I remember at the start of LFR there were people upset at the lack of con specific draws such as interactives, but the new direction of the RPGA (oops, WPN) was to get away from that "exclusiveness" where those who could afford (time and/or money) to go to cons had the most influence on the campaign.
I never made it to any of the major 4 cons back during my LG days, but even then, I appreciated the way BIs and such were done. In the context of LG, I felt like a Yeoman citizen. I had some influence in local and regional events, but even as powerful as my character became by campaign end, there were always big events going on elsewhere in the Flanaess that other players had a role in shaping. As a player, I knew that at least some players where able to have a lasting impact on the campaign wide story even if my personal impact was more local. Also, as a character, I could feel like part of a larger whole. There are other lands, some near, some far, where great events were happening.
I hope the LFR team will consider releasing some current event updates as each year of the campaign goes by. I remember certain specific events in various regions that usually played a part in some of the regional adventures for the year. For instance, there was a great earthquake in the Yeomanry in the second year of LG. It wasn't a plot point in every single Yeoman or Sheldomar module for that year, but it was mentioned in many of them, and the consequences of that event (and how players reacted to it) continued to influence modules (and land aquisition by PCs) in later years. It was a nice shared reference point. The more of those there are in a campaign, the easier it is for players to role play in ways more interesting than elaborate descriptions of themselves.
(a) You don't need to play every game as soon as it becomes available. (b) You can plan series of adventures to get a tight storyline, preferably with the same set of players and DMs (so that the DMs can use DME to personalize the adventures).
I want to make sure I'm understanding these retraining rules properly because they strike me as both useful and cheesy at the same time.
I started a new swordmage last month without having planned him out. (Sorry, I forgot to munchkin, I was just getting a feel for the class.) When I went back to plan him out I discovered that a stat I didn't care about was required for a feat I would want somewhere along the line.
Ok. So he's going in the trash can. No worries. Because I'd rather play a hybrid swordmage/artificer.
Because of the feat choices, his stats are a bit more spread out. He's built to be open for more options without being completely gimped. And I'm going to play him the way he's built because he's a little less munchkiny and I like him that way.
As I understand the changes, it provides a certain freedom for feats in that new players don't need to plan in advance. But it also seems to encourage going for that 20 starting out because you can always readjust later when you're planning on taking the feat.
Urge to munchkin rising... I really wish I understood the intent of this freedom to retrain more. But in the long run, I'm much more attached to the non-munchkin version.
When I sit down at an LFR table, my thought is not how some fella in some room someplace decided that he intended me to do such and such. There are the rules, which I follow. Then there are the things open to DM interpretation, which is up to the DM on the spot. Then there is - me.
So you know, I think the intent of this whole new retraining is for people to have fun. New book comes out with uberbroken feat? Well, maybe your current build doesn't support it, but with this new retraining stuff, you can take it.
So yeah, you know, some people are gonna complain about it, and say "well this certainly how it was in the days of Living Greyhawk". It SURE ISN'T. But you know, times have changed, and things change with the times.
All too often I see people complain about how players focus more and more on the mechanics and less on the roleplaying. I find the complaint really ironic since ultimately that is a decision by the players just as much as the campaign.
Ok, but that decision by players is not done in a vacuum. Lots of factors influence this. They might seem like little factors, but they all have impact.
Campaign style: When the campaign started, the PCs were pretty much disposable mercenaries. Adventures made you out to take any job for any reason and to have no regional allegiance.
Example: When the campaign was announced and I heard I would be in the East Rift, I immediately made a dwarf warlord with the idea that (of course, I thought) I would be standing upon the edge of the rift holding back tons of underdark hordes from invading Faerun. I imagined I would over time get to meet the enigmatic leaders of Earthheart, take out scheming drow, and be part of a long series of story arcs that dealt with the underdark. Instead, I ended up playing a sum total of 3 out of 34 adventures in the East Rift. 3 out of 34!!! Worse yet, one of those wasn't even dealing with the underdark (nor were the ones I played with my other PCs... about 50% of EAST rift mods seem to have little to do with the region's core concept). So, to combat that, I created the Sundered Hall, an adventuring company of dwarves intent on guarding the place... except the rules mean we can only have one PC in the company and since we all play different PCs at different rates, I've played a total of two adventures in my own AdvCo... laughable, really.
The net result is that this PC is the absolute worst PC I could think of when it comes to what he set out to do. He does not defend the East Rift, he does not play a role in his AdvCo, etc. He has not met anyone important in the region, despite closing in on being halfway through his adventuring career. He does not adventure with a stable group of PCs. Nothing about him creates a memorable situation.
Possible Fixes: Fewer regions, more adventures per region, more notable storylines that are core to the region, more involvement with important NPCs, open up AdvCo to any number of PCs per player.
Rules, such as Retraining: I absolutely recall all sorts of mechanical details about PCs in LG. I recall how Churk, the half-orc monk, would yell "Full Powa Attack!" often. I recall how Ancev, elven genius, would bump up his INT and claim to have a "big brain", would stay 50' behind the rest of the party, and would hide behind cover while lobbing his specialty spells. I can tell you 90% of the feats that Boshek, worshipper of Azmekidom, had as an arcane trickster. I can tell you that Lamont of Onwall, despite working very hard on his fort save (and I can name how), failed at least 3 fort saves to disintegrate. I can go on and on about people I didn't play with often but that were from the same region. Daniella Fontaine, Alf, Ingot, Torm, Rockhard, Deadspeaker, etc. The PCs were memorable for their personality and their powers. LG had 2-3 rebuild moments, but what PCs did was seldom undone, because it was core to who the PCs were. Retraining in 4E can mean wildly different PCs. You can be an aggressive leader one minute, healing-focused the next. You might be known for your superior crossbow one moment, then your bow the next. It breaks the ability of PCs to be recognized.
Similarly, the pace of leveling meant we had more time in each tier and thus more time to experience story together. Those starting the campaign at the same time had roughly the same advancement rate and played all the adventures and had a complete understanding of each region. You followed the story and you were the story. Even at low levels you could distinguish yourself. Panda (I forget the real player's name) became a Peer of Geoff after pulling a downed player away from an ogre on a bridge in a moment of (foolish?) heroism. He was 4th level or so at the time and could have died from the blows he provoked. Now he rubbed shoulders with the Grand Duke. Heck, the adventure Return of the Grand Duke, at the end of the first year, had everyone rubbing shoulders with him... and an earlier mod as well! For most PCs in LFR... do they even know the name of the person that leads their land?
Fixes: Reign in retraining. Place a limit of how often, such as having a retrain at the end of each year. This at least provides some limit. And, consider limits on some things, so that the core identity of PCs is preserved. Place language that encourages players not to retrain for power, but for story concept. It is one thing to adjust your choice to mirror what you had expected. It is another to retrain constantly to mirror the CharOps boards.
Canon: A group of us conversed with Mike Mearls at D&DXP about this. Here was this great idea - that LFR would be Canon. It could have meant that the big things we did mattered. Surely not every PC's actions, but some actions would matter. Instead, what happened is that the important stuff was cordoned off, each adventure requires lengthy sign-off and review, fewer options are available, and your PC will never do anything that leaves a mark on the Realms. What's the point of that? Players now have a valid reason to expect their PCs will never do anything of impact to the Realms... certainly nothing that will influence a novel or a future book. But, in LG, for all it's non-Canon, you saw huge player-driven impacts and you have to think that any future sourcebook is as likely to use some of that as to not use it. I mean, awesome things happened in LG and you played a part in it, every step of the way. Sure, the changes were a bit big, all things told, but for what this is - a game where you want to be involved - it was pretty fantastic.
Fixes: Remove the admin/WotC allergy to using important/notable NPCs. Clear some storyline NPCs we can use. Example: WotC could give us one name of one of the leaders of Earthheart. Let the PCs interact with that NPC and to gain real prestige with them. Let stories have impact within the campaign... a lot can be done within the boundaries of not upsetting core canon, while still feeling like the LFR story matters. DALE1-6 with the rumors of other plot threads, is an example. ADCP2-1, with the temporary effects, is another.
Casual Play: Accommodating casual play is great. You want a random new person to come off the street and feel at home. At the same time, when they peer around the corner, you want them to see real depth, not just a flimsy backdrop. There have to be layers to peel back or all you get is a shallow McLFR experience that leaves you with indigestion.
Fixes: Lots of possibilities abound. CORE H1, even all H1, could be introductory, especially designed to be easier and inviting to new players. These could be the mods that paint the picture, set the stage, get you going. Adventures after that could then add depth, especially if they are part of story arcs. Basically, it would mean H1 authors have to work on what this leads towards. Maybe it sets the stage for what is going on in a region, providing just information. Maybe it provides information that will matter for a future major quest series. MINIs should be less challenge, more story. De-incentivise optimization and incentivise RP and choice. MINIs should be full of NPC interaction, PCs doing things that are meaningful, etc.
Example: The recent Dark Sun preview. A total one-shot, but the unfolding of the larger background play (as known to those who read the Verdant Passage or the original DS material) sets the stage for future play. Total intro mod, totally accomodates casual play, totally would work for living play. Contrast with many H1 adventures...
I'll stop now, but not for lack of having more to rant about! My point is: subtle factors are incentives for players to act one way or another. LFR still has too many factors that provide incentives for disposable play. Not just casual play, which is great, but unimportant play where what your PC does and who your PC is has little bearing on play one year from now. That, to me, breaks one of the core concepts of a Living campaign.
I'll close with what I try to do whenever I rant, and that is to calm down and make sure people know I'm not mad at them. I'm having a good time. I like LFR. I greatly appreciate everyone involved. Thank you! I do still want more.
I'll stop now, but not for lack of having more to rant about! My point is: subtle factors are incentives for players to act one way or another. LFR still has too many factors that provide incentives for disposable play. Not just casual play, which is great, but unimportant play where what your PC does and who your PC is has little bearing on play one year from now. That, to me, breaks one of the core concepts of a Living campaign.
I'll close with what I try to do whenever I rant, and that is to calm down and make sure people know I'm not mad at them. I'm having a good time. I like LFR. I greatly appreciate everyone involved. Thank you! I do still want more.
This. Great job of describing exactly what my problems with LFR are as a player and organizer. I like it a lot too - it generally is great for what I need it to do. But I want casual play which makes me care about my characters, not disposable play.
I think it is a misstatement and exaggeration to say characters in LFR will not have any impact on the Forgotten Realms. Quoting Mike Mearls regarding FR is not really appropriate as he does not have any role on the FR team and will admit he really does not know much about FR. He is a senior D&D designer, i.e., the game system, not the setting. If Bruce Cordell and Susan Morris made such statements, then I would be concerned.
Writing Directors may ask for approval to use major NPCs now and have been able to do so since the beginning of the campaign. I think the greater problem for most of the regions have been the thinness of the material they felt they were given to work with.
Getting approval is simple courtesy not to step on the toes of another author which is necessary in a shared world campaign. It is not really that onerous.
The impact of heroic tier adventures will be relatively small. The impact should grow as the tier of the adventure goes up. Clearly the SPEC2-1 and ADCP2-1 combo is a huge impact on the story of Elturgard. One of the NPCs came from a novel. Should Susan commission an author to write a novel as follow on to the adventures? I don't know how what they will write gets decided.
If you want to continue discussing canon impact, I suggest a new thread, as this is not relevant to the CCG.
I do still want more. 
