campaign staff want the campaign to be as engaging as possible.

I want to be sure to say that I really appreciate your excellent post and that it was very useful for me to read it. It was really well written and came across the right way.

The things I wrote are really based on what I see at the gaming table. I think LFR does have the added difficulty of both trying new approaches and yet having to measure up to different and good aspects of LG (or LC). Those comparisons can be unfair, from the perspective of the campaign staff. You want time to deploy what you are creating.

From the player/DM base, the comparisons aren't unfair. We are leaving a campaign that offers great connection between setting and PC, with tons of history and regions you know like the back of your hand. We want that and you want that quickly. I don't think anyone expects it immediately, but I think we see reactions to seeing very little of it, even as compared to the first two years (in some regions) of LG.

I in no way mean any disrespect. I have tremendous respect for everyone involved. I am simply trying to communicate what I see in both the new players and grizzled ol' veterans I play with. In many cases I see less energy than I did in year 1 and 2 in LG. I do agree/think it is due to the first round of mods being written in a setting without the setting books and without the rules being fully available. But, as a person that is currently largely outside 'the system', I want to communicate what I see now, so that it can help influence change. I want to share my perspectives and push for continual improvement.

My main area of feedback is the need for better immersion and connection to the setting/regions. I know these are the early days, but the reality is that many of us ARE measuring this by the better LG standards. Because players now play 20 LFR mods of which maybe two are in the same region, the ability to feel a part of something is reduced. Because WotC must control the intellectual property, the ability of authors and plot coordinators to follow their internal stories may be reduced. The state of the 1-1 series of mods, of which some really missed on providing setting (written before the setting books), further create a difficulty here. That's just where we are. I think judging this at this time, is appropriate, because that's what we have at the table, which is the perspective of players, DMs, con organizers, etc.

We should all have patience and faith in the LFR staff. When I look around the table, I don't personally see anyone quitting. I don't see anyone being unfair. I do hear and see patience. I am personally hopeful that the next two rounds of mods will placate our worries and grant us immersion, heroism, continuity, and all that good stuff. I do trust in the people I know that are at the helm. But, the world often works best with feedback.

I offer this benchmark. Right now, if I turn to the average player and ask them to tell me something about each region, I think there would be a high failure rate. If I ask the DM that is running a regional module, as I did tonight, to tell me about the region I am playing in, I also get a high failure rate. (With all the aforementioned reasons for that). We all want that to change. We aren't burning our RPGA/DCI cards, we aren't quitting. We're having a good time. LFR is fun and 4E is fun. But we are also eager for the next level of involvement.

The responses I read from campaign admins are good indicators that these values seem to be shared. I do take heart in that. I continue to play, to judge, to volunteer, and to think of how I can do my part to make LFR awesome.

Thanks,

Teos

Teos,

As another player/GM who is not now, nor has ever been, associated with any of the campaign administrations, I think you are still jumping the gun a bit.

First, it is difficult to compare 6 months work to 24 months work. The 6 months is always, always, always going to come up short. It isn't so much comparing apples and oranges, IMO, but comparing a bushel of apples compared to two full harvests of an apple grove.

However, there are, indeed, several factors that are affecting LFR that worked significantly differently in LG (at least as I knew LG). One major factor is the total difference in the way regions work. In LG, you were, for the most part, limited to playing Core modules and the modules for your region. Which makes immersion in a region's atmosphere/ambience much easier than it is in LFR's you can play anyplace, anywhere system.

Maybe after 24 months, you can compare LFR's first two years to LG's first two years with some semblance of comparing similar things....

Then again, I still want to play in an LFR adventure set in Neverwinter. Which also goes to show where most of my background with FR has come from.... (All the way back to the Curse of the Azure Bonds game series, really. Surprised me to hear of Myth Drannor during BHH/WitR).

mowaca wrote:

This sounds like the typical complaint I get when I request another development group make a reasonable software enhancement. Their estimate comes back as taking a year, or its impossible, so I find the code, make the change in an hour, show it to them.

Its not premature becuase the people I play with are bored with LFR now. Make it more interesting, now. You may be disappointed that some players don't think LFR is that great, but telling them that you don't care isn't going to fix the problem.

Who, exactly, said they don't care?

The posts I'm seeing, to sum up are saying, essentially:
"We're working on it"

If you want "better" mods faster, I encourage you to contact your Regional Writing Coordinator and write a better mod.