...and thats exactly the attitude that needed to die when LFR started. Great, the campaign was 'strong', as long as you knew the admins and got along well with them. Which basically meant that you went to a LOT of cons and/or played in the Admins home group.
I have to disagree. It was also 'stronger' when you just were an average joe (as fast as adventurers go) and just swept along with whatever current drove your region.
Just knowing that "this is your region, you're pretty much stuck there" meant that it was a totally different way to perceive what was going on around you, even if you could only affect it yourself in very minor ways.
In LFR my character wakes up in Cormy one day, in Calimshan the next and in Neverwinter the day after that. "Oh, the Queen of Thorns destroyed Cormyr? Well, I was only passing through once a year anyway so whatever".
I played only seldom, from 2001 until 2008 I only got a single character to level 7, I didn't become a mover and shaker of the region, but it was cool that there were actual movers and shakers really affecting the region even if I wasn't one of them.
I read through the region newsletter how character X became head of organization Y and changed the whole region through doing Z and thought "Awesome, I know that guy! I actually was in an adventure with him 3 years ago when we both were level 1. Now I am level 3 and he's level 12 and really important and that's awesome". I was never jealous
Just knowing that "this is your region, you're pretty much stuck there" meant that it was a totally different way to perceive what was going on around you, even if you could only affect it yourself in very minor ways.
Or, more accurately, "This is your region, if you dont like the same PC classes and/or gods the triad of this region does, go play another game. You're not welcome to come join this private party." Having stories going on in in-game regions and encouraging CHARACTERS to play in those regions isnt a bad thing. Forcing PLAYERS to stick to those regions is utter stupidity and guaranteed to lead to cliques.
Letting triads alter canon in 'generic' regions enough to penalize playing 'generic' classes spoiled play in several regions. Basically, the triads telling their story, maybe with the help of some players, got in the way of playing D&D.
In LFR my character wakes up in Cormy one day, in Calimshan the next and in Neverwinter the day after that. "Oh, the Queen of Thorns destroyed Cormyr? Well, I was only passing through once a year anyway so whatever".
I played only seldom, from 2001 until 2008 I only got a single character to level 7, I didn't become a mover and shaker of the region, but it was cool that there were actual movers and shakers really affecting the region even if I wasn't one of them.
I read through the region newsletter how character X became head of organization Y and changed the whole region through doing Z and thought "Awesome, I know that guy! I actually was in an adventure with him 3 years ago when we both were level 1. Now I am level 3 and he's level 12 and really important and that's awesome". I was never jealous.
I played for the last 2 years. Enough to get a Druid to level 12, a FTR to 9 and a Bard to 6ish IIRC. During all that time, I found my Druid fighting against everything the triad did by just showing up to play. My Fighter gave up any pretense of being a character in the region since it was "tow the company line, or frag-off" and the Bard was a joke character that was just fun to play.
The triads story for the region was complete non-sense. The thought of joining in to it gave me as a player a headache.
To address the cronyism/localism argument in LG as a whole, I think it made the campaign stronger in one very significant way - the players knew the admins, and vice versa. It was easier to write adventures that considered audience expectations when you had physically met a significant portion of your audience, and it's far less likely that you'd call an admin an "authoritarian control freak" when you've sat at tables with them, had a beer with them after the con, and know you're going to see them at a convention in a month or two.
...and thats exactly the attitude that needed to die when LFR started. Great, the campaign was 'strong', as long as you knew the admins and got along well with them. Which basically meant that you went to a LOT of cons and/or played in the Admins home group.
LX is much better off writing for the region instead of writing for the players in that region.
I think both things are true. It really is true that the campaign is more likely to feel personal when you have a closer feedback loop. LG was enormous (look at the number of adventures published, in the thousands!), but it felt really personal for most players in a decent or better region. It had an excellent feeling of community, and I think that is a really critical element that has been lost in recent years (beyond a few dozen regular forum members and a few local areas).
On the other hand, many players want the game to feel less dependent on players that are outgoing/evilish/attention-getting/etc. Year One table certs are a great example - they tended to go to the same people most of the time. That was great for an outgoing roleplayer like me, but not for many other players. The Triad system rewarded many troublemakers. Some of the biggest attention moments in Geoff were all about wacky players who broke kingdom rules, rather than about the heroic PCs that just did a great job. That's okay at times, but overall it creates that sense of the system being unfair.
I think you can tap into a bit of both elements. For example, I think a faction/alliance system could allow for group accomplishments with some strong tie-ins between the ongoing plot and table accomplishments, but without getting into individual player/PC angles too deeply. The key, to me, is always making sure the "power" is at the table rather than individual level. Let's say one PC gets to do xyz... have the table decide rather than the judge or the adventure (or the player). That's a stronger basis upon which to establish that the PC matters... the PC matters because the adventuring party matters.
There are many things about the LFR model to admire.
Is there? What elements that LFR introduced (that weren't, say, in LC or LG) do you consider admirable?
Along our current discussion lines, LFR corrected various elements of cronyism and inconsistency. There were many players that felt hurt by this and LFR really removed that angle. It also had consistency across regions/story arcs. LFR didn't make PCs of Elturgard get special access or players that arrived in year one to be vastly different in power than players in year three. (For example, practically no straight-class melee ranger in all of LG could compare to mine because of the unique way I milked (legally only at that time) a Sword of the Rogue, cohort, signature item rules, and adventuring company to basically end up with two extra (very vital) points of AC. It was a huge difference with 3rd editions iterative attacks).
Nearly everything related to access worked vastly better in LFR. It may have been pretty vanilla and character build driven, versus the flavor of some ARs (adventure records) in LG, but a lot of the LFR downside with rewards is really more to do with magic items in 4E. Removing all those pages of Not Open Not Closed and other access stuff was great. I think it was great for sales, great for players of all experience levels, and great for the campaign.
The system of rebuilding was generally much better. We skipped that intense agony of each LG character rebuild. While I like to see players "keep what they start with" in terms of builds, this was better for a campaign.
LFR was vastly more friendly to new players and to casual players. I played LFR every year at Gen Con with a group of 4-5 players who only played every year at Gen Con. That really wasn't possible in LG without a huge risk of TPKs. Also, it wasn't immediately transparent to anyone at the table that they didn't play often. Yes, this accessibility was sometimes due to a lower amount of story or connection, but I don't think it has to be.
LFR initially offered a ton of adventures of many different types. It was a larger experience in terms of what you could play (tons of regions, tons of approaches, etc.). LG could feel confined when basically everyone in your area that was an experienced player had played all of the regional mods and you couldn't find a regional game. I'm not specifically addressing replay, which has positives and negatives, but LFR had various ways it pulled this off.
Along that concept, I think the ADCP and SPEC approach had merits. I have some issues with it, but the access and removal of the really offending bits made those types of events stronger on average by removing the really weak experiences that tended to happen too often in LG.
DME and the departure from "every table should run the same" was a great move. I initially protested this one pretty loudly on the LFR Yahoo group, but I came around pretty quickly. It was great for DMs to begin the process of seeing how an adventure should be more about this table rather than 'the written page'.
I thought the initial system for adventure level tiers was really good, while I don't care for the current APL-styled system. I understand the switch, but I still disagree with it because I thought it worked really well for mustering, for convention attendance, for casual players, and for authors.
I thought the documentation of LFR was generally better than LG. It is easy to forget that the central web site of the RPGA basically never worked at all. While LFR still has really bad problems in terms of the WotC site's incorrect links and incomplete/bad information, this is compensated for by having a central forum area and one site for the adventure downloads.
Adventure downloading was vastly superior in nearly every way. I despised e-mailing a Triad and dealing with password-protected pdf files.
There are a number of things I'm probably not recalling. And, of course, many things I can criticize (true of any game/organized play).
That's one of the reasons why I consider it a shame that the adventure writing/release process is so opaque. The only conclusion I can draw from the results is that something is deeply dysfunctional about the process, and it would be valuable for future campaigns to know what mistakes not to make. Unfortunately, the desire to not point fingers means that we have no idea where the problems actually are.
I think the LFR Globals know what to recommend for future campaigns, and I suspect Wizards knows it as well. I don't think it needed to be more transparent, as much that the system should encourage global admins to make changes when changes are needed. Also, if Wizards is in charge, Wizards should monitor problems and demand their correction. It isn't about transparency to players from what I can see.
The only conclusion I can draw from the results is that something is deeply dysfunctional about the process, and it would be valuable for future campaigns to know what mistakes not to make. Unfortunately, the desire to not point fingers means that we have no idea where the problems actually are.
The main lesson I take away from this train-wreck is not to play in any future campaign that's run by the same people as this one.
