Community

When I left NoVA about 6 months ago, they were down to only running ~9 tables a month, from a high of close to 12 (across 2-3 weekends, across 2-3 locations).  I think "Adventures not already played" was likely the biggest issue, but one of the locations closing didn't help any.

Checking out their Warhorn site, 8 tables this month, not including Encounters.

In seattle, the Mob game days are running around 4-5 tables of LFR.  I've not kept track of the Pathfinder tables.  I know I could use more new modules... some of the current play seems to be from pent up paragon+ demand, so once the paragon modules are over we may see a hit.

So I'm not seeing a horrific drop off.

We're not seeing much of a slowdown in the Twin Cities -- yet -- but largely that's because we've been pretty lucky about getting new blood involved and getting that new blood interested in moving into DMing and organizing positions when existing people in those positions start to burn out.

I believe that things like lack of new content and lack of DM rewards are excuses -- and I'm honestly not saying that in an accusing or shaming manner. I think that people can stave off burnout for a while if these things exist -- if you're getting DM rewards, for instance, you'll keep running events even if your heart isn't in it to get the new shinies. But I think ultimately those tools are tactics to delay burnout and the eventual end of the campaign, not ways to avoid it entirely.

My feeling is the biggest thing working in the favor of the Pathfinder Society is that it's still new. The local Twin Cities Pathfinder Society meetup group is less than a year old, for example. When something is new, people still find motivating themselves to be easier and things seem shinier than when something's been around the block a few times. My gut feeling tells me that in two to two-and-a-half years, the PFS folks will be having these same discussions on 'why does the campaign feel like its dying' that we're having now.

--
Pauper

Mar 27, 2012 -- 7:46AM, Keithric wrote:

From my perspective, it was almost entirely shortage of new adventures. Sure, other factors also impacted, but it started with folks not feeling a need to push to show up to see the new shiny, and snowballed down never recovering.

P.S. Paizo's PDF of everything they make is a pretty awesome reward. 

In my gaming area, each week on the same night we have 2-3  LFR tables and 2-3 pathfinder tables playing right next to each other.   I haven't noticed a big drop off.  New players are continually coming in, about 1-2 a week, and some players are exiting to pathfinder or home games. 


Frustration with WOTC caused the addition of Living Pathfinder to the game day around a year ago, and a decent number of existing LFR players moved over.  Some players are playing in both campaigns, including at least one lfr global.  

Whether there is new content or not, and changing life conditions are frequently what determines whether experienced players make it.  The introduction of the trilogy system that is easily playable by the same character has been a large boon to retention.   However, slow release of mods sucks a lot of the life out of the campaign.  For example, I was at a local con that only offered last years stuff because they posted the schedule a couple of days before the year 4 mods got released.  Most of the experienced LFR players were playing pathfinder, at the same con, as a result.

Mar 27, 2012 -- 12:19PM, Pauper wrote:

My feeling is the biggest thing working in the favor of the Pathfinder Society is that it's still new. The local Twin Cities Pathfinder Society meetup group is less than a year old, for example. When something is new, people still find motivating themselves to be easier and things seem shinier than when something's been around the block a few times. My gut feeling tells me that in two to two-and-a-half years, the PFS folks will be having these same discussions on 'why does the campaign feel like its dying' that we're having now.

They debuted at Gencon 2008, a somewhat familiar date. Mind you, it's not like PFS is some promised land -- they have their own version of this thread. I just think the PFS admins are more able to do things to sustain it, by virtue of Paizo's different level of involvement. I don't even blame WotC for focusing on Encounter and Lair Assault, which may well be more successful than PFS.

Drop off is going to vary by location, certainly. Forum activity may be a better metric.  

I think the lack of new adventures has hurt.  However, I also think the unique regional feel and impact of the LG campaign -- along with a number of unique events, titles and rewards -- that just made LG a superior campaign, even though I feel like the LFR admins have done a better job of being accessible and are quicker to respond to concerns, etc.  But the LG campaign was just superior -- hands down.  My whole group feels this way.

I think the story area was a nice step in the right direction, but really it was too little (or more precise too few adventures), too late.

Daren 

I have to admit that I was in some ways relieved when the LG campaign went away.  Anything I got involved in and played with the RPGA was Xendrik Expeditions.   I always had the feeling with LG that you couldn't join the club unless you knew the secret handshake, but you can't learn the secret handshake until you join the club.  I didn't have an in and so I couldn't get involved.  LFR gave me a chance to get in from the ground floor.  I also thought it was more open to new people.

Now it comes to the slow down of play in LFR.   With many people I know it came down to the frustration with waiting for new adventures to come out.  Watching the date for an adventure release change every month just made people give up entirely.  Well that is what I saw among players I know...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />

Mar 27, 2012 -- 5:00PM, Drezden wrote:

I think the lack of new adventures has hurt.  However, I also think the unique regional feel and impact of the LG campaign -- along with a number of unique events, titles and rewards -- that just made LG a superior campaign, even though I feel like the LFR admins have done a better job of being accessible and are quicker to respond to concerns, etc.  But the LG campaign was just superior -- hands down.  My whole group feels this way.

I think the story area was a nice step in the right direction, but really it was too little (or more precise too few adventures), too late.

Daren 

Mar 27, 2012 -- 7:34PM, Chaos_Kitten wrote:

Now it comes to the slow down of play in LFR.   With many people I know it came down to the frustration with waiting for new adventures to come out.  Watching the date for an adventure release change every month just made people give up entirely.  Well that is what I saw among players I know

Part of the issue, I believe, is the announcement of a new system on the horizon, bringing with it an official end to the campaign.  Those sorts of things always tend to kill off people's desire to buy books and make new characters, and the slow release of new material makes advancing exisiting existing characters tedious.   

Mar 27, 2012 -- 9:53PM, furious_kender wrote:

Mar 27, 2012 -- 7:34PM, Chaos_Kitten wrote:

Now it comes to the slow down of play in LFR.   With many people I know it came down to the frustration with waiting for new adventures to come out.  Watching the date for an adventure release change every month just made people give up entirely.  Well that is what I saw among players I know

Part of the issue, I believe, is the announcement of a new system on the horizon, bringing with it an official end to the campaign.  Those sorts of things always tend to kill off people's desire to buy books and make new characters, and the slow release of new material makes advancing exisiting existing characters tedious.   

Well the announcement just happened this year.  LFR has been dying a slow death way before that.

Daren

I'd say almost the diametric opposite.  We've been seeing little drop-off, and much demand - we haven't been able to fulfil it because of a lack of available play nights when all the people concerned can play - and because all the people concerned can't play what most of us can.  A decent chunk of the group is ONLY playing, because we were able to create PCs at 11th, and we could fill more seats still if people were able to make characters at higher level.  We're getting some slowdown now because we're running out of PCs at high paragon, and trying to carefully micromanage everyone to reach epic at the same time - and at the same time, balance some new starts at heroic.  We've similarly been able to keep more tables more open due to the level banding - in particular, having a table of 18th level PCs and 1 16th level PC would not have been possible previously, and in that situation, would have cost us a player as the rest of the group left the tier without him.

I'm really not seeing the issue.

Mar 27, 2012 -- 5:12AM, Uthrac wrote:

With D&D Next off on the horizon somewhere, I wanted to share some observations from our local area about why LFR play has slowed down over the past year. This is not a complaint, rather intended to inform decisions as campaign administration makes decisions about what will happen "Next."

I attribute this to three significant factors: the ability to create higher-level PCs, the widening of level bands, and the shortage of new adventures released for play.

The lack of adventures is the single biggest problem with the campaign now.

I think Replay is the biggest additional problem as it reduces incentive to DM.

Mar 27, 2012 -- 7:03AM, Uthrac wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You're probably right that no campaign should last more than 4 years, period.  

I assume the smiley indicates sarcasm. LG lasted 8 years, and would have
made 10, if they had not killed the campaign due to Fourth Edition release.

Mar 27, 2012 -- 8:13AM, bgibbons wrote:

At this point, it really seems like the only question is whether LFR will manage to make it to the finish line at Gencon 2013, panting and wheezing, or whether it will expire ignobly along the way.  Sad to say, but I was more excited about Living City on the day we turned out the lights on the campaign, than I am about LFR right now.

I do hope, when things finally come to an end, that some of the globals are willing to give a brutally honest post-mortem on what went wrong.  There were so many points where it seemed like LFR was headed in a bright new direction, only to have our hopes dashed yet again.  I'd like to at least see the lessons that the globals have learned from this experience get passed on to future campaigns.

LG ended in 2008 after they announced Fourth Edition at Gen Con 2007.
Things slowly died off as people lost interest during 8/07 through 12/08.

Since they announced DnDNext in early 2012, with release during 2013,
we are now experiencing slow death of LFR without official announcement.

Mar 28, 2012 -- 2:03AM, Dodecahedron wrote:

The lack of adventures is the single biggest problem with the campaign now.

I think Replay is the biggest additional problem as it reduces incentive to DM.

Without replay, I couldn't play anything.  Without being able to play anything, I wouldn't bother going to game days, and so I wouldn't run anything.

(I usually play one slot, and run one slot).

I'm not sure replay is a net-negative on finding DMs.

Mar 28, 2012 -- 7:44AM, kilpatds wrote:

Mar 28, 2012 -- 2:03AM, Dodecahedron wrote:

The lack of adventures is the single biggest problem with the campaign now.

I think Replay is the biggest additional problem as it reduces incentive to DM.

Without replay, I couldn't play anything.  Without being able to play anything, I wouldn't bother going to game days, and so I wouldn't run anything.

(I usually play one slot, and run one slot).

I'm not sure replay is a net-negative on finding DMs.

This bears repeating.  Most mods I will play twice, either once as DM, once as player, or twice as player - and I'm really looking forward to playing some of the early Heroic mods which I know only by reputation and in-joke.  Replay value makes LFR for me.  And there's a lot of it for my money.

I suspect everyone wishes LFR would produce more LFR adventures, and sustain a more regular output rate.  It would be nice if we captured the forensics of why that became difficult to do, but I fear that a desire not to point fingers and just the tempo of ending a campaign may prevent an in-depth development of lessons learned.  (Just saying from experience.)

I admit that I was surprised over the idea that many DMs would rather replay an adventure for the N-th time rather than DM the adventure for fellow gamers.  Personally, I tend to be reluctant to play an adventure a second time, much less more.  But I am very story oriented, so if I know the story, then I am not all that motivated to play it again.

LG was perceived much differently based upon your context:  if you were "inside," you tended to love it and if you were on the "outside," you tended to hate it.

Personally, I think there is a lot of merit of designing and implementing a campaign with a planned limited life; I would suggest 5 years being a good number.  You set up a grand plan to devise several story lines with cross-links, and a mid life fresh entry point.   But then again, I like a grand story.  Tastes vary.

Keith

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:47AM, Keith53 wrote:

I admit that I was surprised over the idea that many DMs would rather replay an adventure for the N-th time rather than DM the adventure for fellow gamers.  Personally, I tend to be reluctant to play an adventure a second time, much less more.  But I am very story oriented, so if I know the story, then I am not all that motivated to play it again.

I would rather DM the adventure for the 8th time than play it for the 8th time, that's no contest...

But the basic reason I go to a game day is to play something.  I run games because that's also fun, and because that's how I pay back the community.  But if there's nothing interesting to play, then I'm not gonna go to the game day, and thus I won't be running anything either.

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:47AM, Keith53 wrote:

I admit that I was surprised over the idea that many DMs would rather replay an adventure for the N-th time rather than DM the adventure for fellow gamers.  Personally, I tend to be reluctant to play an adventure a second time, much less more.  But I am very story oriented, so if I know the story, then I am not all that motivated to play it again.

I'm not surprised at all. Players have all sorts of reasons for replaying mods. From what I've seen, some of them are: a particularly good story, interesting encounters, juicy loot, the satisfaction of completing in-game quests, or just to hang out with their friends.

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:47AM, Keith53 wrote:

Personally, I think there is a lot of merit of designing and implementing a campaign with a planned limited life; I would suggest 5 years being a good number.  You set up a grand plan to devise several story lines with cross-links, and a mid life fresh entry point.

This is an excellent idea.

Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:46AM, logopolis wrote:

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:47AM, Keith53 wrote:

I admit that I was surprised over the idea that many DMs would rather replay an adventure for the N-th time rather than DM the adventure for fellow gamers.  Personally, I tend to be reluctant to play an adventure a second time, much less more.  But I am very story oriented, so if I know the story, then I am not all that motivated to play it again.

I'm not surprised at all. Players have all sorts of reasons for replaying mods. From what I've seen, some of them are: a particularly good story, interesting encounters, juicy loot, the satisfaction of completing in-game quests, or just to hang out with their friends.

This is a big part of it, actually.  D&D is a social thing for me.  I'd be equally happy playing board games, or playing another living campaign under another system - anything, really, that doesn't take too much prep work.

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:47AM, Keith53 wrote:

Personally, I think there is a lot of merit of designing and implementing a campaign with a planned limited life; I would suggest 5 years being a good number.  You set up a grand plan to devise several story lines with cross-links, and a mid life fresh entry point.

This is an excellent idea.

I'd actaully suggest something a little different - limited lifespan storylines.  Planning, for instance, to run a campaign which has arcs that take about a real-time year, and have a beginning, middle and end (something like the Waterdeep necromancer storyline, but may 6 to 8 mods long, with some double length stuff etc) - with the intent of an overall plot arc taking longer, and drawing together the stories.  I'm not sure how to handle multiple character levels under this system, but I'd assume something that involves harder adventures around similar plots for higher levels, or something.  But overall, I think shorter sequential things of planned length, rather than one long thing, is less likely to fall under the edition cycle - if you plan a 5-year campaign, and the edition cycle takes 3, then where are you?

Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:46AM, logopolis wrote:

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:47AM, Keith53 wrote:

I admit that I was surprised over the idea that many DMs would rather replay an adventure for the N-th time rather than DM the adventure for fellow gamers.  Personally, I tend to be reluctant to play an adventure a second time, much less more.  But I am very story oriented, so if I know the story, then I am not all that motivated to play it again.

I'm not surprised at all. Players have all sorts of reasons for replaying mods. From what I've seen, some of them are: a particularly good story, interesting encounters, juicy loot, the satisfaction of completing in-game quests, or just to hang out with their friends.

I am also not surprised that the people posting here are in favor of replay.

Most of the folks who dislike replay dropped out of the campaign long ago.

Mar 29, 2012 -- 12:56AM, thespaceinvader wrote:

I'd actaully suggest something a little different - limited lifespan storylines.  Planning, for instance, to run a campaign which has arcs that take about a real-time year, and have a beginning, middle and end (something like the Waterdeep necromancer storyline, but may 6 to 8 mods long, with some double length stuff etc)

The tradeoff for planning a real-time year story arc is that the PCs have less input/influence on future adventures. By the time the feedback data is collected, the entire arc is already written.

Also, I find double-length adventures a barrier for many organized play groups. They are a pain to schedule for conventions as well as weekly meet-ups that might not see the same players week after week.

To be fair, I enjoyed having some double-length adventures to choose from for a "long Saturday of gaming" - when there were also enough single-length adventures to keep our weekly hit-or-miss games going. When there is a shortage of adventures, 2-round adventures aren't nearly as useful to keep our player base energized as 1-round adventures.

Mar 28, 2012 -- 2:03AM, Dodecahedron wrote:

I think Replay is the biggest additional problem as it reduces incentive to DM.

Personally, the ability to replay mods has greatly increased my willingness to DM.

If I've played a mod, I'm much more likely to DM it in the future because I have a good sense of how the mod should go. Also, it's not as much fun to play a mod if I know all the "secrets" (both story-wise and tactics-wise). I'd much rather DM a mod for the Nth time than play it for the Nth time. If I'm familiar with a mod from playing and/or running it a bunch of times, I'm now very comfortable with the story and tactics, so I can run it fairly effortlessly. (Besides, I probably have the maps drawn and the minis pulled out already.) On the flip side, if I'm very familiar with a mod I'm more likely to become bored with playing it.

As an example - I DMed a particular mod a bunch of times at a convention and, as a result, I became extremely familiar with the mod. After DMing it so many times, I ended up playing the adventure. Playing an adventure I was so familiar with was not a fun experience at all. Fortunately it wasn't a particularly story-heavy mod - that would have just made things worse. But even the combats were painful. Throughout the combat I kept thinking things like "Ok, those PCs are in an area burst 1, so that monster is going to do his fireball on them" or "Wait! But those PCs are set up perfectly for that monster's huge shifting attack, why didn't the DM use that power?" I would have had much more fun if I had just DMed the mod again myself.

The ability to replay mods has also made people more willing to try DMing for the first time. There's a lot of pressure when you're DMing your very first mod and many people are too nervous to even try it. In my experience, people are generally less intimidated by the prospect of DMing if they know that this is not the player's one and only opportunity to play the mod. Without replay, people may have the mindset "Well, the players only get to play this once, so their experience better be awesome. I don't know if I'd be any good as a DM and I don't want to ruin it for the players. I guess I'll just leave it to the experienced judge to DM it because I don't want to risk screwing things up if I turn out to be a crappy DM." The pressure is a lot lower if the players have already played the mod before.

The ability to replay means the same mods are played in a particular gaming group multiple times (generally with some mix of new players and replayers). This is great for new DMs because it lets them DM the same mod multiple times which is less work and also gives the new DM more confidence in their abilities.

Finally, I don't mind volunteering to DM a mod I haven't played yet because I know I can play it myself later. 

~ Lori (someone who may never have tried DMing in the first place if it wasn't for the replay rules)

Mar 27, 2012 -- 8:13AM, bgibbons wrote:

4e rules issues are a bit of a disincentive for DMing all on their own.

Why do you say that? From everything I've heard, DMing in 4e is much easier than DMing previous editions.

I never would have even considered DMing in 3e - it seemed too complex and intimidating. DMing in 4e appeared to be very easy so I decided to give it a try. (And, to my great surprise, I actually really enjoy DMing and am a much better DM than I ever thought I would be...) In 4e, DMing is pretty much the same thing as playing except that you're playing lots of monsters and NPCs instead of a single PC. Obviously there is a lot more to being a good DM or an excellent DM, but I don't see how the 4e rules system is a disincentive to DM. (And I have to say - the nicely rearranged monster stat blocks are extremely helpful in making combats easier to run. )

I agree with others that the lack of new content is the single biggest contributor to the slowdown of LFR play.

The AL system and the ability to start at higher levels has also reduced play by reducing replay. Previously, if a new book came out and a veteran wanted to try the cool new build, they had to start at level 1. If the build became really fun to play at level 11, they would replay a ton of heroic-tier mods to level their cool new character up to paragon. Also under the previous system veteran players would try to have a character in each tier (H1, H2, H3, etc.) so that they could play all of the new mods that were released. That means if one character leveled out of a tier then they would create a new character or try to level up another character to fill that gap. Now a player doesn't need lots of PCs to play new mods. 

I'm not necessarily saying these were bad changes. Personally I hated replaying mods over and over again and needing a ton of characters in order to be able to play new content. (I'd rather have a higher quality play experience than a large quantity.) However...., since fewer veterans are replaying mods, that also means fewer mods are being played.

Mar 29, 2012 -- 10:04AM, lorika wrote:

I agree with others that the lack of new content is the single biggest contributor to the slowdown of LFR play.

The AL system and the ability to start at higher levels has also reduced play by reducing replay. Previously, if a new book came out and a veteran wanted to try the cool new build, they had to start at level 1. If the build became really fun to play at level 11, they would replay a ton of heroic-tier mods to level their cool new character up to paragon. Also under the previous system veteran players would try to have a character in each tier (H1, H2, H3, etc.) so that they could play all of the new mods that were released. That means if one character leveled out of a tier then they would create a new character or try to level up another character to fill that gap. Now a player doesn't need lots of PCs to play new mods. 

I'm not necessarily saying these were bad changes. Personally I hated replaying mods over and over again and needing a ton of characters in order to be able to play new content. (I'd rather have a higher quality play experience than a large quantity.) However...., since fewer veterans are replaying mods, that also means fewer mods are being played.

I suppose this brings up another question - is the slowdown in play due to reduced quantity a bad thing if play quality is improving?

I played a ton of LG. Much of it was very good, and some of it was superb. However, I played a significant  number of adventures that were wretched. I've also played quite a bit of LFR. Most of it was very good, some of it was superb, and very little of it was wretched. I'd say that the best LG adventures were better than the best LFR adventures, but the average quality of LFR adventures is higher, with no LFR adventures being close to as bad as the bottom ten percent or so of LG adventures. This means that I'm more willing to just step in and play an LFR adventure, whereas in LG I felt I had to to seek opinions on adventures before playing them.

I also know that, as an LG admin, I released a number of adventures that I considered subpar because of the massive pressure to release *something* (including an adventure that I never performed a final review on because it was late, I had a death in the family the week before the premiere convention, and I knew I'd be getting angry *phone calls* if it didn't come out on time). As an LFR admin, I feel much more comfortable holding content to a higher standard of quality and being more involved in development because I'm responsible for a quarter of the annual content I was responsible for during the LG days. I feel that this makes my work much better and more enjoyable, and more worth the time investment of the players playing the adventures.

Perhaps the happy medium is what Xen-Drik Expeditions used - a limited number of high-quality adventures, supplemented by DM Mark (MYRE) adventures.

This keeps the "official" content in the less quantity/more quality bucket, while providing (and expecting) the flexibility of DMs running their own campaigns.

I never felt the MYREs in LFR were seriously supported, for numerous reasons. If something like that was part of the "expected, core" experience, there would be more to play with a reasonable expectation of quality. (i.e. If half of the LFR adventures were instead offered as "outlines with treasure bundles" for the DM to run as their own creation, that would be less effort to put together than flushed-out adventures.) 

Mar 29, 2012 -- 11:13AM, Uthrac wrote:

I never felt the MYREs in LFR were seriously supported, for numerous reasons. If something like that was part of the "expected, core" experience, there would be more to play with a reasonable expectation of quality. (i.e. If half of the LFR adventures were instead offered as "outlines with treasure bundles" for the DM to run as their own creation, that would be less effort to put together than flushed-out adventures.) 

I am intrigued by the idea of better supported MYREs.  I tend to use MYREs a lot, either to make up whole plot arcs, or to string together published mods.  Two of the other local DMs have run whole campaigns of 10+ MYREs strung together.  I feel like it is a great tool for adding variety if you don't want to play mods repeatedly.

Personally, I appreciate that there is not a lot of structure to MYREs.  As long as I put in the right amount of encounters, the right amount of experience, and the right amount of treasure, I can basically do whatever I want.  I can have recurring characters that appear in multiple MYREs.  I can have the results of one MYRE influence other MYREs.  I can even use MYREs to set up future encounters in published mods (like giving more face time to the Sand Kings before running NETH 3-x).  If Wizards added more structure to the MYRE system, it might easily turn into  more hurdles for MYRE authors to have to jump over.

Maybe other DMs would like more structured MYREs.  I have been playing RPGs for a long time and the idea of making up mods or whole campaigns is not scary to me.  I'm just throwing out of my point of view. 

 

One possiblity that I might like to see in a future campaign is somewhere between what Geoffa describes, perhaps a bit more like some of the DM's Marks had (though honestly not all of them did). Give out a unique story award the DM can use however, put in a list of current rumors/plot hooks from each region/story area that have been left dangling and the admins don't think they will have time to deal with, and then maybe add a new monster, spell, trap map, or even encounter that the DM can build a story around if they like. All of it is optional and the DM could use it if they like (or if they would rather write all their own stuff, so much the better). I think this might be a way to help those who don't have a lot of experience writting their own adventures jump in to using MYRE's (or whatever the next OP campaign would call them).

Also, the small amount of shared content might help bind those that play alot of MYREs/DM's Marks/ETC... to the campaign in a slightly tighter way. For example, if the packet contained stats on a new monster or NPC villian (with brief instructions on how to level it), and that villian occurred in several different adventures (both MYREs and published adventures), you would really want to finally get him (or more likely since you keep killing him, whomever is raising him from the dead, or sending out these bad guy agents with similar abilities or theme).

 

Mar 29, 2012 -- 10:16AM, JohnduBois wrote:

I suppose this brings up another question - is the slowdown in play due to reduced quantity a bad thing if play quality is improving?

I'd say it's OK for quality to trump quantity, so long as you don't fall below the threshhold where there isn't enough play to keep people from being tempted to try something else.

For instance, our group organizes once-a-month LFR sessions, so the batch of mods just announced for Origins (when they are released for public play, anyway) will keep us busy for 6 months or more. A group that meets weekly, though, is likely going to run out of material and be tempted to drift off to something else for want of something to play.

To my mind, trying to keep a weekly group filled with material would compromise quality, and quality is a superior goal to quantity. At the same time, I realize that goal fits with our group's playstyle, and that not all groups share that style. With that said, LFR simply cannot be all things to all groups - no living campaign can.

--
Pauper

(Note: edited because the original response seemed to be saying exactly the opposite of what the explanation was explaining.)

+1 to the idea Skerrit proposed.

The downside to geoffa's proposed plan is that such open flexibility can make it difficult to tie NPCs and events into upcoming events. Running a series of 10+ MYRE adventures is a campaign unto itself, and lacks a lot of the shared experience that a Living Campaign can offer (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Take, for example, the CALI series coming out where the PCs are tasked with collecting shards of the Calimemnon Crystal. Under at MYRE/Mark/whatever system, I could easily have thrown together another "collect a shard" quest with an official story award, treasure bundles, and a few NPCs that tie into the other adventures. Boom - the DM has the tools to run an adventure they want to write with enough structure to have it relate directly to the other adventures in the series.  

That gives me an idea . . .  

Mar 29, 2012 -- 1:02PM, Pauper wrote:

I'd say yes, so long as you don't fall below the threshhold where there isn't enough play to keep people from being tempted to try something else.

Agreed.  Having played in most of the RPGA campaigns over the past 12 years, as well as many of the OP campaigns run by other companies, it seems like the minimum threshhold for an ongoing campaign is somewhere around one new adventure (which is generally playable by most if not all of your player base) per month.

Where I've seen campaigns get into trouble is:

1) When they can't get to at least that level of releases (i.e., they're only putting out 6 or 8 "rounds" of play a year).

2) When they go through an extended "dry spell" of not getting any new content out there -- one "empty" month probably doesn't have a huge negative effect, but three or four months in a row with no new release is trouble.

3) When releases get clumped around major conventions (e.g., four new adventures for Origins), and then nothing else gets released for an extended period (or, even worse, the convention adventures are delayed in being released to the general player base).

4) When too many releases are only accessible to a limited number of your players (e.g., adventures only available at bigger cons, adventures exclusively playable by higher-level PCs, when most of your players don't have higher-level PCs).

5) When release dates get announced, and then pass with (a) no adventure, and (b) no communication from the campaign staff acknowledging the delay.

See what Pathfinder is doing, see how they are doing LG better then LG, steal everything you can from Pathfinder, from the Reward system, to the judge rating system, and profit.

I think LFR has had the following major issues:
Lack of consistent releases. No new mods for a period of a few months was a big problem with year 2. It really put a hole into the momentum of year 1 when the really intense players had a choice between playing LFR or something else. In particular, the people who were very anti-replay for themselves and playing a lot.

Lack of padding in release dates. Release dates seem to usually be of the honest intent kind instead of having some padding to help realistic planning. Particularly when dealing with volunteers, padding is essential. When I was organizing a group of parents to take photos of their kids for a yearbook, I set schedules of when I expected things in by, reviews, and gave false drop dead dates to the tune of 3 weeks. Needless to say, there were some parents who tried to wait until the last possible minute and then some, and I still had everything to the publisher a week early.

11th level created characters. I think this creates a real barrier to mixing of new players, either to 4e or LFR, with veteran players. When you can go straight to 11th level, the players newer to 4e often feel very intimidated by all the choices that are possible. I understand the inital reason for allowing 11th level characters, but I think in 20/20 hindsight, it should have been just for a few months and/or convention play only.

D&DNext. Yeah, that doesn't help.

---------

I've definitely noticed what John du Bois talked about - the poor to fair LFR mods are roughly equal to the majority of LG mods for me personally, though that has a lot to do with how 4e works vs 3e and how my region tended to try for the worst aspects of 3e to challenge the power gamers. i.e. save or be screwed, use of associated levels to cheese out monsters, etc...

Mar 29, 2012 -- 1:22AM, Dodecahedron wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Most of the folks who dislike replay dropped out of the campaign long ago.

I think most of the people who dropped out in those days had issues with the way the campaign - in their view - was structured around being a vehicle for WotC to sell their stuff. The same thing that applies to most of the people who still play - everything can be used regardless of setting appropriateness, starting at level 11 regardless of any experience, lack of an (immediately apparent) cohesive story, no regional flavor, etc. A farir amount are probably also people who had issue with the way 4th ed was structured - not so much the change in mechanics but the focus of the system on combat.
Quite a few who bailed out felt 4th ed was a skirmish system rather than a roleplaying game (or ate leats encouraged one more than the other). Whether or not they are justified, some felt that transferred to the campaign.
I think it is this that caused them to leave, and replay was just one reason that they used to justify their view.

Gomez

Hey Teos (or anyone else who happens to know) - How much AoA content is released per year? AoA content is just released at conventions and there are a smaller number of mods, right?

I think part of all of this is a mis-match between expectations and reality. If players go into a campaign expecting just a few releases at major conventions, then they're not going to be disappointed if there are just a few releases at major conventions and they will plan their play style around that. If players go into a campaign expecting a new mod or two every week and then the release schedule is much slower than that, they'll be disappointed.

As an anecdote... My group plays a lot of D&D. Early in LFR we were playing 1 to 3 LFR mods per week. We were replaying mods too, but mods were also coming out fast and furious. We wanted to play every LFR mod that was released and we were struggling to keep up, even with all of our time spent playing. 2 or 3 times our group even scheduled a mini "convention" at our house where we spent 3 or 4 days straight just playing new LFR mods to catch up. (Andercon in the Game Dungeon. Woot! ) We had adjusted our playstyle so that we could keep up with the fast LFR release schedule. So when the release schedule slowed way down, it was a big change to our gaming schedule and screwed things up. If we knew the release schedule was going to be slower, we could have adjusted for that. For example, play a home campaign in addition to LFR or not have major LFR-gaming marathons to "catch up" with all the new mods (i.e. we could have spread the new content out over a longer period of time).

I think OP works better if there is a closer connection between player expectations and the reality of the release schedule. It's like drinking water that you thought was Sprite. I don't mind drinking water if I know it's water, but it's an unpleasant shock if things are different than expected.    

From ddxp to ddxp, ashes of athas put out  3 trilogies that contained a major story arch.  At the last ddxp, the first trilogy of a 4 part series was released.  In all, 12 mods have been put out this year.

Mar 30, 2012 -- 7:14AM, furious_kender wrote:

From ddxp to ddxp, ashes of athas put out 3 trilogies that contained a major story arch. At the last ddxp, the first trilogy of a 4 part series was released. In all, 12 mods have been put out this year.

Twelve Ashes of Athas adventures this year? I believe that figure to be inaccurate, and even to say twelve in a twelve-month period requires you to count both January 2011 and January 2012.

Ashes of Athas releases three adventures at each of the three large Midwestern Baldman Games conventions (DDXP/Winter Fantasy, Origins, GenCon). In 2011, 9 adventures were released. In 2012, 3 were released at DDXP, with 3 more to be released at each of Origins and GenCon. I do not recall specifically what the release schedule for the Winter Fantasy 2013 finale, but I think it is another 3 adventures.

Mar 30, 2012 -- 6:45AM, lorika wrote:

I think part of all of this is a mis-match between expectations and reality. 

You're probably right, but if there's a mismatch between expectations and reality, it's Year 1 that set the expectations. Granted, there was a huge difference in the level of support offered to the campaign at the start and the level of support offered today.

--
Pauper

Mar 30, 2012 -- 6:45AM, lorika wrote:

I think part of all of this is a mis-match between expectations and reality. If players go into a campaign expecting just a few releases at major conventions, then they're not going to be disappointed if there are just a few releases at major conventions and they will plan their play style around that.

It's more than that.

There's a certain baseline level of effort you have to put in, whether you're playing 6 adventures a year or 60.  You have to, at minimum, keep up with rules errata and campaign rules changes.  If you care about keeping your character's power level up to the norm (or you're the kind of DM that doesn't enjoy being bewildered at what players are doing), you need to keep an eye on new books and Dragon material.  If you want to be involved in organizing public games, there's the effort needed to keep a group going, which includes coming up with something for the group to be doing at their regular meetings.

The campaign has to put out enough material for a player to consider the baseline level of effort (which will vary from player to player) they're putting in to be worth it.

This is especially true for gaming groups.  A group needs a tentpole campaign--the campaign that they're offering at every meeting and for which players come out.  Originally, Living City served that purpose.  Living Greyhawk benefited greatly from being launched at the height of LC's popularity, because by the time it had to take on the mantle, it was ready.  LFR made a valiant effort to bear the burden all by itself from Day One, but (aside from groups which are fine with replay being the norm instead of an occasional happenstance) it's currently not filling that role.

You can have a niche campaign, but that needs to offer something unique that the players aren't getting elsewhere (e.g., gothic horror, prehistoric fantasy), and since the niche campaign isn't going to be able to support regular meetings or many conventions, there also needs to be tentpole campaign to carry most of the weight.

It's not just a matter of a campaign making it clear that it's just about releasing a few new adventures at major conventions.  While I'd appreciate that candor, that sort of campaign isn't something you can base a gaming group around (nor that many conventions), and for some, simply isn't worth the effort needed to participate.

Mar 30, 2012 -- 8:37AM, bgibbons wrote:

There's a certain baseline level of effort you have to put in, whether you're playing 6 adventures a year or 60.  You have to, at minimum, keep up with rules errata and campaign rules changes.

Huh. I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right. Speaking of which, some new errata got posted today: www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/u... It is mainly Martial Power 1 and 2 stuff.

Mar 30, 2012 -- 8:37AM, bgibbons wrote:

You can have a niche campaign, but that needs to offer something unique that the players aren't getting elsewhere (e.g., gothic horror, prehistoric fantasy), and since the niche campaign isn't going to be able to support regular meetings or many conventions, there also needs to be tentpole campaign to carry most of the weight.

Exactly.  As cool as Ashes of Athas may be, I doubt it has the draw to be that "tentpole" for a convention.

I'll also note another issue with a campaign which is only irregularly available for its players (for whatever reason) -- some players may find it difficult to come back to a character, and a campaign, which they haven't played for an extended period.  From the character standpoint, it means re-learning your character's personality, as well as his abilities ("what can I do, again?")  From the campaign standpoint, unless the player is good at taking notes, it can be difficult to come back to a storyline after a number of months, and remember what's going on.  For me, that was a *huge* problem with the quests / story arcs in years 1 and 2 of LFR...it might be a year between playing part 1 and 2 of a quest, and I simply couldn't remember what the heck the story was about in the first place.

Mar 30, 2012 -- 8:37AM, bgibbons wrote:

There's a certain baseline level of effort you have to put in, whether you're playing 6 adventures a year or 60.  You have to, at minimum, keep up with rules errata and campaign rules changes. 

I'd narrow that down a bit. I'd say the leaders (formal or informal) of a given play group need to do that, but the individuals who just want to play might not need to. In my old group in Baltimore, I'd say there were four or five people who really tracked errata and rules changes, and the important ones were disseminated from there. 

Mar 27, 2012 -- 5:12AM, Uthrac wrote:

Our players now are whittled down to new players who are just discovering the campaign.

I attribute this to three significant factors: the ability to create higher-level PCs, the widening of level bands, and the shortage of new adventures released for play.

I attribute it to WotC allocating their marketting money (and focus) away from LFR and towards other products. Not that I'm faulting them or anything, but this effectively forced stores (and some Cons) to drop some LFR in favor of running newer stuff (lair assault, encounters, etc.). So the decline in LFR is an expected result.

fwiw: for the three items that you cited, my own experience has actually been opposite. But I respect your viewpoint.

Mar 29, 2012 -- 10:16AM, JohnduBois wrote:

Mar 29, 2012 -- 10:04AM, lorika wrote:

I agree with others that the lack of new content is the single biggest contributor to the slowdown of LFR play.

The AL system and the ability to start at higher levels has also reduced play by reducing replay. Previously, if a new book came out and a veteran wanted to try the cool new build, they had to start at level 1. If the build became really fun to play at level 11, they would replay a ton of heroic-tier mods to level their cool new character up to paragon. Also under the previous system veteran players would try to have a character in each tier (H1, H2, H3, etc.) so that they could play all of the new mods that were released. That means if one character leveled out of a tier then they would create a new character or try to level up another character to fill that gap. Now a player doesn't need lots of PCs to play new mods. 

I'm not necessarily saying these were bad changes. Personally I hated replaying mods over and over again and needing a ton of characters in order to be able to play new content. (I'd rather have a higher quality play experience than a large quantity.) However...., since fewer veterans are replaying mods, that also means fewer mods are being played.

I suppose this brings up another question - is the slowdown in play due to reduced quantity a bad thing if play quality is improving?

I would rather have Year 1 (high quantity, average quality)
than Year 3 (little quantity, good quality) given the option.

Mar 31, 2012 -- 12:35PM, Dodecahedron wrote:

I would rather have Year 1 (high quantity, average quality) than Year 3 (little quantity, good quality) given the option.

Oof, tough choice. There were a lot of forgettable modules in year 1, and I do like it when there are story arcs that make it feel worthwhile to play all the modules for something more than "and you get some bonus XP and maybe a special bundle".

On the other hand, I feel like I've played nearly all the modules being run these days. When I went by one of those NoVA game days that kilpatds mentioned two weeks ago, quite a few people were surprised to see me - I hadn't attended this year until then. I'm not really interested in double-running slots; that ends up feeling more like work than fun.

I guess I concur.

Mar 31, 2012 -- 12:35PM, Dodecahedron wrote:

I suppose this brings up another question - is the slowdown in play due to reduced quantity a bad thing if play quality is improving?

I would rather have Year 1 (high quantity, average quality)
than Year 3 (little quantity, good quality) given the option.

It really isn't an either-or option necessarily. There are over a hundred mods available in Dungeon, I think. As an example, though they haven't been adapted yet, there's the whole series of Against the Giants updated for 4e. Hand out a MYRE's worth of XP/Gold/Magic items for each 4 hour time period of play.

Or start up a home game set in FR that takes advantage of LFR to supplement. If you treat each home game as a MYRE, then that relieves a lot of the burden on the DM to deal with gold/xp calculations. The whole CORM plots could easily have a campaign based on them, including the NETH and ELTU mods.

Apr 1, 2012 -- 5:35PM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

Mar 31, 2012 -- 12:35PM, Dodecahedron wrote:

I suppose this brings up another question - is the slowdown in play due to reduced quantity a bad thing if play quality is improving?

I would rather have Year 1 (high quantity, average quality)
than Year 3 (little quantity, good quality) given the option.

It really isn't an either-or option necessarily. There are over a hundred mods available in Dungeon, I think. As an example, though they haven't been adapted yet, there's the whole series of Against the Giants updated for 4e. Hand out a MYRE's worth of XP/Gold/Magic items for each 4 hour time period of play.

Or start up a home game set in FR that takes advantage of LFR to supplement. If you treat each home game as a MYRE, then that relieves a lot of the burden on the DM to deal with gold/xp calculations. The whole CORM plots could easily have a campaign based on them, including the NETH and ELTU mods.

I would like the happy midpoint. 

Mar 30, 2012 -- 6:45AM, lorika wrote:

Hey Teos (or anyone else who happens to know) - How much AoA content is released per year? AoA content is just released at conventions and there are a smaller number of mods, right?

It is important to note that we shouldn't/can't compare LFR and AoA - they are really different with very different goals.

With Ashes of Athas, we wanted this to complement LFR play. That immediately means that it can't have 20 adventures a year. It has to fit into nearly any player's play budget. We also wanted it to be a convention draw. We also wanted it to be story rich and to use story arcs around one single story.

All of these and more factors drove the current model: 9 adventures per year, premiering in chapters of 3 adventures each at the 3 largest D&D conventions (DDXP/Winter Fantasy, Origins, Gen Con - all run by Baldman Games). We have further been able to get approval for limited home play for each Chapter - generally a few months when they can be ordered (and the window starts after the second convention).

So, Chapter 1 was 3 adventures (AOA1-1, 1-2, 1-3) at D&DXP 2011 and they then ran at Origins and then went out for home play. In nearly every way the model has been fantastic. We see a lot of people that will devote a day to Ashes of Athas (a much smaller set devote 2 so they can catch up on a previous missed chapter). We see a lot of ordering. For our small/modest goals, it has been off-the-charts.

It isn't easy to try to apply this to future organized play, especially if we are looking at a new major campaign. For something like a future LFR, I think it does show support for increased story, for strong story arcs, and for con-first premieres with home play. I think tweaking adventure design (such as the use of Death Certificates) has promise for the future to increase involvement. But in reality I would expect that any future OP campaign needs to be re-envisioned from the ground up by talented people willing to rethink everything. Our AoA success has in many ways been having some great people with which we could do that.

And, just to make it clear, I'm a wimp. 9 adventures a year has me gasping for air. We work extremely hard on quality and it is absolutely exhausting. I can't imagine AoA doing 20 adventures a year without envisioning a different process, larger team, and an earlier retirement for me!

Edit: I should add that I firmly believe 5 years is the maximum length desirable for the main organized play campaign (and fewer for others). Yes, it can go longer, but after 5 years it becomes incredibly complicated behind the scenes, the innovation drops, the fan base begins to really change, and you begin missing out on benefits that would have been seen with a new campaign. That can seem really wrong to those playing, but the more I learn about the behind-the-scenes reality, the more true this becomes for me.

Mar 27, 2012 -- 5:12AM, Uthrac wrote:

With D&D Next off on the horizon somewhere, I wanted to share some observations from our local area about why LFR play has slowed down over the past year.

Two weekends ago we had our area convention. In the past, LFR has been really dominant in our RPGA play. We had tons of motivated DMs and players - veterans from LG and new blood. You could feel the exuberance, the commitment, and the community.

Last year we saw a strong drop-off in home LFR play, followed by no attendance at some of the free game days thrown by the convention. This year we saw just one slot 0 take place for the BI, and maybe half of the usual crowd was involved in DMing. At the convention we ran fewer tables - when you take out Ashes of Athas, Shadowrun, Spycraft, and look at just LFR the numbers were down sharply.

It is worth noting that three years ago I couldn't sell anyone on Spycraft, Shadowrun, or L5R. This year I had a full Spycraft table. Incredible.

More jarring, most slots had as many PFS tables as were being run for LFR. In most cases, there were more PFS than LFR. This is up from 0 PFS in previous years. The organizers and DMs were exuberant, committed, and part of a community. They had pregens, posters, loot provided by Paizo, message boards that attract fans, etc.

The strange thing is that LFR is better than ever. With fewer regions, tighter story arcs with 3 simultaneous adventure releases, better story and RP, better encounter design... it should be a smash success. I can't get players to playtest a new BI.

I attribute this to several factors. First and foremost, disposable play. This includes adventure quality, but more importantly was a whole host of factors in year 1 and even 2 where it really didn't matter if you had played an adventure or not. Not only did your EAST1-1 accomplishments not matter in other regions, they really didn't matter in EAST1-2 either. Low RP, playing only 3 of 30 adventures in your home region, lack of metaplots, lack of PC impact affecting future story, lack of story and setting in early mods... these, to me, were all things that would erode the campaign later.

Initially there was great interest. New edition, new campaign, new PCs... we would play a mod three times just to see our PCs advance and play the game we loved. We had stores running multiple adventures every day of the week on top of home sessions and two more stores running LFR and convention play!

The straw that broke the camel's back was really the lack of reliable adventure releases. This is what began to communicate "things aren't right" and "change your plans" to every player, regardless of whether they frequented forums, loved story, or anything else. It further caused replay to sustain the incredibly high play levels, which exacerbated the campaign's problems (Play a mod you don't find interesting mod twice! Bring another PC into an adventure where what you do doesn't affect the campaign!). A secondary "straw" was the set of rules regarding things like high level play. Those created a feeling amongst players that this campaign was even more about one-shot disposable play. We had judges that never ran an LFR adventure again after the announcement. But, I think in total it was really a minor component when compared to the other two factors.

What I saw was that the lack of releases took the wind out of gamers' sails and while stewing they awoke to realize they wanted more out of a campaign. Instead of waiting to see if it would improve, they began to play Shadowrun Missions and other OP and especially began to create story-rich home games. Nearly every big-time LFR player is still playing a lot (more than twice a week, some 4) but all in home games. By the time LFR improved they were enjoying their new reality.

I do think other factors are worth mentioning. The lack of rewards was, I think, something the kept them from coming back to LFR. It made them feel that they were taken for granted... or at the very least that they had no compelling reason to work on OP instead of a home campaign. I would say that in this era of social media and online communities, LFR fell short in creating a strong community. PFS has really empowered people to step up - including gamers that had no experience in stepping up before. The death of the region as something important (or the Faction in Eberron and PFS) has hurt LFR - you need an allegiance and a story line to care about your gaming. Strong integration between story, setting, and PC is what made LG superior to most home games. That really was lacking in early LFR.

This is tied into community and social media, but a further problem was the inability to bring in new blood on a continual basis. LG had a club mentality, but it actually had a clubs mentality. We had old timers, new comers, adventuring company x, etc. While that may not be ideal, it provided a way for a new player to find their place. They could find a group and build a community. LFR never had that (but look at the initial interest in Adventuring Companies for what could have been). LFR needed vehicles for bringing in new players. New players actually are very important in sustaining veteran players. New DMs let veteran DMs play. Veterans delight in helping new gamers. It is an important part of growth. LFR should be continually attracting new players to these forums and to the game itself. I've discussed a number of possible solutions for the challenges of future OP, but having on-ramps for new players is amongst the most important.

I want to be clear that I really dig what the LFR campaign is doing. I do wish more of my area players could see the current state and that new blood was being brought in (as PFS is doing).

Apr 4, 2012 -- 1:23PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Mar 30, 2012 -- 6:45AM, lorika wrote:

Hey Teos (or anyone else who happens to know) - How much AoA content is released per year? AoA content is just released at conventions and there are a smaller number of mods, right?

Edit: I should add that I firmly believe 5 years is the maximum length desirable for the main organized play campaign (and fewer for others). Yes, it can go longer, but after 5 years it becomes incredibly complicated behind the scenes, the innovation drops, the fan base begins to really change, and you begin missing out on benefits that would have been seen with a new campaign. That can seem really wrong to those playing, but the more I learn about the behind-the-scenes reality, the more true this becomes for me.

Really? What about Living Greyhawk at 8 years? Would you have rebooted after 5 years?

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:56PM, Dodecahedron wrote:

Really? What about Living Greyhawk at 8 years? Would you have rebooted after 5 years?

Yes! I think the LG campaign at 5 years had too great a disparity between regions and the rules and character re-makes had gone too far. I think the campaign was dividing up the audience into haves and have-nots and similarly along new and old-hat. I can also argue that at the admin level there were... cracks in the foundation that were just being cheaply patched up rather than resolved. On the story side, it is interesting to note that several regions (often the strongest) had a strong 5 year story arc. It is very hard to make a story arc longer than 5 years that feels cohesive.

There may have been strong benefits if the campaign had ended on a really strong note (especially if designed that way from the start) and to then turn around and with great energy create the next iteration (where everyone would be new, everyone on the same page, incorporate lessons learned, etc.).

So, yeah, I would argue that all living campaigns should have a duration no longer than 5 years (4 may be better) with the goal of taking a hard look in years 3 and 4 for when exactly to reboot and how to do so, such that you roll out the new iteration in a positive way.

Imagine this: LFR is a 3-year story arc where you start in Cormyr. At mid heroic you resolve the current problems but learn they are linked to the Dalelands. You begin to address these issues, finding connections to Netheril through the end of Heroic, with some travel to other regions. Netheril becomes a greater focus (and the Underdark and perhaps Elturgard/plaguelands) in Paragon, revealing how the gods themselves factor into this. In Epic you move to the planes, dipping back into the prime at times for major events. The end of Epic resolves the 3-year arc.

Throughout all of this, there is integration to the product line (a visit to Neverwinter, etc.) and various ways to play more: ways to count Lair Assault, ways to use DDI to extend your play at any tier of your preference, ways to on-ramp into the campaign through Encounters and advance quickly in level, etc.

At the conclusion the campaign then reboots, this time with a new tale resulting from the old one. Returning players gain some comfort from the old campaign, but that knowledge isn't essential (it is written as if you were a new player). You start again in Heroic, this time in Calmishan...

That isn't perfect, but I think there are some advantages with something like this.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 10:37AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:56PM, Dodecahedron wrote:

Really? What about Living Greyhawk at 8 years? Would you have rebooted after 5 years?

Yes! I think the LG campaign at 5 years had too great a disparity between regions and the rules and character re-makes had gone too far. I think the campaign was dividing up the audience into haves and have-nots and similarly along new and old-hat. I can also argue that at the admin level there were... cracks in the foundation that were just being cheaply patched up rather than resolved. On the story side, it is interesting to note that several regions (often the strongest) had a strong 5 year story arc. It is very hard to make a story arc longer than 5 years that feels cohesive.

There may have been strong benefits if the campaign had ended on a really strong note (especially if designed that way from the start) and to then turn around and with great energy create the next iteration (where everyone would be new, everyone on the same page, incorporate lessons learned, etc.).

So, yeah, I would argue that all living campaigns should have a duration no longer than 5 years (4 may be better) with the goal of taking a hard look in years 3 and 4 for when exactly to reboot and how to do so, such that you roll out the new iteration in a positive way.

Imagine this: LFR is a 3-year story arc where you start in Cormyr. At mid heroic you resolve the current problems but learn they are linked to the Dalelands. You begin to address these issues, finding connections to Netheril through the end of Heroic, with some travel to other regions. Netheril becomes a greater focus (and the Underdark and perhaps Elturgard/plaguelands) in Paragon, revealing how the gods themselves factor into this. In Epic you move to the planes, dipping back into the prime at times for major events. The end of Epic resolves the 3-year arc.

Throughout all of this, there is integration to the product line (a visit to Neverwinter, etc.) and various ways to play more: ways to count Lair Assault, ways to use DDI to extend your play at any tier of your preference, ways to on-ramp into the campaign through Encounters and advance quickly in level, etc.

At the conclusion the campaign then reboots, this time with a new tale resulting from the old one. Returning players gain some comfort from the old campaign, but that knowledge isn't essential (it is written as if you were a new player). You start again in Heroic, this time in Calmishan...

That isn't perfect, but I think there are some advantages with something like this.

I think that *especially* Living Greyhawk would have benefitted from a predetermined conclusion time (although I think the specific amount of time is weebly-wobbly). The way LG ended, with the Triads needed to revamp adventures that are already "done" in order to make it to the conclusion 9 months later with anything that made sense, turned a large number of people - some Triad members included - off to WotC Organized Play entirely. Knowing in advance when the campaign was ending and how mthat adventures that gave them would have been a huge benefit in reducing Triad stress and reducing backlash about the end of a popular campaign.

Interesting thread. I'd like to chime in with a few factors that I think haven't been discussed. While I agree with a lot that's been said, particularly about lack of new content...rather than continue to beat that horse, I'd like to add some different thoughts.

• Home/Private Play - LFR supported the playing of modules in a private setting, which as I understand was fairly new to organized play. (I never learned the secret handshake for LG). I can't say that this was a bad thing, as I've played and DM'd several private games. Some were for players who would never consider playing in a game store, others were simply LFR regulars who wanted to get in an extra game or play a double-length mod.
   
  However, for good or ill, this had another, probably unintended, consequence. I saw a number of veteran players drop out of game-day play to play their own home games. They kept their LFR characters, and brought them out only for BI mods at conventions. This lead to fewer tables in Organized Play, and these veterans were never available for the sort of mentorship one would hope to see for newer players.
  
  I'm not saying private play was a mistake...far from it. However, if one wants to consider all the factors in reduced public play attendence, this has to be on the list.

• The EPIC Campaign - I am DMing a group of 22nd level characters through EPIC 3-2. One of my players in that group is DMing myself and 5 others through EPIC 3-1. Due to the enormous length of these modules, each module is going to require at least two sessions. Both groups want to finish out the EPIC campaign.
  
  The existence of the EPIC modules, and the opportunity to play/DM them, and the time that takes, are frankly in direct competition with LFR gamedays.
  
• Big Cons Are All That Matters - At this point, LFR has completely degenerated into DDXP and Gen Con only. Releases are targeted to only appear at these events, with perhaps a mild nod to Origins. Furthermore, not only are modules only released at certain events, but they are then simply not released to the general public. To date, over two months after DDXP, there are modules that were played and enjoyed at DDXP are not available to the general public through official channels.
  
• No Sharing of MYRE - Given the lack of new content available, the arguments against sharing MYRE adventures are simply invalid. Furthermore, sharing could generate a community through which more authors are encouraged to participate, and could be a natural stepping stone to generating more official campaign content.

I probably shouldn't, but I'll bite:

Apr 6, 2012 -- 11:55AM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

Interesting thread. I'd like to chime in with a few factors that I think haven't been discussed. While I agree with a lot that's been said, particularly about lack of new content...rather than continue to beat that horse, I'd like to add some different thoughts.

• Home/Private Play - LFR supported the playing of modules in a private setting, which as I understand was fairly new to organized play. (I never learned the secret handshake for LG). I can't say that this was a bad thing, as I've played and DM'd several private games. Some were for players who would never consider playing in a game store, others were simply LFR regulars who wanted to get in an extra game or play a double-length mod.
   
  However, for good or ill, this had another, probably unintended, consequence. I saw a number of veteran players drop out of game-day play to play their own home games. They kept their LFR characters, and brought them out only for BI mods at conventions. This lead to fewer tables in Organized Play, and these veterans were never available for the sort of mentorship one would hope to see for newer players.
  
  I'm not saying private play was a mistake...far from it. However, if one wants to consider all the factors in reduced public play attendence, this has to be on the list.

I'm really confused as to what you mean by "the secret handshake" - the ordering system for Living Greyhawk Core adventures was exactly the same as it was for LFR adventures early on (be a Herald DM, register an event, request adventures), with ordering for LG regional events having one extra step (e-mail your region's Point of Contact).

• The EPIC Campaign - I am DMing a group of 22nd level characters through EPIC 3-2. One of my players in that group is DMing myself and 5 others through EPIC 3-1. Due to the enormous length of these modules, each module is going to require at least two sessions. Both groups want to finish out the EPIC campaign.
  
  The existence of the EPIC modules, and the opportunity to play/DM them, and the time that takes, are frankly in direct competition with LFR gamedays.

Huh? LFR is in competition with LFR? That flies pretty directly in the face of most of the "not enough content" complaints I'm hearing from most players.

• Big Cons Are All That Matters - At this point, LFR has completely degenerated into DDXP and Gen Con only. Releases are targeted to only appear at these events, with perhaps a mild nod to Origins. Furthermore, not only are modules only released at certain events, but they are then simply not released to the general public. To date, over two months after DDXP, there are modules that were played and enjoyed at DDXP are not available to the general public through official channels.

DDXP 2012 had the following LFR content: Three regional adventures (Netheril), two SPEC adventures, one BI, one EPIC = ten rounds of content.

Origins 2012, by comparison, has the following announced LFR content: Three regional adventures (Calimshan), two SPEC adventures, one BI = seven rounds of content.

Looking at last year:
GenCon 2011: Six regional adventures and one SPEC = seven rounds of content.
Origins 2011: Five and a half regional adventures and one BI = seven and a half rounds of content.
DDXP 2011: I don't recall exactly, but I remember two SPEC, two regional (ELTU), one EPIC, and one BI = at least nine rounds.

Comparing the last two Origins with the last three "big" conventions (as you define it), you're seeing roughly equivalent content at Origins, with the only exception being that DDXP offers an EPIC where neither Origins nor GenCon does. How is that a "mild nod"?

As for adventures from DDXP not being up yet, there is one adventure missing (SPEC4-2); Sean's stated in at least one other thread that you can use the public-play download request form to request ADCP4-2 while he's updating the form to include it. So there's one adventure that is still missing, and there was some feedback from the convention indicating that was necessary (the same is true to CALI3-4 from GenCon2011). While I agree this is not optimal, I feel that you are exaggerating the situation, especially since there are fewer "big con" adventures missing than general release ones.

• No Sharing of MYRE - Given the lack of new content available, the arguments against sharing MYRE adventures are simply invalid. Furthermore, sharing could generate a community through which more authors are encouraged to participate, and could be a natural stepping stone to generating more official campaign content.

Could you please elaborate on which arguments are "simply invalid" and why you feel that to be the case? You're making a claim that could use some backup.

I understand that there are a lot of things going on that a lot of people aren't happy about. The campaign staff are reasonable people, and follow threads for well-defined and detailed complaints about what's going on. Complaints that use inaccurate data or don't elaborate at all on claims are less likely to make an impact.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:46PM, JohnduBois wrote:

Huh? LFR is in competition with LFR? That flies pretty directly in the face of most of the "not enough content" complaints I'm hearing from most players.

I think he's saying "LFR that is only played at home is in competition with LFR that's played at Gamedays", yes.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:14PM, kilpatds wrote:

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:46PM, JohnduBois wrote:

Huh? LFR is in competition with LFR? That flies pretty directly in the face of most of the "not enough content" complaints I'm hearing from most players.

I think he's saying "LFR that is only played at home is in competition with LFR that's played at Gamedays", yes.

Home play LFR and gameday LFR are only in competition if someone needs to make a choice to go to one or the other. If that is happening, then one of the following needs to be occurring:

1. The two opportunities for play are scheduled at the same time
2. The player has limited time to play LFR and must choose between the game day and home

In the second situation, it's a person-level issue; the campaign cannot affect change how much time the participant has available - and believe me, they tried; I still do not have time to write a CALI *and* a SPEC *and* an EPIC

In the first situation, either there are a limited amount of opportunities to play that happen to be scheduled at the same time or there is so much content that scheduling all the adventures causes overlap. I'm pretty sure there isn't a problem with "too much content". That means that, again, we're faced with a local level problem where the home group and the public group are booking against one another - the home group is not significant enough within the public group to affect the public location's scheduling, and still chooses to schedule against the public gameday. This, again, is something the campaign can't do much about.

This is, of course, all assuming that the poster's initial claim that LFR supports private play where LG did not is accurate. While LFR does provide a large quantity of adventures as private play, if you played LG and lived in a region where the maximum number of adventures were released, you saw 35-40 adventures per year that could be played in the home. That's not "LFR supporting play in a private setting being fairly new to Organized Play".

Apr 6, 2012 -- 11:55AM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

LFR supported the playing of modules in a private setting, which as I understand was fairly new to organized play. [snip] However, for good or ill, this had another, probably unintended, consequence. I saw a number of veteran players drop out of game-day play to play their own home games.

LG supported home play in pretty much the same way (it changed slightly over the years, such as ordering adventures from Triad members via e-mail, eventually with password protection). The effect you describe was true of LG and is true of most living campaigns (Heroes of Rokugan, Shadowrun Missions, etc.) - you see lots of groups decide to play together. Honestly, that's not necessarily bad. Generally these groups still dip back into the central pool. They tend to want to play together but also tend to recruit, help with gamedays, help with local cons, etc.

Now, I do recognize that we old hats tend to come off as "been there, done that" - myself included (if not especially!). It is good for ideas like yours to come forth, because this isn't an exact science where play has been carefully measured. A lot of times there are a number of mechanisms and factors that influence how a campaign performs. Your idea might now work on one level, but might work on another. And, we just might be wrong. Campaigns tend to innovate, such as LFR allowing replay, and it takes a while (if ever) to fully understand what these changes do.

For home play, I think the model(s) can be tweaked to encourage home groups to stay connected more often, but removing home play would probably drive down any OP campaign's play numbers significantly.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />

Apr 6, 2012 -- 11:55AM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

The existence of the EPIC modules, and the opportunity to play/DM them, and the time that takes, are frankly in direct competition with LFR gamedays.

It's all LFR. I do think that breaking down EPIC into three separate adventures would make them them more flexible (it wouldn't have to be just in a weekend). And I do think that there should be reasons for regular groups of devoted players (the kind that play EPIC) to still want to be connected to the local gamedays and to continue to recruit and promote and support. The loss of DM rewards may be part of this, but I also think it has to do with those other factors that have robbed some energy. Wanting to just play EPIC is sort of like saying "I just want to finish up with my main PC".

Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:28PM, JohnduBois wrote:

In the second situation, it's a person-level issue; the campaign cannot affect change how much time the participant has available

Yes and no. EPIC being 3 mods bound together means I can't play, because I can't play on weekends. Yes, in theory I could separate them out and play on weeknights... in practice... we still have not succeeded in finishing the second half of the first EPIC we did as a playtest! It just isn't easy to pull everyone back together to recreate the exact table for 3 sessions. It has pretty much killed EPIC in this area. If they were discrete 4-hour adventures I bet we would play them. Instead, the most devoted LFR players in this area created their own EPIC home campaigns. I suspect they would have kept playing EPIC (because in many ways EPIC delivered the story/continuity they wanted) and then they would have made home campaigns for other tiers. Instead, we lost them from the local RPGA community.

What JR seems to be saying is that in his area the effect is instead that the length means it has to conflict with regular gamedays and this means the devoted no longer attend them. I'm sure we could find others that say the length is great. I don't know the EPIC play numbers. Are they higher than paragon play numbers?

John, I'll try to address your points here.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:46PM, JohnduBois wrote:

I'm really confused as to what you mean by "the secret handshake" - the ordering system for Living Greyhawk Core adventures was exactly the same as it was for LFR adventures early on (be a Herald DM, register an event, request adventures), with ordering for LG regional events having one extra step (e-mail your region's Point of Contact).

I'm referencing this post....

Mar 27, 2012 -- 7:34PM, Chaos_Kitten wrote:

  I always had the feeling with LG that you couldn't join the club unless you knew the secret handshake, but you can't learn the secret handshake until you join the club.  I didn't have an in and so I couldn't get involved.  LFR gave me a chance to get in from the ground floor.  I also thought it was more open to new people.

....and also offering the disclaimer that I don't have personal knowledge as to whether LG was playable at home.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:46PM, JohnduBois wrote:

    The EPIC Campaign - (...snip for brevity...)

Huh? LFR is in competition with LFR? That flies pretty directly in the face of most of the "not enough content" complaints I'm hearing from most players.

My point is that when you are already spending 12-16 hours on a module in that must be private play, you are less anxious to go out to a public gameday. Remember, the OP's original premise was around the drop in attendence at LFR gamedays.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:46PM, JohnduBois wrote:

Big Cons Are All That Matters - (...snip for brevity...)

DDXP 2012 had the following LFR content: Three regional adventures (Netheril), two SPEC adventures, one BI, one EPIC = ten rounds of content.

Origins 2012, by comparison, has the following announced LFR content: Three regional adventures (Calimshan), two SPEC adventures, one BI = seven rounds of content.

I'll concede adding Origins to the list of three big cons. However, let's not sidestep the original point.

There is a huge population of LFR players that don't attend DDXP, Origins or GenCon. I think in general we're willing to accept that these conventions will have modules released and played for the first times in those locations. However, when mods like CALI 3-4 and SPEC 4-2 are delayed, they become big convention exclusives.

By the way, add SPEC 4-1 as a footnote to that list. It's been released, but you can't take advantage of the opportunity to run the two modules simultaneously until both are available.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:46PM, JohnduBois wrote:

Could you please elaborate on which arguments are "simply invalid" and why you feel that to be the case? You're making a claim that could use some backup.

Okay, on further research, the reason for why MYRE isn't shared is that it's a WoTC decision. So, while I still think it's a great idea that should be implemented, in this case it's WoTC obstinancy that prevents it.

Discussed here....http://community.wizards.com/lfr/go/thread/view/76817/27073333/New_W...

Addendum after reading Teos's post...

I have made four major points here:
Home/Private Play
The EPIC Campaign
Big Cons are all that Matters
No Sharing of MYRE

The first two should be considered to be explanations, not complaints. I don't have any suggestions about what could be changed...and I'm pretty sure I like the system as is. They are additional factors related to gameday attendance decline, but that doesn't mean they aren't net positives.

The third, about Big Cons, is, admittedly, a complaint.

The last, about MYRE, is a complaint, but I will again acknowledge that complaining about it is as pointless as complaining about D&DNext on the horizon. It's not a campaign decision.

re: MYREs

I may be misinterpreting things (and if so, just ignore me), but it sounds like the LFR staff is a bit like my IRL workplace:
if you keep dropping headcount 'to save money', eventually you can't make any money even though the few people who are left are running around crazy and heading straight for burnout.

The answer, I think, will be that the 5e LFR contract MUST include ways (such as MYREs) to locate and develop new talent, with an eye towards adding new staff when/if the product takes off.  Many hands makes light work.  And I do't remember ever hearing that the OGL caused 3.x to just shrivel up and die.

The idea for MYRE was inspired by the DM Marks in the Eberron: Mark of Heroes campaign run by WotC/RPGA.  In that campaign, they issued monthly hooks, and encouraged home DMs to develop an adventure.  One of the gamers in Columbus Oh did for maybe 6 months for our group and we alternated between the mainline story adventure and the DM's Mark.  I suspect that any Living Campaign moving forward will probably offer such options.  I do not expect that the campaign / WotC will allow such adventures to be freely traded, as it appears to cross a red line that WotC enforces.  Two different purposes at work here.

So when LFR started, the complaint was we did not care nor support the big cons.  So the BIs, the ADCP and the Specials are maybe the only real concession that got made for them.  WotC (RPGA) supported cons were always treated different, and that will likely never change.  Definitely not the level of support cons got in LG or LC days. Good or bad is a value judgment.

The pros and cons of multi-round adventures have been and will probably always be debated.

I argued back in LC days that the cost to produce the High Level Campaign adventures, which only served 50-70 players, was not worth the resource cost (out of thousands of LC players); I would like to know how many players LFR EPIC serves today, but I do not see a reliable data source to know the answer.

I am not sure what the final "lessons learned" on replay is going to be.

Keith

Apr 6, 2012 -- 3:12PM, Keith53 wrote:

So when LFR started, the complaint was we did not care nor support the big cons.

Hi Keith! And it has varied so greatly since just the beginning of LFR! At the beginning of the campaign everything could be ordered as soon as it was released, so the argument was that there was no reason to play anywhere but the home. Why go to a store or a convention when there was no advantage to do so?

This was also seen as a massive change from the LG system, where a local (or somewhat local) author usually wrote the adventure, the adventure was playtested locally (author or an admin being the DM), those playtest players went on to DM the slot 0s for a local con, adventure premiered at a local con, and then the adventure came out for play in the region. This system sounds convoluted, but actually worked pretty well and meant you had tons of judges that really understood the adventure.

Back to LFR, the campaign saw adventures have a 3-month wait list (sometimes varied), which was supposed to support cons of all sizes, plus the ADCPs and BIs. The 3-month wait was removed due to late adventure releases. But, we also saw RPGA remove rewards for cons and rewards for home play (and eventually only provide rewards for Encounters and Lair Assault and Gamedays... and later largely as just the adventures and accompanying materials). The "convention kit" became a joke (filled with stuff no veteran DM wanted) and had to be ordered through a store!

I don't really know what to make out of all of it other than Wizards seems to have shifted its strategy often. Some of it seems to be cost control, but some of it is a clear indication that the store is the most desired play space. My hope would be that in the future there be a more careful analysis of how rewards drive play and how the organized play program incentives can turn on or turn off different demographics. We have gamers that live nowhere near a store and places where stores don't support organized play (such as due to limited hours or due to hating OP).

And, there is something to that LG system. Something like that, that encourages a chain of judging and playing, is worth considering.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:52PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Yes and no. EPIC being 3 mods bound together means I can't play, because I can't play on weekends. Yes, in theory I could separate them out and play on weeknights... in practice... we still have not succeeded in finishing the second half of the first EPIC we did as a playtest! It just isn't easy to pull everyone back together to recreate the exact table for 3 sessions. It has pretty much killed EPIC in this area. If they were discrete 4-hour adventures I bet we would play them. Instead, the most devoted LFR players in this area created their own EPIC home campaigns. I suspect they would have kept playing EPIC (because in many ways EPIC delivered the story/continuity they wanted) and then they would have made home campaigns for other tiers. Instead, we lost them from the local RPGA community.

And this was huge. I'm going to try and not make it out like we ran the RPGA community... but the people in the area with Epic tier PCs represented a large portion of the DMs in the area (because those people had way more playtime than most other people it made sense for them to take up the DM reigns more often), and when those DMs stopped playing LFR* there was a long stretch of time when in store play was very close to dead.
That said, I just jumped in on this last page and haven't read all of the other posts. That bit stood out to me, and is something I am very familiar with.

*there were other factors that led to the decline of LFR in the area. Epic play was not the only straw.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 3:46PM, Reg06 wrote:

*there were other factors that led to the decline of LFR in the area. Epic play was not the only straw.

Since you are in my area and we are in each other's home play groups, I would be curious to hear you talk about those factors and see how/if they vary from my perspective!

Apr 6, 2012 -- 4:57PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Apr 6, 2012 -- 3:46PM, Reg06 wrote:

*there were other factors that led to the decline of LFR in the area. Epic play was not the only straw.

Since you are in my area and we are in each other's home play groups, I would be curious to hear you talk about those factors and see how/if they vary from my perspective!

I sure can. Several of the factors will interconnect, and that's because there were alot of little things that all added up to the decline of LFR play (from my perspective). Some of this will refer to the community as a whole, some towards just the DMs, and some will be in first person.

1. DM fatigue played a big role. In the one shop I am most familiar with (based on the local meetup groups and other shops' calendars, this shop was easily the most active), at our strongest we were running a minimum of three slots a week, with up to three tables per slot. Each night we drew in at least one new player, and we never failed to seat somebody. While it was alot of fun, it was also tiring for the DMs, and the DMs missed alot of play time with their PCs, and the DMs were running the same few mods over and over again in order to make tables happen. There are still mods that I can run from memory, without missing a beat, even not having played them for almost two years. Not enough DMs in the end, so the same few people were constantly cycling through the big chair. Which is fun, and rewarding, but few people *only* want to DM.

2. Which runs directly into lack of support. It's not WotC's fault, but the shop did nothing to support us beyond giving us a place to play (and after alot of negotiating, we earned store credit for DMing). The DMs organized everything, put together the warhorn, set up the wifi etc... On top of that, the DM rewards from WotC started out weak and inconsistent, and then disappeared altogether. It added up to alot of work, and the only pay off was to run the same mod over and over again for players you might never see again, and might not even like. Heck, the only DM reward I ever received was a kind of ugly mini (I think it was actually the ogre mini everyone gets 19 of for judging at cons). I'm not the only DM who just didn't get sent awesome rewards, like the ship tiles.

3. Speaking of repeating mods, alot of early LFR mods were at best mediocre. And some were downright unfun. This makes repeating, even as a player (and players had to repeat as well, because they'd start secondary and tertiary PCs to make tables happen), less than desirable. A big part of the lameness was due to the lack of story, or coherent plotline. The campaign just wasn't satisfying. To make matters worse, a select few mods had all of the good magic items, so everyone played the same set of mods with all their PCs in order to get properly equipped. At times one DM would just throw all the monsters into one room, and we'd have at them. Because. We. Didn't. Care.

4.  Changes to the RPGA and LFR also affected us veterans. Yes, I appreciate why alot of the changes were made, and they were made for good and justifiable reasons. However, the DMing community had been slogging through LFR for a couple years at that point, and we were all justiably proud of our PCs and our level of skill. And then the rules change, and all that time and effort was kind of meaningless with the rules that let you retrain everything and start at higher levels. Both were understandable changes, but the difference between someone who had suffered through All the Kings Men and someone who created an 11th level PC was... a couple extra meaningless magic items and some certs (which weren't worth much, given that very few players cared about the overall story).

5. Epic play. LFR finally made it to epic, and alot of people had epic PCs. Heck, some had two or even three. Oh, but we can't really play epic. Getting together an RPGA table is easy, but getting together an RPGA table with a select few individuals (the ones who made it to epic) is pretty difficult, and getting them together for the 14-16 hours required to play an epic tier mod was a monumental task. To say nothing of splitting the mod up over several nights. I understand that making each epic mod one level can make writing easier, and get across a more epic feel. But it's so much work.

6. Not enough con support. LFR at cons was cool, because you'd play all weekend, and maybe you'd play the BI. But ultimately, con play was the same as playing LFR in a shop or at home. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it weakens the need for a strong sense of community, or attachment to the overall campaign.

7. Relating to earlier points, people got tired of their PCs. Each and every PC I created for LFR I would have gladly played in a homegame - each one had a full backstory, identifiable character traits, roleplaying hooks, and personality (all to varying degrees). Alot of other players felt the same. But after playing the same set of mods with every single PC, I started to focus less on the character, and more on the character sheet. 

8. Elitism scared away new players, probably. It wasn't all candy and roses. A small selection of DMs worked very hard to get a strong LFR community going, and it took alot of playtime. Eventually, the community ended up with a group of DMs with hundreds of hours of playtime, and the players they ran tables for (alot of players would run a game every now and then, and all of the DMs had plenty of play time). This group became very good at D&D, in a tactical sense, and played at a different level than alot of new people (often a more optimzied level). This created a tight knit community, but one that could seem daunting to outsiders. Of course we worked hard to get new people in, and maybe it was 4th edition, or LFR itself, but most of the players from the local LFR community either dropped out or only show up at cons. At one point, the aforementioned DM group was literally accused of being elitists, because we set up a specific group to play on off-nights for people who wanted a higher, faster level of play.

9. We could have been playing homegames. Without a sense of attachment to the campaign, without a reward for our effort, without a really great story, without a strong community, without a good range of DMs (or just a couple *really* selfless DMs), without mods that put our homegames to shame, without a sense of accomplishment, what was the point? Why was it more worthwhile than what we could be doing at home?

There is no TL:DR. Alot of factors came together to build a very large LFR community pretty swiftly after 4th came out, and then alot of factors contributed to the dissolution of the same LFR community.
That said, Encounters is doing very well across town. And so is Pathfinder. 

Apr 6, 2012 -- 10:37AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Imagine this: LFR is a 3-year story arc where you start in Cormyr. At mid heroic you resolve the current problems but learn they are linked to the Dalelands. You begin to address these issues, finding connections to Netheril through the end of Heroic, with some travel to other regions. Netheril becomes a greater focus (and the Underdark and perhaps Elturgard/plaguelands) in Paragon, revealing how the gods themselves factor into this. In Epic you move to the planes, dipping back into the prime at times for major events. The end of Epic resolves the 3-year arc:

How much does the average LFR player play? Is reaching epic within a 3-year arc really realisitic for the majority of players?

Apr 6, 2012 -- 8:34PM, Mirtek wrote:

Apr 6, 2012 -- 10:37AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Imagine this: LFR is a 3-year story arc where you start in Cormyr. At mid heroic you resolve the current problems but learn they are linked to the Dalelands. You begin to address these issues, finding connections to Netheril through the end of Heroic, with some travel to other regions. Netheril becomes a greater focus (and the Underdark and perhaps Elturgard/plaguelands) in Paragon, revealing how the gods themselves factor into this. In Epic you move to the planes, dipping back into the prime at times for major events. The end of Epic resolves the 3-year arc:

How much does the average LFR player play? Is reaching epic within a 3-year arc really realisitic for the majority of players?

Assuming 3 sessions per level, you'd need 60 sessions over the course of three years to hit epic, so yeah. That's 20 games a year; less than 2 a month. Definitely reasonable.

This has all been really interesting discussion, btw. I note a lot of regional variance; I think this reinforces my main original point re: Pathfinder. You have to keep organizers engaged and involved. They're the people who have any hope of keeping local DMs interested; they're the people who can recruit new DMs. Paizo does a good job of this. LFR, for a myriad of reasons, doesn't incentivize local organizers. 

Apr 6, 2012 -- 9:57PM, Thanlis wrote:

Assuming 3 sessions per level, you'd need 60 sessions over the course of three years to hit epic, so yeah. That's 20 games a year; less than 2 a month. Definitely reasonable.

Then you just hit 21 when the campaign is over. To complete the story arc you would need 2.5 season per month. That sound a lot to me.

I know that with my 1.2 seasons per month I am among the slower players, but even the faster players I know are at below that (now being P3 when they should be epic)

And that's assuming that these are not spread among several characters. Even someone playing 4 times per a month is likely to not reach the ambitious goal if it's with more than just one character.

Oh, then yeah. I didn't read carefully enough -- I saw "reaching epic in 3 years," which is different than finishing epic in 3 years. Although the fix is pretty easy: you set the experience rate such that you're getting one level every two sessions and then the math works again.

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:56PM, Dodecahedron wrote:

Really? What about Living Greyhawk at 8 years? Would you have rebooted after 5 years?

I note that many regions (Highfolk comes to mind) did reboot after 5 years with all sorts of ways to retire your current characters and start a whole new story with new PCs.

Apr 7, 2012 -- 4:52AM, Mirtek wrote:

To complete the story arc you would need 2.5 season per month. That sound a lot to me.

My personal rule of thumb is:

• Someone who plays 12 modules a year is a casual player.  That's someone who attends a monthly gameday, or just one big convention a year.  Below the average 1/month level, I wouldn't really consider the person to be involved in the campaign--that's someone who's played a time or two and hasn't decided whether they want to join, or someone who used to play but has since fallen away.
• Someone who plays 25 modules a year is an active player.  That's someone who attends a twice-monthly gameday, or maybe a monthly gameday plus a convention, or a couple of conventions a year.  Players at this frequency level should be able to participate in most of what's going on--they shouldn't be so far ahead that they need more than one secondary character to participate in all events; they might not be on the cutting edge, but they shouldn't be so far behind that they can't participate in the latest releases.
• Someone who plays at least 50 modules a year is a hardcore player.  That's someone who attends a twice-monthly gameday plus three or more conventions a year.  This is the point where it's downright assumed that that the player will have multiple characters and will not be able to play all content with their main character.

These aren't in any way value judgements, of course.  If I even qualify as a casual player any longer, it's because of play in the early fall; in the last six months, I've played all of two modules (both replays).

Personally, my ideal version of a 4e campaign would go something like this:

Year One (~18 months): Heroic campaign focused on a particular geographical region, with an advancement pace set so that it takes ~36 modules to go from 1 to 11.  

The campaign would generate 24-42 rounds of content each calendar year--a baseline two per month, with the potential for adding up to six rounds of premiere content for each of the Big Three, as the campaign's capability allows.  The first third of the campaign's modules would be designed for AL 2/4/6.  The second third would be AL 4/6/8 (with instructions on how to modify encounters and rewards for ALs 2 and 10).  The last third would be AL 6/8/10 (with instructions on how to modify for ALs 2 and 4).  Special modules (BIs/Specs/finales of storylines) during the last six months would allow for inclusion of 11st level PCs.

Year Two (~18 months): Year One modules continue to be playable, but no new heroic content is created.  Players can choose to use rules to advance their characters to 11th level or continue playing the Year One content to get there; new characters are created at 11th level.  Campaign rules receive a major overhaul, which may require significant changes to characters.

Year Two consists of paragon adventures which build on the Year One storylines.  As with Year One, advancement pace is set so that it takes ~36 modules to go from 11 to 21, with shifting level band focuses as above, and with important modules (e.g., the paragon finale) allowing 21st level PCs, though they don't earn XP.

Year Three: Year One adventures are retired.  Year Two adventures continue to be playable.  At this point, the campaign bifurcates.

Year Three [Epic] (~24 months): Players can continue playing the Year Two adventures or use rules to advance their characters to 21st level; new characters can be created at 21st level.  Campaign rules changes may require significant changes to characters.  Year Three consists of ten 10-hour adventures, with each adventure earning the PCs a level, and with content building on the paragon storylines.

Year Three [Heroic] (~24 months): The campaign rules are rewritten.  A new storyline starts, somewhere geographically (and perhaps chronologically) removed from the previous ones, and unrelated to previous storylines (though occasional cameos can be used).  Players create new 1st level PCs for this iteration.  Depending on interest, future years can continue the heroic/paragon/epic pattern.

... These are, of course, meaningless pipe dreams, but it was something I had sketched out at one point and saved, so I thought I'd repurpose it.

My opinion would be that the key point at which things went wrong was when LFR tried to encompass all level ranges.  High-level character creation treated a symptom, not the underlying cause, which was that the campaign (and most gaming groups) simply didn't have the resources to fully support the 1-20 level range.  A much better solution would have been to simply eliminate heroic play altogether, and focus on a manageable level range.

Conversely, though, I think you want to minimize hard reboots and campaign start/stops, as those become easy jumping-off points and make new players less likely to join a campaign whose end is approaching.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 2:09PM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

....and also offering the disclaimer that I don't have personal knowledge as to whether LG was playable at home.

Just to wrap up this particular bit of the thread:

Yes, LG was playable at home, and was throughout the campaign.  For that matter, Living City, before LG, was largely playable at home (at least, I know it was in the latter days of the campaign). 

That said, the regional system in LG definitely supported convention play, in a way that LFR never did.  I know a number of local players who regularly attended conventions in different states, specifically to be able to play the regional (and metaregional) adventures which weren't available for play locally (since, in LG, you could only play regional adventures when you were actually physically located in that region's real-life area).

Apr 6, 2012 -- 2:09PM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

John, I'll try to address your points here.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:46PM, JohnduBois wrote:

    The EPIC Campaign - (...snip for brevity...)

Huh? LFR is in competition with LFR? That flies pretty directly in the face of most of the "not enough content" complaints I'm hearing from most players.

My point is that when you are already spending 12-16 hours on a module in that must be private play, you are less anxious to go out to a public gameday. Remember, the OP's original premise was around the drop in attendence at LFR gamedays.

I think what this means is most people have a limited number of hours
spent gaming per month. If you play in 3 rounds for an Epic adventure,
then that may not be that many other games scheduled for that month.

I have seen this locally, where all the mid to high paragon is gone now,
and everyone is either playing Epic or H1-P1. There are some groups
playing the high paragons together in preparation for becoming Epic,
but they are already using their custom party for Epic in the games.

Therefore there is no general-purpose mid to high paragon happening.

Apr 7, 2012 -- 4:52AM, Mirtek wrote:

Apr 6, 2012 -- 9:57PM, Thanlis wrote:

Assuming 3 sessions per level, you'd need 60 sessions over the course of three years to hit epic, so yeah. That's 20 games a year; less than 2 a month. Definitely reasonable.

Then you just hit 21 when the campaign is over. To complete the story arc you would need 2.5 season per month. That sound a lot to me.

I know that with my 1.2 seasons per month I am among the slower players, but even the faster players I know are at below that (now being P3 when they should be epic)

And that's assuming that these are not spread among several characters. Even someone playing 4 times per a month is likely to not reach the ambitious goal if it's with more than just one character.

This is the bigger problem. If you want to play all the adventures,
you require multiple characters. This is less of an issue now that
adventures are all heroic/paragon instead of H1/2/3 and P1/2/3.

Probably you could put together a custom home group that all
started at level 1 together, and played the same characters from
start through finish. That would meet the ~90 adventures goal.

However, this is unlikely in a game store or con game situation.

Apr 6, 2012 -- 10:43AM, JohnduBois wrote:

Apr 6, 2012 -- 10:37AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:56PM, Dodecahedron wrote:

Really? What about Living Greyhawk at 8 years? Would you have rebooted after 5 years?

Yes! I think the LG campaign at 5 years had too great a disparity between regions and the rules and character re-makes had gone too far. I think the campaign was dividing up the audience into haves and have-nots and similarly along new and old-hat. I can also argue that at the admin level there were... cracks in the foundation that were just being cheaply patched up rather than resolved. On the story side, it is interesting to note that several regions (often the strongest) had a strong 5 year story arc. It is very hard to make a story arc longer than 5 years that feels cohesive.

There may have been strong benefits if the campaign had ended on a really strong note (especially if designed that way from the start) and to then turn around and with great energy create the next iteration (where everyone would be new, everyone on the same page, incorporate lessons learned, etc.).

So, yeah, I would argue that all living campaigns should have a duration no longer than 5 years (4 may be better) with the goal of taking a hard look in years 3 and 4 for when exactly to reboot and how to do so, such that you roll out the new iteration in a positive way.

Imagine this: LFR is a 3-year story arc where you start in Cormyr. At mid heroic you resolve the current problems but learn they are linked to the Dalelands. You begin to address these issues, finding connections to Netheril through the end of Heroic, with some travel to other regions. Netheril becomes a greater focus (and the Underdark and perhaps Elturgard/plaguelands) in Paragon, revealing how the gods themselves factor into this. In Epic you move to the planes, dipping back into the prime at times for major events. The end of Epic resolves the 3-year arc.

Throughout all of this, there is integration to the product line (a visit to Neverwinter, etc.) and various ways to play more: ways to count Lair Assault, ways to use DDI to extend your play at any tier of your preference, ways to on-ramp into the campaign through Encounters and advance quickly in level, etc.

At the conclusion the campaign then reboots, this time with a new tale resulting from the old one. Returning players gain some comfort from the old campaign, but that knowledge isn't essential (it is written as if you were a new player). You start again in Heroic, this time in Calmishan...

That isn't perfect, but I think there are some advantages with something like this.

I think that *especially* Living Greyhawk would have benefitted from a predetermined conclusion time (although I think the specific amount of time is weebly-wobbly). The way LG ended, with the Triads needed to revamp adventures that are already "done" in order to make it to the conclusion 9 months later with anything that made sense, turned a large number of people - some Triad members included - off to WotC Organized Play entirely. Knowing in advance when the campaign was ending and how mthat adventures that gave them would have been a huge benefit in reducing Triad stress and reducing backlash about the end of a popular campaign.

I recall that 4e and the end of LG was a surprise to the campaign admin.
They were basically told: you have a year to wrap up all of your plot lines.
This is definiately a bad idea. I hope they do not do the same thing to LFR.

I think the predetermined 5-year arc has some value, but mostly for the
hard core players who start at the beginning and play all the way through.

Short series (like the LG Bright Sands series) seemed to work fairly well,
in that more casual players could start the series at level one and still be
able to complete them. Perhaps nest these within a larger mega-story arc.

LA had a good five year arc, but at the end it was really hard to join the
campaign and not feel that you were missing out on a lot of the story.
Probably Sean has some insight as he was an admin for that campaign.

Apr 7, 2012 -- 9:47AM, Skerrit wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:56PM, Dodecahedron wrote:

Really? What about Living Greyhawk at 8 years? Would you have rebooted after 5 years?

I note that many regions (Highfolk comes to mind) did reboot after 5 years with all sorts of ways to retire your current characters and start a whole new story with new PCs.

Yes, and I thought that was a good idea given the regional system.
Note with the LG level cap many characters were retired anyway,
but I like that there was some benefit to starting new characters.

I saw some of that in LFR with the Mini-Campaigns at level one,
but those seem to have gone away. They helped launch stories.

Apr 7, 2012 -- 10:22AM, bgibbons wrote:

My personal rule of thumb is:

[...]

I generally like your idea.

However one thing to consider is DMing. I play a little over once per month, but because I split my time ~ 50/50 between DMing and playing.

Thus last year I was involved in about 30 modules, but I only played about 15 of them and DMed the other 15.

A too tight campaign speed creates issues with wanting people to DM less and play more to experience most of what's going on from the player side.

Apr 7, 2012 -- 7:37PM, kenobi65 wrote:

Apr 6, 2012 -- 2:09PM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

....and also offering the disclaimer that I don't have personal knowledge as to whether LG was playable at home.

Just to wrap up this particular bit of the thread:

Yes, LG was playable at home, and was throughout the campaign.  For that matter, Living City, before LG, was largely playable at home (at least, I know it was in the latter days of the campaign). 

That said, the regional system in LG definitely supported convention play, in a way that LFR never did.  I know a number of local players who regularly attended conventions in different states, specifically to be able to play the regional (and metaregional) adventures which weren't available for play locally (since, in LG, you could only play regional adventures when you were actually physically located in that region's real-life area).

I miss those days. Had they kept the same structure of LG when switching to LFR I think LFR would have been much more successful. At least around the regions I played in.

Apr 8, 2012 -- 8:03AM, Mithreinmaethor wrote:

I miss those days. Had they kept the same structure of LG when switching to LFR I think LFR would have been much more successful. At least around the regions I played in.

I think it more has to deal with the lack of the intense focus of the regional system - the benefit of traveling in LG was something that needed to be fixed - you don't want players spending $400 to travel to conventions each year and not spend $400 on D&D books and materials. In retrospect, LFR likely should have picked a super-region that had say 1/3 of the mods before handing out the other 2/3rds to regions and core mods for year 1.

If say 30 mods had revolved around say the Sword Coast, there were 30 core mods, and there were 6 regions with 5 mods each, it would have created the rough equivalent of the LG regional system - this is in the context of year 1, where they released more than 90 mods worth of content.

Having never played LG, I can't speak to this directly, but a couple of the guys who I play LFR with say that they are glad the old LG regional system went away.  Having to go to out-of-area conventions in order to play a module was tough to do sometimes. 

Now, I think they main issue was that the rewards from some regions would be better than the rewards from other regions.  This caused people to feel that they had to travel to those other regions to get the better rewards.  On the one side, this is great because it means that people get out there and mingle and ideas get shared.  But on the other hand, it makes people resent the game, especially if they cannot afford to travel as often and they feel that their character is suffering.

I like how LFR handles the modules, being that you could play any module anywhere you happened to be.  On the other hand, I feel that they should have focused the modules on one region of the area.  Possibly have all the adventures take place in Waterdeep, for instance.  At least for H1.  Once a character reached level 4, they chould choose to move on to another area with more advanced problems to be solved.  They could have continued moving the campaign around based on tier and it would have made for a more coherent story-line for the PCs.

I brought this up once at my local group and one of those LG players said they didn't want to see it regionalized and I had to explain that I don't mean to make it so you had to travel to play a mod.  No.  Everyone would be playing the same mods throughout the same level range.  Period.  Isn't that what a living campaign is supposed to be about anyway?

That' what I don't understand.  Why did WotC decide that spreading out the mods across all of Toril would be a better story than concentrating on one area at a time?  OK, sure.  Some people might not like Waterdeep as a starting area.  Well, then WotC could have started with just two regions to start H1 play, instead of ... what?  Twelve areas?  Still would have been able to have tight stories with actually plot lines instead of "Well, yesterday I was in Akanul and today I'm in Waterdeep.  Tomorrow, I might be in Aglarond."

Apr 8, 2012 -- 8:03AM, Mithreinmaethor wrote:

Apr 7, 2012 -- 7:37PM, kenobi65 wrote:

Apr 6, 2012 -- 2:09PM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

....and also offering the disclaimer that I don't have personal knowledge as to whether LG was playable at home.

Just to wrap up this particular bit of the thread:

Yes, LG was playable at home, and was throughout the campaign.  For that matter, Living City, before LG, was largely playable at home (at least, I know it was in the latter days of the campaign). 

That said, the regional system in LG definitely supported convention play, in a way that LFR never did.  I know a number of local players who regularly attended conventions in different states, specifically to be able to play the regional (and metaregional) adventures which weren't available for play locally (since, in LG, you could only play regional adventures when you were actually physically located in that region's real-life area).

I miss those days. Had they kept the same structure of LG when switching to LFR I think LFR would have been much more successful. At least around the regions I played in.

It is too bad really. In hindsight, LFR should have been LG with 4e rules set in FR.
Then it would have been successful. All of the changes including adventure replay,
starting at a higher level, and narrow level bands really destroyed this campaign.

Apr 8, 2012 -- 11:24PM, Dodecahedron wrote:

Apr 8, 2012 -- 8:03AM, Mithreinmaethor wrote:

Apr 7, 2012 -- 7:37PM, kenobi65 wrote:

Apr 6, 2012 -- 2:09PM, JRedGiant1 wrote:

....and also offering the disclaimer that I don't have personal knowledge as to whether LG was playable at home.

Just to wrap up this particular bit of the thread:

Yes, LG was playable at home, and was throughout the campaign.  For that matter, Living City, before LG, was largely playable at home (at least, I know it was in the latter days of the campaign). 

That said, the regional system in LG definitely supported convention play, in a way that LFR never did.  I know a number of local players who regularly attended conventions in different states, specifically to be able to play the regional (and metaregional) adventures which weren't available for play locally (since, in LG, you could only play regional adventures when you were actually physically located in that region's real-life area).

I miss those days. Had they kept the same structure of LG when switching to LFR I think LFR would have been much more successful. At least around the regions I played in.

It is too bad really. In hindsight, LFR should have been LG with 4e rules set in FR.
Then it would have been successful. All of the changes including adventure replay,
starting at a higher level, and narrow level bands really destroyed this campaign.

Regional system was great, but people did gripe about not being able to play in other regions for whatever reason, pick one. I guess be careful what you ask for. Also I dont know what exactly pathfinder society is doing differently then wotc other then the rules and making you pay for mods. I think all the regions are open and convention play for Pathfinder is booming. Just something to think about. Alot of our LG veterans and some early LFR players are all engulfed in Pathfinders. I think its still the love for 3.5 whether we want to except it or not. I'm not a big fan of Pathfinder due to loyalty but I call it like I see.

In the early days of Living City, RPGA adventures were intended for convention only, or play through a RPGA sanctioned club.  (yes, in the 80s, clubs were fairly popular.)  But the interest in home play started growing towards the end of the 90s as I recall.

While some players really liked their LG experience, others did not. If you were stuck in a region with poor play, you hated the Greyhawk region which you had no choice about, the admins sucked, or whatever...the system did not work for you.  Yes, those would could afford frequent travel, went to neighboring (or even far) regions to increase their play opportunity.  The exclusive to a region nature of adventures was almost like "exclusive to a con" but not quite, so if they wanted to play in that region, there was a strong demand for frequent regional cons.  However, as stated the quality across regions was inconsistent, and in some cases when the staff burned out, the region failed.

Returning to a Global access model (used successfully by Living City) corrected that weakness. However, what also changed was WotC was convinced that gamers did not really care much about story and definitely did not want long plot lines, and instructed the LFR staff to keep the focus on short story arcs, if at all.  Also, unlike LC and LG, there was zero metaorgs when LFR started as that was seen as unnecessary and a waste of effort by WotC.  Because of WotC decision to start with 12 regions, with low adventure rates, spaced out in time and level, no concentration of focus in one or a few regions was possible initially. Because of that guidance, there was little investment in story and region.  So after the buzz of playing 4e started to fade, many gamers did not feel particularly tied to LFR play. 

The LFR staff tried to respond and change the direction of the campaign, and I think did make some improvements, but other problems had emerged like the significant writing and editing load to meet the WotC standards. The problem of low and unpredictable adventure production emerged and was undoubtedly a hard pill to swallow for many remaining LFR gamers.

So I think it was a series of specific decisions, not so much the independent region model of LG, that was hurtful to LFR.  After all LC did not have independent regions and it was wildly successful.  What LC had in spades was in-depth character investment opportunities, and tons of adventures.

Keith

Lots of good info here, Reg06 -- let me chime in with our local perspective on these points:

Apr 6, 2012 -- 8:04PM, Reg06 wrote:

1. DM fatigue played a big role. In the one shop I am most familiar with (based on the local meetup groups and other shops' calendars, this shop was easily the most active), at our strongest we were running a minimum of three slots a week, with up to three tables per slot. Each night we drew in at least one new player, and we never failed to seat somebody. While it was alot of fun, it was also tiring for the DMs, and the DMs missed alot of play time with their PCs, and the DMs were running the same few mods over and over again in order to make tables happen. There are still mods that I can run from memory, without missing a beat, even not having played them for almost two years. Not enough DMs in the end, so the same few people were constantly cycling through the big chair. Which is fun, and rewarding, but few people *only* want to DM.

In our area, DM burnout was an issue, but so was organizer burnout. From GenCon 2008 until Christmas 2009 we had one organizer, who was tremendous and helped a group of about 10 of us reach Paragon tier in time for GenCon 2009. We had few sessions after GenCon 2009, and it wasn't a surprise when the organizer stepped aside, citing burnout. (He's since stepped back in to organize the same ten of us push to Epic.)

Our second organizer moved our local LFR group to a different store closer to his home, and in doing so seemed to re-energize the group. We lost a few, but replaced them with new folks eager to play Heroic tier, to the point where there's a new group of about 12 or so players whose PCs are just now getting ready to hit Paragon. He, too, burned out, and another new organizer took over at the start of 2012.

Takeaway: Store owners have a lot on their plates, so expecting them to organize a living campaign is likely wishful thinking. Non-owners who do so have a local shelf-life of about two years, assuming little support. (Mileage may vary in other regions.)

2. Which runs directly into lack of support. It's not WotC's fault, but the shop did nothing to support us beyond giving us a place to play (and after alot of negotiating, we earned store credit for DMing). The DMs organized everything, put together the warhorn, set up the wifi etc... On top of that, the DM rewards from WotC started out weak and inconsistent, and then disappeared altogether. It added up to alot of work, and the only pay off was to run the same mod over and over again for players you might never see again, and might not even like. Heck, the only DM reward I ever received was a kind of ugly mini (I think it was actually the ogre mini everyone gets 19 of for judging at cons). I'm not the only DM who just didn't get sent awesome rewards, like the ship tiles.

Yeah, the DM rewards always seemed spotty to me -- though I blamed that on being lazy about reporting my DMed events. I did get the re-skinned adventure, but no ship tiles and few other awards while DMing.

On the other hand, the stores hosting our LFR have always been appreciative -- offering discounts to LFR DMs and one time even buying pizza for the DMs. I'm guessing the WotC focus on store play led to an expectation that stores would 'take care' of the DMs in WotC's absence, especially since LFR and Encounters were a gateway to Premier Store status for D&D, which led to perks for the store owners.

Takeaway: Stores are effectively incented by WotC to help get DMs to run Encounters and living campaigns, but a store that doesn't already see much business come in via the D&D brand probably won't consider the incentives all that valuable, so this shouldn't be relied on as the main driver of support for living campaign organizers and DMs.

3. Speaking of repeating mods, alot of early LFR mods were at best mediocre. And some were downright unfun. This makes repeating, even as a player (and players had to repeat as well, because they'd start secondary and tertiary PCs to make tables happen), less than desirable. A big part of the lameness was due to the lack of story, or coherent plotline. The campaign just wasn't satisfying. To make matters worse, a select few mods had all of the good magic items, so everyone played the same set of mods with all their PCs in order to get properly equipped. At times one DM would just throw all the monsters into one room, and we'd have at them. Because. We. Didn't. Care.

There were a number of 'just decent enough' mods in the Year 1 flood of releases so that, when we did find a fairly lame series of adventures, we just avoided re-running those. That got harder to do as the volume of adventures slowed down, though to be fair the general quality of the adventures did improve as the volume slowed to a trickle.

I didn't perceive our group as having a lot of 'item picking' -- there were a few mods we ran fairly frequently, and I'm sure some well-informed players requested specific mods because of the treasure bundles in them, but our move to the second store largely co-incided with the introduction of Bundle X, so that might be part of it.

Takeaway: Drop in adventure output quantity is not necessarily lethal if it corresponds with an increase in general adventure quality. Bundle X a good thing for LFR on the whole.

4.  Changes to the RPGA and LFR also affected us veterans. Yes, I appreciate why alot of the changes were made, and they were made for good and justifiable reasons. However, the DMing community had been slogging through LFR for a couple years at that point, and we were all justiably proud of our PCs and our level of skill. And then the rules change, and all that time and effort was kind of meaningless with the rules that let you retrain everything and start at higher levels. Both were understandable changes, but the difference between someone who had suffered through All the Kings Men and someone who created an 11th level PC was... a couple extra meaningless magic items and some certs (which weren't worth much, given that very few players cared about the overall story).

Starting characters at higher level has definitely done what it was intended to do -- I've seen a couple of tables that wouldn't have gone off if someone hadn't been able to make a 5th or 8th level character on the fly to join in and help the table happen. On the other hand, the effect of high-level starts has on the whole been far more negative than positive, especially since as noted above that there isn't a whole lot of story-award specific stuff that's all that important in Year 1 and 2 adventures (the inclusion of purchase access awards in Year 3 helps change the balance of this, though), which encourages people to simply skip an entire tier of play if it suits them. Allowing high level starts is perceived as a patch for the problem of not having enough quality low-level modules.

Takeaway: On the whole, starting at high level creates more problems than it solves. If the next living campaign wants to encourage starting at higher than 1st level, having a system like the current Encounters-to-LFR system is a better idea, as it both encourages play and allows for a variety of play outside of the living campaign itself. To prevent the problem of not having tables able to go off, a set of pre-generated high-level start characters can be made available, but should not be considered actual campaign characters -- players who cut their teeth on pre-gens should be expected to return with a 'real' character for the next session.

5. Epic play. LFR finally made it to epic, and alot of people had epic PCs. Heck, some had two or even three. Oh, but we can't really play epic. Getting together an RPGA table is easy, but getting together an RPGA table with a select few individuals (the ones who made it to epic) is pretty difficult, and getting them together for the 14-16 hours required to play an epic tier mod was a monumental task. To say nothing of splitting the mod up over several nights. I understand that making each epic mod one level can make writing easier, and get across a more epic feel. But it's so much work.

Can't really comment on this one, as we still don't have enough players with epic characters to make a table (some local players have made epic via online play, but not with characters they play in local games).

6. Not enough con support. LFR at cons was cool, because you'd play all weekend, and maybe you'd play the BI. But ultimately, con play was the same as playing LFR in a shop or at home. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it weakens the need for a strong sense of community, or attachment to the overall campaign.

My observation is that local cons took a big hit during the economic downturn of the late 00s and are only now starting to recover. Combine that with the observation that local cons should probably be organized locally, and that local LFR organizers are in the best position to do that, means that if you don't have anyone stepping up in your area to put LFR in your local con, you're not going to see it there. It would be nice to be able to partner with WotC to put on an LFR event at a local con, but that doesn't seem like a priority for OP these days, given the economic realities of local cons.

Takeaway: Either partner with your local store or go it alone to get the living campaign played at local cons -- WotC won't (and likely can't afford to) spend the resources to track and push a living campaign at every local con in the U.S.

7. Relating to earlier points, people got tired of their PCs. Each and every PC I created for LFR I would have gladly played in a homegame - each one had a full backstory, identifiable character traits, roleplaying hooks, and personality (all to varying degrees). Alot of other players felt the same. But after playing the same set of mods with every single PC, I started to focus less on the character, and more on the character sheet.

My own experience differs, but that may be because I DM much more than I play and thus only have two 'major' characters with a few other characters, largely graduates of Encounters, to fill holes in tables. I do seem to see this with other players who have many more characters than I do -- the prevalance of multi-class and hybrid+multi-class characters increases as players search for more novel character concepts to bring to new low-level tables.

Takeaway: Repeated play leads to technical play, for some players. A campaign without a strong story element, reflected in campaign awards, will ultimately degenerate into power-gaming, as that's the only other hook going for it.

8. Elitism scared away new players, probably. It wasn't all candy and roses. A small selection of DMs worked very hard to get a strong LFR community going, and it took alot of playtime. Eventually, the community ended up with a group of DMs with hundreds of hours of playtime, and the players they ran tables for (alot of players would run a game every now and then, and all of the DMs had plenty of play time). This group became very good at D&D, in a tactical sense, and played at a different level than alot of new people (often a more optimzied level). This created a tight knit community, but one that could seem daunting to outsiders. Of course we worked hard to get new people in, and maybe it was 4th edition, or LFR itself, but most of the players from the local LFR community either dropped out or only show up at cons. At one point, the aforementioned DM group was literally accused of being elitists, because we set up a specific group to play on off-nights for people who wanted a higher, faster level of play.

I'm not sure I'd call it 'elitism', but there is a tendency for a group of players, once they start playing together, to keep playing together -- their characters tend to be the ones available at a given XP tier, and they tend to already have divided the party roles among themselves in a way that incoming characters might not be able to cover.

On the other hand, our group already had this division with 'tactical' vs 'newbie' players as of the transition to our second organizer, thanks to the old D&D Miniatures tactical game -- as that game lost players in our area, many former minis skirmishers joined the LFR scene. We were fairly lucky that the timing of the transition allowed us to blend tactical and newbie players on the same tables, but it makes sense that not all areas would be that fortunate.

Takeaway: There will always be a way for players to self-organize into 'elitist'-seeming groups, but local organizers are in the best position to identify this and take steps to keep this elitism from hurting the local group. Campaign staff and WotC are of limited help in this.

9. We could have been playing homegames. Without a sense of attachment to the campaign, without a reward for our effort, without a really great story, without a strong community, without a good range of DMs (or just a couple *really* selfless DMs), without mods that put our homegames to shame, without a sense of accomplishment, what was the point? Why was it more worthwhile than what we could be doing at home?

That's the great question - in fact, pretty much everyone who plays LFR locally has a home game that they play as well. (This allows those who want to play more than once a month to be able to do so.) Unfortunately, organizing additional sessions at our store is a non-starter -- other weekends are largely taken up with Magic or Warhammer events, which bring in more money, and the idea of starting sessions at a different store would add a lot of stress to an already paper-thin organizing crew. Much easier to just get your fix by playing in a non-LFR home game.

Takeaway: What is the living campaign mission? Is it to be the home game for people who can't get a home game? Is it a gateway to convince people to get involved in D&D and thus migrate eventually from store play to home play? Is it a convention-focused 'event' that draws people both to local and national conventions to play? And if it's trying to be all of these, can it do so without pulling itself in directions that are harmful to part of the mission in an attempt to satisfy some other part of the mission?

Like I said, good stuff.

--
Pauper

Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:38AM, Pauper wrote:

Starting characters at higher level has definitely done what it was intended to do -- I've seen a couple of tables that wouldn't have gone off if someone hadn't been able to make a 5th or 8th level character on the fly to join in and help the table happen. On the other hand, the effect of high-level starts has on the whole been far more negative than positive, especially since as noted above that there isn't a whole lot of story-award specific stuff that's all that important in Year 1 and 2 adventures (the inclusion of purchase access awards in Year 3 helps change the balance of this, though), which encourages people to simply skip an entire tier of play if it suits them. Allowing high level starts is perceived as a patch for the problem of not having enough quality low-level modules.

Wanted to follow up on this with an anecdote from D&DXP circa 2009.

While there, I happened to get involved in a conversation that a few minis players were having with Ian Richards, the director of OP at the time. He proposed a thought experiment where you had a table's worth of players who wanted to play D&D, but the convention didn't have any certified DMs to cover the table (this was still in the days when a DM was supposed to have taken the Herald-level DM test to be able to run an LFR table). Do you find someone to run the table who isn't certified and may not even be known to you, or do you apologize to the players and ask them to try again some other time?

Ian's point was that you always do the latter -- especially if the players are new players, you want to be as certain as possible that their initial experience was a good one, which would maximize the odds that they'll come back and become invested in the game and become regular players, and perhaps down the road even certified DMs or local organizers. If you take shortcuts for convenience's sake, you simply increase the odds that a bad experience will drive these people away.

As for the obvious counter, well, what if these people decide they don't want to play D&D after all, if it's so hard to get into a game now? Ian's point, again, was that if these people are truly interested in trying the game, they'll try again later -- if they don't, then they likely weren't really all that curious in the first place, and you'd be better served letting them be casual players (and drains on the resources) of other organizations.

There are a number of LFR-specific rulings, but the high-level start rulings most of all, that fly in the face of this advice, and the longer I play and run LFR, the more I see the wisdom in Ian's advice. You'll never get everyone into a living campaign, so focus on getting the best possible experience to the most interested gamers and you'll do as well as can be expected. Having a big organization isn't the same as having a healthy organization, and sometimes the two are mutually exclusive.

--
Pauper

Apr 9, 2012 -- 3:58AM, Keith53 wrote:

In the early days of Living City, RPGA adventures were intended for convention only, or play through a RPGA sanctioned club.  (yes, in the 80s, clubs were fairly popular.)  But the interest in home play started growing towards the end of the 90s as I recall.

While some players really liked their LG experience, others did not. If you were stuck in a region with poor play, you hated the Greyhawk region which you had no choice about, the admins sucked, or whatever...the system did not work for you.  Yes, those would could afford frequent travel, went to neighboring (or even far) regions to increase their play opportunity.  The exclusive to a region nature of adventures was almost like "exclusive to a con" but not quite, so if they wanted to play in that region, there was a strong demand for frequent regional cons.  However, as stated the quality across regions was inconsistent, and in some cases when the staff burned out, the region failed.

Returning to a Global access model (used successfully by Living City) corrected that weakness. However, what also changed was WotC was convinced that gamers did not really care much about story and definitely did not want long plot lines, and instructed the LFR staff to keep the focus on short story arcs, if at all.  Also, unlike LC and LG, there was zero metaorgs when LFR started as that was seen as unnecessary and a waste of effort by WotC.  Because of WotC decision to start with 12 regions, with low adventure rates, spaced out in time and level, no concentration of focus in one or a few regions was possible initially. Because of that guidance, there was little investment in story and region.  So after the buzz of playing 4e started to fade, many gamers did not feel particularly tied to LFR play. 

The LFR staff tried to respond and change the direction of the campaign, and I think did make some improvements, but other problems had emerged like the significant writing and editing load to meet the WotC standards. The problem of low and unpredictable adventure production emerged and was undoubtedly a hard pill to swallow for many remaining LFR gamers.

So I think it was a series of specific decisions, not so much the independent region model of LG, that was hurtful to LFR.  After all LC did not have independent regions and it was wildly successful.  What LC had in spades was in-depth character investment opportunities, and tons of adventures.

Keith

This is good stuff. Hopefully whoever is building the next living campaign
accepts input from people who have been involved in multiple campaigns,
and not just LFR. I think that it will turn out best if history is considered.

Another problem with LFR that doomed it to failure from the start
was that it was required to be all things for all 4e organized play.

LG was fine and dandy, but there were also the D&D Campaigns;
such as Xendrik Expeditions, Mark of Heroes, and Green Regent.
Those campaigns featured short story arcs, level bumping rules,
retooling characters and equipment at will, and similar features.
They helped to serve the audience that did not want to play LG.

LFR was the only official WotC 4e campaign, so it had to replace
LG plus all of the others. Note I omit the non-WotC campaigns.

Apr 10, 2012 -- 12:38AM, Dodecahedron wrote:

Another problem with LFR that doomed it to failure from the start was that it was required to be all things for all 4e organized play.

LG was fine and dandy, but there were also the D&D Campaigns;
such as Xendrik Expeditions, Mark of Heroes, and Green Regent.
Those campaigns featured short story arcs, level bumping rules,
retooling characters and equipment at will, and similar features.
They helped to serve the audience that did not want to play LG.

LFR was the only official WotC 4e campaign, so it had to replace
LG plus all of the others. Note I omit the non-WotC campaigns.

Actually, we were not required to be all things. We were required to be very open to casual play and new players. Later experience showed that 4-hour game slots, high level play and long stories are not well-suited for such a target audience, while lack of story and high-level play allienates the invested players which are vital to keep a campaign alive and kicking. I just wish that we had thought of Encounters and Lair Assault from the start, since that would have certainly changed the setup of LFR at the start. By the time we were allowed to change, it probably was already too late for many of the more invested players. In many ways, LFR was the oppostie of LG at the start, and only since last year did we go to a model more focussed on the invested player. It is one of the other reasons on why campaigns probably should end after a couple of years. It allows the organizers to look at the intented goal of the campaign, whether it is achieved, make the necessary changes and allow players to restart at the same footing. Of course, the downside is that new players are not likely to join something that will end in a year... I am really curious what the optimal balance actually is...

Apr 10, 2012 -- 2:14AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Apr 10, 2012 -- 12:38AM, Dodecahedron wrote:

Another problem with LFR that doomed it to failure from the start was that it was required to be all things for all 4e organized play.

LG was fine and dandy, but there were also the D&D Campaigns;
such as Xendrik Expeditions, Mark of Heroes, and Green Regent.
Those campaigns featured short story arcs, level bumping rules,
retooling characters and equipment at will, and similar features.
They helped to serve the audience that did not want to play LG.

LFR was the only official WotC 4e campaign, so it had to replace
LG plus all of the others. Note I omit the non-WotC campaigns.

Actually, we were not required to be all things. We were required to be very open to casual play and new players. Later experience showed that 4-hour game slots, high level play and long stories are not well-suited for such a target audience, while lack of story and high-level play allienates the invested players which are vital to keep a campaign alive and kicking. I just wish that we had thought of Encounters and Lair Assault from the start, since that would have certainly changed the setup of LFR at the start. By the time we were allowed to change, it probably was already too late for many of the more invested players. In many ways, LFR was the oppostie of LG at the start, and only since last year did we go to a model more focussed on the invested player. It is one of the other reasons on why campaigns probably should end after a couple of years. It allows the organizers to look at the intented goal of the campaign, whether it is achieved, make the necessary changes and allow players to restart at the same footing. Of course, the downside is that new players are not likely to join something that will end in a year... I am really curious what the optimal balance actually is...

That was the reason I thought a 1/3 focused super-region, 1/3 regional setup similar to LFR but say 3-5 instead of 12, and 1/3 core would work out well - the invested players could get the really detailed story of the super-region, the regional setups would allow for investment, but not crazy so, and the core mods would be for the more casual player.

And the people who can play constantly have lots of mods. 

Apr 10, 2012 -- 5:55AM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

That was the reason I thought a 1/3 focused super-region, 1/3 regional setup similar to LFR but say 3-5 instead of 12, and 1/3 core would work out well - the invested players could get the really detailed story of the super-region, the regional setups would allow for investment, but not crazy so, and the core mods would be for the more casual player.

And the people who can play constantly have lots of mods. 

The problem with such a setup is that any particular game event there are rarely enough new and casual players for a full table of generic adventures. The result is that these players end up at the invested player tables, and you often end up scaring the casual players away. LG did had such adventures, and it didn't work very well. Mind you, with replay and more open character generation of LFR it might work better.

As for lots of adventures, that is more a problem of resources. I still don't know how we managed the huge output of the first two years*, although by year 2 it was already showing cracks and in year 3 it collapsed completely (also partially through things completely out of control by us such as the floodings in Australia). The fact that there was a full-time employee of Wizards in charge of adventure distribution probably did a lot of good in that regards. I am always surprised at how much good official active support from a company does to a campaign, especially when looked at it from a world's perspective. Remove that support and play numbers globally will suffer (on a regional level enthausiastic individuals can keep the momentum going for a long time as LG showed).

* Complaining about the quality of those adventures is at least partially unfair to the authors and developers. Many of the specific complaints have their basis in the requirements and limitations WotC gave the campaign. I don't think quantity had that much of an influence on the quality.

Apr 10, 2012 -- 7:43AM, Madfox11 wrote:

* Complaining about the quality of those adventures is at least partially unfair to the authors and developers. Many of the specific complaints have their basis in the requirements and limitations WotC gave the campaign. I don't think quantity had that much of an influence on the quality.

+1

As we all got more play/writing experience with 4E (and LFR), the quality "improved" because we had much more data about what works and what doesn't work. Year 1 and Year 2 authors and developers did not have the vast amount of feedback and insight that we had when Year 3 rolled around!

Apr 10, 2012 -- 7:43AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Apr 10, 2012 -- 5:55AM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

That was the reason I thought a 1/3 focused super-region, 1/3 regional setup similar to LFR but say 3-5 instead of 12, and 1/3 core would work out well - the invested players could get the really detailed story of the super-region, the regional setups would allow for investment, but not crazy so, and the core mods would be for the more casual player.

And the people who can play constantly have lots of mods. 

The problem with such a setup is that any particular game event there are rarely enough new and casual players for a full table of generic adventures. The result is that these players end up at the invested player tables, and you often end up scaring the casual players away. LG did had such adventures, and it didn't work very well. Mind you, with replay and more open character generation of LFR it might work better.

There are two kinds of investment:
1) Kinds where you're mechanically more powerful because you played mod X.
2) Kinds where you're fluff cooler because you played mod X, but it doesn't have any real mechanical effect on the mod.

LG way over emphasized 1 and usually involved travel. I don't think casual players typically mind an invested player at the table who is excited to play a mod due to the roleplaying potential. What they do mind is when an invested player has something that makes them straight up mechanically better that they can't get unless they travel or are really invested.

Apr 10, 2012 -- 2:14AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Apr 10, 2012 -- 12:38AM, Dodecahedron wrote:

Another problem with LFR that doomed it to failure from the start was that it was required to be all things for all 4e organized play.

LG was fine and dandy, but there were also the D&D Campaigns;
such as Xendrik Expeditions, Mark of Heroes, and Green Regent.
Those campaigns featured short story arcs, level bumping rules,
retooling characters and equipment at will, and similar features.
They helped to serve the audience that did not want to play LG.

LFR was the only official WotC 4e campaign, so it had to replace
LG plus all of the others. Note I omit the non-WotC campaigns.

Actually, we were not required to be all things. We were required to be very open to casual play and new players. Later experience showed that 4-hour game slots, high level play and long stories are not well-suited for such a target audience, while lack of story and high-level play allienates the invested players which are vital to keep a campaign alive and kicking. I just wish that we had thought of Encounters and Lair Assault from the start, since that would have certainly changed the setup of LFR at the start. By the time we were allowed to change, it probably was already too late for many of the more invested players. In many ways, LFR was the oppostie of LG at the start, and only since last year did we go to a model more focussed on the invested player. It is one of the other reasons on why campaigns probably should end after a couple of years. It allows the organizers to look at the intented goal of the campaign, whether it is achieved, make the necessary changes and allow players to restart at the same footing. Of course, the downside is that new players are not likely to join something that will end in a year... I am really curious what the optimal balance actually is...

LFR may not have been required to meet all these needs by WotC,
but there were no alternatives, so all players were sent over to LFR.
These players complained if things were not how they wanted them,
and since there were no alternatives, LFR had to accomodate them.
Rules such as rebuilds and level bumps undoubtedly came from this.

I agree that having alternatives, either Encounters or Lair Assault
or whatever, would have helped to take pressure away from LFR.

Apr 10, 2012 -- 1:13PM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

There are two kinds of investment:
1) Kinds where you're mechanically more powerful because you played mod X.
2) Kinds where you're fluff cooler because you played mod X, but it doesn't have any real mechanical effect on the mod.

LG way over emphasized 1 and usually involved travel. I don't think casual players typically mind an invested player at the table who is excited to play a mod due to the roleplaying potential. What they do mind is when an invested player has something that makes them straight up mechanically better that they can't get unless they travel or are really invested.

I have played all over the world, and my experience (1) was not really as bad as some people make it out to be. Sure, there were some discrepancies (some specific items being especially bad), but ultimately gold was still the limit and that was the same in all adventures. The real issues in regards to power in 3e is that an invested player doesn't need unbalanced items and rewards to be much more powerful than the casual player's PC. The player simply knows the rules better, and 3e rewarded such knowledge. I have seen PCs completely dominate a table while having played nothing but cores (mind you, some of the worst offenders powerwise were in cores).

As for (2), you might be surprised how "scarry" invested players might be to the casual player simply based on story. Sprouting large amounts of background information, demanding certain behavior (however politely put) and assuming certain basic information on the world and the previous adventures to be known (and sometimes such knowledge is vital for making the correct decision) can have a very negative effect on new and casual players. I always did my utmost best to prevent such behavior when running a game, but the adventure structure really did not favor the casual player. Mind you, I am not sure that was a bad thing persee. I think that if you focus too much on the casual player, you will loose the invested player and it is ultimately the invested player who carries the campaign.

This is admittedly just a quick hit without much thought behind it, but shouldn't the real goals be to keep invested players, attract new casual players, and create an experience that compels casual players to invest themselves in the campaign?

Rather than think of casual vs. invested as a dichotomy, what about making it a progression?

Apr 9, 2012 -- 3:58AM, Keith53 wrote:

However, what also changed was WotC was convinced that gamers did not really care much about story and definitely did not want long plot lines, and instructed the LFR staff to keep the focus on short story arcs, if at all.  Also, unlike LC and LG, there was zero metaorgs when LFR started as that was seen as unnecessary and a waste of effort by WotC.  Because of WotC decision to start with 12 regions, with low adventure rates, spaced out in time and level, no concentration of focus in one or a few regions was possible initially. Because of that guidance, there was little investment in story and region.  So after the buzz of playing 4e started to fade, many gamers did not feel particularly tied to LFR play. 

The LFR staff tried to respond and change the direction of the campaign, and I think did make some improvements, but other problems had emerged like the significant writing and editing load to meet the WotC standards. The problem of low and unpredictable adventure production emerged and was undoubtedly a hard pill to swallow for many remaining LFR gamers.

Amen. And again, I like what LFR has now. But that initial burden was really hard to overcome.

Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:54AM, Pauper wrote:

There are a number of LFR-specific rulings, but the high-level start rulings most of all, that fly in the face of this advice, and the longer I play and run LFR, the more I see the wisdom in Ian's advice. You'll never get everyone into a living campaign, so focus on getting the best possible experience to the most interested gamers and you'll do as well as can be expected. Having a big organization isn't the same as having a healthy organization, and sometimes the two are mutually exclusive.

I disagree with both perspectives, to be honest. You want enough information and enough hooks that new players can play on their own. Ideally, the organizer would say, "I don't have a DM right now, but have you seen the Quick Start LFR package" and hand them a copy where they could choose one of them as DMs and play (and it could support even 2-3 players and have pregens and everything). That's not an impossible task.

But, that's if you want to have that. I think the main organized play program should have that. It should be accessible and easy for any new person to find everything they need and get started on their own (plus find other gamers).

Apr 11, 2012 -- 1:05AM, Madfox11 wrote:

As for (2), you might be surprised how "scarey" invested players might be to the casual player simply based on story. Sprouting large amounts of background information, demanding certain behavior (however politely put) and assuming certain basic information on the world and the previous adventures to be known (and sometimes such knowledge is vital for making the correct decision) can have a very negative effect on new and casual players.

Very true. We saw this in Geoff all the time, when some poor new player would decide to play a druid and the table would literally tell them that every single decision they made was wrong and why. And for that player to learn enough to make the right decisions would take hours of study or months of play. It was awesome to have such deep immersion for an invested player and terrible to be so out of touch for a casual player.

Cheese is a big deal, but I worry about it less. Admins can more easily control cheese than they can provide "accessible immersion" and a sense of rapid acceptance while feeling an earned belonging.

Apr 10, 2012 -- 2:14AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Later experience showed that 4-hour game slots, high level play and long stories are not well-suited for such a target audience, while lack of story and high-level play alienates the invested players which are vital to keep a campaign alive and kicking. I just wish that we had thought of Encounters and Lair Assault from the start, since that would have certainly changed the setup of LFR at the start. .../

/... I am really curious what the optimal balance actually is...

It may be one of these things in life where there really isn't an optimized balance. Campaigns tend to lean toward a certain demographic and pleasing others strains the original target. At the same time, it isn't possible to transition many people from casual to invested - they are often a specific demographic for a reason and can't be easily changed (a home player that has no store, a parent that can't find much time, etc.).

I think a big question is whether a living campaign could be created where everyone could be content with their level of investment, whether really low/casual or high/devoted. I think that should be possible, largely because I see video games do it to some extent. In theory, it should be even easier for an RPG. For example, imagine a Waterdeep-based living campaign where there were three types of play. Importantly, you play different PCs in each of these:

The first would resemble Encounters. There would be weekly games following a periodically refreshing story arc. Each story arc's conclusion, as well as several decision points within that arc, would have outcomes that affect the RP of how Waterdeep is faring. In addition, perhaps some faction scoring system could be in place to reward that faction. This would have the potential of making you care on two levels, perhaps making you more invested. But, importantly, you could just stay here. We could also include short introductory experiences, such as intro mods for home play and convention short play experiences (1-2 hours). PCs in Encounters are self-contained. Those in intros can segue into the next category. In some cases both could participate in the third category (when level appropriate).

Second would be your living organized play. These would be short arcs that you can play anywhere. They might resemble arcs like current LFR, but might include things like a series of 2 hour adventures you can play separately or together. Again, your actions impact Waterdeep on both the RP and faction level. Faction level might have an impact on your PC, perhaps even mechanical (but more importantly, story/RP). PCs here would be able to participate in the next category.

The third would be Lair Assault (in stores) and some special gamedays (in stores), plus Specials and BIs at cons. These would cater to an experienced player, though anyone could try. They would be harder, with bigger rewards and faction points.

The idea would be that you encourage all types of play (store, home, convention) with a variety of events for different demographics... but everyone can share in the success of the other. The truly devoted could do all three. Some might do two. Others would do just one. And it would be ok either way.

Sorry to post so much. Gonna lurk for a while!

Apr 12, 2012 -- 1:01AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Gonna lurk for a while!

Ack! Everyone make an active Perception check, quick!