Tables shouldn't be "Us vs DM"

[Aaedimus]

So, I've been enjoying my last year playing D&D for the first time. What frustrates me is in Adventure's League it seems like every game I've played has devolved into a "us vs the DM" where the game is less cooperative story building, and more just 9 months of unrelated 1 shot skirmishes where the players aren't meant (or allowed) any true victory. In 9 months my cleric divination wizard with the luck feat has had exactly 0 successful suggestion or phantasmal force attempts and sleep, charm person, and my familiar all have become useless as there's always an invisible force with counterspell or something homebrewed to make every non damage based spell in the game almost useless. And if you're expecting an ork in captivity to die before spilling the beans so you spend half of your spell resources building a foolproof plan to protect him that an assassin just happens to be able to defeat... somehow? And this kind of thing happens over and over in multiple campaigns.

Nearly 10 months and playing with 5 DMs who all act similarly makes me feel that this isn't unusual at all.

Shouldn't a DM's job be to build an exciting world where the players can be heros and feel invested? Shouldn't we support our players' ingenuity in foiling our attempts to leave nasty surprises and put them in sticky situations? Heroic actions can still have plot related consequences which just happen.

It seems that when I take the table and DM with a more story/exploration themed game style everyone enjoys it allot better, but when i shift back to being a player, how can I support building that style of DMing and gameplay? Am I smoking something or do you see this too?

[the secret fire]

You won't find what you're looking for in adventure league, my friend. It's just a long, long railroad, and transparently so. This is what you signed up for. I'd suggest you find yourself a private table.

[Davrix]

There always should be some players vs DM otherwise where is the challenge to overcome? That being said AL is not the place to find what your looking for. a Good Dm is like a fine wine, it must be well aged and kept hidden away from others that might spoil it.

[Aaedimus]

It's a sad thing... :) I'm glad to hear at least that I'm not crazy

[OldTrees1]

First, the thread's title is so blatantly obvious that it doesn't merit a thread.



However let's address 5E Adventure League and the additional sources of this issue. Unlike most games of D&D, a game of Adventure League comes with a few "uninvited" guests.
1) The Adventure League Admins act as GM setting the overarching rules for that venue. The DM only has so much flexibility if they want it to remain AL legal and thus have your characters remain AL legal.

2) To be AL legal the DM is running an AL legal module or hardcover. Each of those was written by some other author. That author might be decent or terrible at writing a module that predicts & covers player actions well enough to allow the characters reasonable freedom. And a single module can vary in quality depending on what player actions we are speaking of.

Basically at AL you have 3 DMs, changing tables only affects one of them, and changing modules can affect another.




Now I don't think those additional DMs explain why you have constantly had Suggestion fail despite multiple modules and 5 different DMs in 9 months. Obviously they must have failed their save at least once. Perhaps you are struggling at finding a suggestion that both you and the DM find to be "worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable"? I have seen both sides of that coin (player with a bad idea that won't work OR an inflexible DM that didn't give the idea a chance).

[BW022]

I've had good experiences with all my DMs in Adventure League.

Adventure League (and any organized play) is based on a drop-in adventure, designer for beginners, and limited in scope. Most DMs follow the modules fairly strictly. While you might enjoy ingenuity, non-linear plots, bypassing encounters, etc. ... others may not. Adventure League is the fast-food of gaming -- you know exactly what you get and the cooks are strictly following the recipes.

I would recommend that you try DM an Adventure League game. See the constraints you are under. Time, balance, favours, giving players equal time, keeping players on track, dealing with complaints to the organizer, etc. None of these exist in home games -- as you always get a chance next week to pick up where they left off, give other players more time, etc.

[the secret fire]

Or perhaps Suggestion is the kind of spell that allows players to get off of the narrow tracks of AL play too easily, so even when it works, it doesn't work? Organized play and creative play are pretty much mutually exclusive for reasons everyone can easily understand.

[Arkhios]

my 2 copper pieces on the matter:

DM's are neither with or against the players, only to adjudicate rules questions and to convey the players through the story.

DM shouldn't take sides so to speak.

[Elbeyon]

I enjoy games were everyone is working together to have fun. It seems like a better time to me.

[Quoz]

The best way I've ever heard this summed up is "Be a fan of the characters". This doesn't mean you give them cakewalks and kid gloves. It means you give them opportunities to take the spotlight. Give them challenges that matter, so they can shine when on top of them. Put them in danger so you get the emotional attachment to them. When they are being clever, let it do something that advances them in the right direction even if it comes with a negative consequence.

If running in a confined setting like AL, do what you can. And when the player does something brilliant that would take things too far off script, break character for a sec and find a way to resolve that satisfies both story and character.

[SilverStud]

To answer the OP directly, the 'player vs DM' culture is something that flourishes in rigid settings. In settings where the DM is being squeezed on all sides by rules or pressure or whatever, s/he becomes much harsher. In earlier days of D&D, this was the expectation: DMs would craft a challenge that s/he hoped and prayed wouldn't be impotent compared to the mighty broken combos of his/her players. The players, knowing that the DM would be hitting them with everything he legally could, would search out the most broken, min-maxed builds they possibly could.

With 5e, WotC has made huge efforts to kill that mentality, for good reason. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, DMs in AL are nearly as constrained by rules as DMs using older systems. I've had to rehabilitate several players whose first experience was the money/item/title-grubbing community of Adventurer's League.

If it seems like I have a very low opinion of AL, it's because I do.

Find yourself a nice home game. Take a look on Roll20, or the recruiting forums here at GitP. It's much nicer! :D

[opaopajr]

To be honesty, Org Play (of pretty much all systems) attracts a certain type. That type tends to be (in M:tG player archetype terms) Spikes and variations thereof. It's been true since the earliest tournament adventure modules and 1970s/80s associations, such as the RPGA. "Adversarial Winning" is the sine qua non of existence, even in how to play Let's Pretend.

And often these types can't retain friends long enough to stay in home games, due to their poor socialization. :smalltongue: j/k... but many a truth said in jest, too. :smallbiggrin:

[Arkhios]

And often these types can't retain friends long enough to stay in home games, due to their poor socialization. :smalltongue: j/k... but many a truth said in jest, too. :smallbiggrin:

Very true, especially regarding their social skills. It's rather sad that after having played years in the local circles of Living Greyhawk (which eventually turned to Pathfinder Society), and pretty much these people lacking social skills who later joined the circles have ruined the athmosphere so much that I am now reluctant to join those games anymore myself. There are a couple of good people I actually like in there, but the rest are just too numerous for it to remain enjoyable.

[RazorChain]

To be honesty, Org Play (of pretty much all systems) attracts a certain type. That type tends to be (in M:tG player archetype terms) Spikes and variations thereof. It's been true since the earliest tournament adventure modules and 1970s/80s associations, such as the RPGA. "Adversarial Winning" is the sine qua non of existence, even in how to play Let's Pretend.

And often these types can't retain friends long enough to stay in home games, due to their poor socialization. :smalltongue: j/k... but many a truth said in jest, too. :smallbiggrin:

Funny that you say that because the only person in one of my gaming groups that runs organized games is the one who is still bachelor and has never had a girlfriend at 45 and considered the worst GM in the group (of those who rotate the GM chair)

So those who can't DM run organized games?

[Aaedimus]

There's got to be a better way to run AL.

And responding to the gentleman who suggested I DM an AL game: I certainly have.

The truth is, there is some level of fluidity in the players and tables of AL, but I don't think it's bad to the point of forcing every week to be a one off. Even though the DMs are forced to rotate sometimes, they communicate well enough with eachother and the regulars sre pretty regular.

And so far, I also haven't been to an AL that doesn't bend the AL rules.

[mephnick]

So those who can't DM run organized games?

Or those who've run out of players (because they suck) offer to run organized games.

[Zanthy1]

That's one thing I agree with. The the campaign I'm playing in (over a year now) it certainly feels like at times the DM is against us. Specifically how he reacts to rolls (getting super excited when he rolls a crit against us, and upset when he misses being the most obvious). I agree that the DM should never be against the players, because as a DM you're telling a story fro friends (or random people) and facilitating it, but you're not actually playing it. This is one of the reasons I dislike using DM PCs, because it blurs that line.

[Toadkiller]

I’m DMing my first 5e campaign, but have used other systems over the years. I’m aiming to create story points that cause a few explanations of “we are so screwed”, some opportunities for laughter and big cheers of excitement during each session. I’ve got great players, so it has worked most of the time.

They have wailed in anguish (they get a little dramatic) at what seemed overwhelming, had a couple of less than successful encounters and made their way through to great success. Often by strategies that had not occurred to me. I arbitrate wacky or unconventional strategies mainly on the basis of 1) is it fun and 2) does it let all the players have more or less equal time to shine over the course of the evening. The players all showed up to be amazing- it is my job to give them the chance to be so.

I think all of the above is fairly common among mature players at a home table.

[OldTrees1]

There's got to be a better way to run AL.

And responding to the gentleman who suggested I DM an AL game: I certainly have.

The truth is, there is some level of fluidity in the players and tables of AL, but I don't think it's bad to the point of forcing every week to be a one off. Even though the DMs are forced to rotate sometimes, they communicate well enough with eachother and the regulars sre pretty regular.

And so far, I also haven't been to an AL that doesn't bend the AL rules.

In my experience AL games run better than your experiences with them (for example I have not seen any "US vs DM" under 4 DMs, 3 regular player groups + various drop-ins players, over 8 months), but they still have flaws to be considered before accepting.


The biggest issue I see with the AL rules is how strictly they are about adjusting a module to the group. Part of this is to protect PCs from sadistic DMs and part of it is carefully control the amount of magic items (and gold for some levels) that PCs can get in that module and then attempt to import into a module at another table.

Personally I would
A) Allow a Player to retcon their PC to before the module the sadistic DM ran.
B) Keep the strict control over magic item quantity (AL DMs can't add or subtract magic items).
C) Otherwise allow DMs to adjust encounters and add encounters as appropriate to match the group and accommodate when PCs jump off the rails (with the DMs in charge of guiding the PCs to some conclusion).

[Pex]

To be honesty, Org Play (of pretty much all systems) attracts a certain type. That type tends to be (in M:tG player archetype terms) Spikes and variations thereof. It's been true since the earliest tournament adventure modules and 1970s/80s associations, such as the RPGA. "Adversarial Winning" is the sine qua non of existence, even in how to play Let's Pretend.

And often these types can't retain friends long enough to stay in home games, due to their poor socialization. :smalltongue: j/k... but many a truth said in jest, too. :smallbiggrin:


Very true, especially regarding their social skills. It's rather sad that after having played years in the local circles of Living Greyhawk (which eventually turned to Pathfinder Society), and pretty much these people lacking social skills who later joined the circles have ruined the athmosphere so much that I am now reluctant to join those games anymore myself. There are a couple of good people I actually like in there, but the rest are just too numerous for it to remain enjoyable.

Maybe.

I recently tried a Pathfinder Society campaign. The first session there was a That Guy. (That Girl in this case.) We literally just saved her character from being killed by zombies and when she found the treasure denied there was anything at all to keep it for herself. I know in Society play you get a set amount of treasure at the end no matter what happens in game, but still, the attitude was offensive and I confronted it. The DM yelled at me about it the next week. I tried the game a couple of more times. That Girl was away and wasn't playing. There were no metagame issues, but we weren't playing as a party. We were a group of individuals who happened to be attacking the same opponents. It was a glorified board game. I stopped going.

The difference in game play with my home game Pathfinder group was glaring. The camaraderie, the busting of chops, the coordination, the cooperation. We're a party.

[Socratov]

So, I've been enjoying my last year playing D&D for the first time. What frustrates me is in Adventure's League it seems like every game I've played has devolved into a "us vs the DM" where the game is less cooperative story building, and more just 9 months of unrelated 1 shot skirmishes where the players aren't meant (or allowed) any true victory. In 9 months my cleric divination wizard with the luck feat has had exactly 0 successful suggestion or phantasmal force attempts and sleep, charm person, and my familiar all have become useless as there's always an invisible force with counterspell or something homebrewed to make every non damage based spell in the game almost useless. And if you're expecting an ork in captivity to die before spilling the beans so you spend half of your spell resources building a foolproof plan to protect him that an assassin just happens to be able to defeat... somehow? And this kind of thing happens over and over in multiple campaigns.

Nearly 10 months and playing with 5 DMs who all act similarly makes me feel that this isn't unusual at all.

Shouldn't a DM's job be to build an exciting world where the players can be heros and feel invested? Shouldn't we support our players' ingenuity in foiling our attempts to leave nasty surprises and put them in sticky situations? Heroic actions can still have plot related consequences which just happen.

It seems that when I take the table and DM with a more story/exploration themed game style everyone enjoys it allot better, but when i shift back to being a player, how can I support building that style of DMing and gameplay? Am I smoking something or do you see this too?

As someone who has, both publicly and in a more private/restricted setting, DMed and played AL; there are some cp I'd like to drop into this discussion.

My first cp is against AL bashing. It is something that I frequently see around here. And while AL is by no means perfect, maybe halfway decent, it's by no means the putrid pile of excrement as it is made out to be at times on these boards. That description is reserved for 4chan.

And by halfway decent I'd say that AL is an excellent way to get introduced to a local scene. My own experiences with AL were having just moved to a city I knew nobody, completely new and fresh faced I met some people who I would really call my friends and who I have created my new sort of regular gaming group with. Not just that, but real, actual, friends. And AL is a system that really has the potential create such a culture.

When AL works you can get together with a band of random strangers and create a great evening. Some DM's I have played with have taught me a great deal about storycrafting and how to deal with certain liberties and restrictions in AL. I have also learned a lot about on-the-fly changes to keep the challenge fun for players and how to keep them engaged. By allowing myself to play with about 10 DM's in about as many weeks. This has allowed me to stand on the shoulders of others while finding my own style and to learn DMing.

While learning to DM I have also had the pleasure to quickly find myself DMing for all kinds of players and a lot of different situations. AL really is, and should be, a pressure cooker for emerging DM's.

drops a copper piece on the table

However, AL has a shadow side and that's something where your post comes in a lot but which is also a problem I have with 5e. It is a straightjacket. While 5e is not so bad in of itself, if somewhat limited and limiting as an edition, AL turns up the dial to eleven. And some of these are real, actual, problems. The DM is not empowered in AL.

Not. At. All.

I mean, hear me out; the DM actually has less freedom then the PC. You get handed what is basically a set of railroad tracks and it becomes your job to lead the players along some of them. Some challenges allow you to pick and choose the creatures to pit against the players, others are set in stone. And while AL claims that you can do all kinds of stuff, you can't go outside the norms of what is written in the modules.

And don't even get me started on treasure. some mods are like Oprah, others aim to become Scrooge McDuck. Half of it is basically useless and you are not allowed to change out gear. Ever. Not even if it's gear used by the enemy, if it is not listed in the treasure section, it absolutely cannot exist on a PC's sheet. At. All. EVER!

So the AL rules state that as a DM you are (supposed to be) empowered to change things around to make a great session, except on the points where it actually would matter. To use a metaphor: you are absolutely allowed to drive around in your car, as long as you promise not to leave the house.

A second coppery coin-shaped object hits the table

But that is not all.

With a solid *thunk* a gold piece is put on the heavy slab of oak

I think the problems of AL are only endemic to 5e as a system: while the restrictions or lack of content make for great opportunities to make up your own, I find that 5e has a tendency to be too constraining. And what I mean is in AL we have only seen a bit of Barovia and mainly the Forgotten Realms. Despite the feedback I have seen all over my main social media channels (i.e. here, Reddit, AL DM facebook groups, and don't tell me these boards don't count because the devs should at least visit en-world, BG and this board for optimisation potential), I have yet to notice any deviation from the FR lore. Instead it seems the devs are intent on filling every little nook, cranny and pinhole that could potentially exist in the FR. And still no official word on other settings. Not to mention Psionics that seems to act more like a pacifier for rowdy voices then seeing actual release. While it starts off simple and more or less equal, the powercreep has been noticeable for a while now. This is especially hurting in AL where you can only select PHB+1 other source, and no you can't pick the DMG. Now claims are that the rule would reduce the number of books you need to be familiar with (which is bull**** because between 3 characters you can force the DM to research all the books and the interactions). The next argument is balance, which is bull**** as well as the strongest classes and spells can be found readily in PHB alone.

IMO the cult around 5e is well deserved:

-the system is a lot easier, rules lighter and simpler as it's REAL predecessor, without sacrificing distinctions between classes, which make 5e one fo the best systems out there
-the fans operate as a cult as criticism can quickly be met by "If you don't like it, why don't you play it"
-which goes double for fans of AL ("If you dislike AL, why don't you create your own homebrew group and do what you want?")
-it's extremely limited in content (FR is everything, and Barovia and Chult are only demiplanes in the FR)
-However, the classics are there and you can really visit new twists on old stories.

all in all I am grateful for 5e's simplicity which has helped me to try my hand at DMing, but also its faults as those have triggered me to try out another system which has been on my rpg bucketlist for a long time.

[Arkhios]

Maybe.

I recently tried a Pathfinder Society campaign. The first session there was a That Guy. (That Girl in this case.) We literally just saved her character from being killed by zombies and when she found the treasure denied there was anything at all to keep it for herself. I know in Society play you get a set amount of treasure at the end no matter what happens in game, but still, the attitude was offensive and I confronted it. The DM yelled at me about it the next week. I tried the game a couple of more times. That Girl was away and wasn't playing. There were no metagame issues, but we weren't playing as a party. We were a group of individuals who happened to be attacking the same opponents. It was a glorified board game. I stopped going.

The difference in game play with my home game Pathfinder group was glaring. The camaraderie, the busting of chops, the coordination, the cooperation. We're a party.

That, too, is a very real problem around here. I guess it comes with the hobby these days. People are so self-interested that they don't care about group composition at all. And to be honest, they don't have to, due to how the campaign works and the ease of getting magic items to negate the need for other people with different abilities, as you can basically handle any situations on your own. It gets boring real quick when the group is full of snowflake individuals who only care about their own time in the spotlight, and disregard what others might be able to do. As long as they can shine, they're happy. When they don't, they brood over the table and at worst, mock others for not doing things the way they would like.

[SilverStud]

As someone who has, both publicly and in a more private/restricted setting, DMed and played AL; there are some cp I'd like to drop into this discussion.

My first cp is against AL bashing. It is something that I frequently see around here. And while AL is by no means perfect, maybe halfway decent, it's by no means the putrid pile of excrement as it is made out to be at times on these boards. That description is reserved for 4chan.

And by halfway decent I'd say that AL is an excellent way to get introduced to a local scene. My own experiences with AL were having just moved to a city I knew nobody, completely new and fresh faced I met some people who I would really call my friends and who I have created my new sort of regular gaming group with. Not just that, but real, actual, friends. And AL is a system that really has the potential create such a culture.


That's fair, tbh. I'm sure some people, like yourself, have had great experiences with AL. I'll even believe that roughly half of people who do AL have a great time. You'll have to forgive my spit and bile, though, as I've only ever encountered the sucky half.



With a solid *thunk* a gold piece is put on the heavy slab of oak

I think the problems of AL are only endemic to 5e as a system: while the restrictions or lack of content make for great opportunities to make up your own, I find that 5e has a tendency to be too constraining. And what I mean is in AL we have only seen a bit of Barovia and mainly the Forgotten Realms. Despite the feedback I have seen all over my main social media channels (i.e. here, Reddit, AL DM facebook groups, and don't tell me these boards don't count because the devs should at least visit en-world, BG and this board for optimisation potential), I have yet to notice any deviation from the FR lore. Instead it seems the devs are intent on filling every little nook, cranny and pinhole that could potentially exist in the FR. And still no official word on other settings. Not to mention Psionics that seems to act more like a pacifier for rowdy voices then seeing actual release. While it starts off simple and more or less equal, the powercreep has been noticeable for a while now. This is especially hurting in AL where you can only select PHB+1 other source, and no you can't pick the DMG. Now claims are that the rule would reduce the number of books you need to be familiar with (which is bull**** because between 3 characters you can force the DM to research all the books and the interactions). The next argument is balance, which is bull**** as well as the strongest classes and spells can be found readily in PHB alone.


If it's too constraining as a system, why is your main complaint about lore sources and your second about a specific style of play within the system? 5e is the most open we've ever seen an edition of D&D. You can easily take it and use it in any fantasy setting (either your own 'brew or a third party setting).



(which is bull**** because between 3 characters you can force the DM to research all the books and the interactions).


Not quite, actually. The PHB+1 rule limits options by never letting extra sources interact with each other on one character. So sure, a DM should know a bit about every book, but he only ever needs to worry about, for instance, how SCAG works with PHB, or EE works with PHB. He never needs to worry about how SCAG spells interact with EE races or whatever.

OH NO you made me defend AL WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!!??



IMO the cult around 5e is well deserved:

-the system is a lot easier, rules lighter and simpler as it's REAL predecessor, without sacrificing distinctions between classes, which make 5e one fo the best systems out there
-the fans operate as a cult as criticism can quickly be met by "If you don't like it, why don't you play it"
-which goes double for fans of AL ("If you dislike AL, why don't you create your own homebrew group and do what you want?")
-it's extremely limited in content (FR is everything, and Barovia and Chult are only demiplanes in the FR)
-However, the classics are there and you can really visit new twists on old stories.

all in all I am grateful for 5e's simplicity which has helped me to try my hand at DMing, but also its faults as those have triggered me to try out another system which has been on my rpg bucketlist for a long time.

I know that all this is subjective, and thus your opinions are just as valid as mine, but my experience has been different. Every single time I've tried a new system (currently in a long-term pathfinder game) I've wanted to go back to the simplicity and fun of 5e.

[Theodoxus]

Played my first AL game last Saturday, Going back again tomorrow... kinda excited. But, even with the singular example in my repertoire, I can see all the various facets being discussed. There were two "that guys" in the group. The socially awkward "face" who stole the spotlight every chance he had - despite having a stutter and a tick where he twirled his hair and shoved it in his ear... I was fascinated by this caricature of a table top gamer... then the other who was so mysterious, he wouldn't tell us his character's name "call me the Robber Ranger" which obviously, within 10 seconds was shortened to Rob. It doesn't matter what his actual name is, the character will always be called Rob for perpetuity...

The DM was kindly, but a little frazzled - but I think that was mostly because he was eeking out hobby time from a full teacher's work day, working on his Masters in Special Education and dealing with his own kids... we were his respite from banality - and it was pretty obvious.

Of the players, I could quickly tell I was the only one with any extensive experience. it wasn't bad, I enjoy exploring the game riding the waves of wanton discovery exuded by new players. But again, this threads' points are writ large in this microcosm. None of the others really understood the concept of group play. I, being a lover of dwarves, and clerics, decided to bring a life cleric to the group. The others were 3 fighters, the mysterious ranger, and a monk. So I was the only caster, and the only healer (the ranger was 1st level). We're playing CoS. After exploring Barovia, we stumbled upon a vampire spawn. I cast Sacred Flame, striking true - the spawn didn't like that, and jumped me, scoring a decent hit and knocking me out. Two fighters ran away to chop a hole in the ceiling, to allow sunlight to pour in (despite the module expressly stating that all sunlight in Ravenloft is filtered and has no detrimental effects on vampires). The monk waited two rounds of death saves before finally deciding to use a healing potion on me. The rest of the party (dex fighter and ranger) held the spawn off me until it was finally destroyed between a combination of radiant damage, sunlight and slashing.

OOC, I lambasted the others for letting their healer get knocked out and then running away - IC, I kept the pretense of not knowing they were so reckless - of course, I didn't know that the DM had at some point altered the sun rules - else I would have agreed with the action of opening a hole in the roof.

I don't know if other DMs who also play make better players or not - but at least in this case, I was coming from a desire to be a team player - knowing from a DMs perspective that the best way to ruin a DMs plan is to be a team - and the fastest way to a TPK is an 'every man for himself' mentality.

While having fun is the primary goal, I think a good secondary one in AL would be to teach/train other players in the sense of teamwork that seems missing - both from my singular experience, and the anecdotes shared in this very thread.

[E’Tallitnics]

Sounds like you need to talk to these DMs and find out why the things that should work the way you think they should work aren't working that way!

However it honestly sounds like you've hooked up with a cliche-y group of DMs and might be better served looking for another AL shop, do an online game, etc.

I will share with you that things in the AL should be changing drastically! The guy running the show has confirmed on Twitter that the next season of AL (season 8) they're switching to the Shared Campaign guidelines from Xanathar’s Guide to Everything (p. 172)!

What that means is more support for more playstyles. No longer will characters level up based only on XP gained, where for the most part XP came from combat.

For every hour that the adventure should take (not how long it does take) you'll get 1 Check point. Tier 1 (levels 1 thru 4) will require 4 Check points to level up. Tier 2+ will require 8 Check points to level up. Every time you level up you also get a fixed amount of Gold. You no longer pay gold for Downtime activities either.

For every 2 hours of play you get a Treasure Point. You trade these in, based upon your tier, for the magic item you want off of the tables in the DMG. Tier 1 is tables A thru C for 4 points per item. Tier 4 is tables A thru I for up to 12 points per item. No more adventuring for 4 hours to find out the 1 magic items only works with Warlocks!

The beauty of this system is that it doesn't matter how your table spends their time. Be it all combat, or all role playing or anything in between! If the module is a 4 hour one you'll get 4 Check points, 2 Treasure points and some Gold to spend however you see fit.

As an AL DM, on board since the AL started, I'm super stoked about this change! When we run adventures we are limited to what we can do and how long we can spend on any given story arc and/or character(s) spotlight. This new format should go a long way in making it easier to play D&D the way it was meant to be played and still keep in Organized Play.

(And it'll be very interesting to see how the Admins come up with integrating existing characters / adventures into the new system!)

Just keep this in mind and also remember that the AL is as varied as the world around it, so if you're not happy with a certain group go find another one to play with!

[Socratov]

That's fair, tbh. I'm sure some people, like yourself, have had great experiences with AL. I'll even believe that roughly half of people who do AL have a great time. You'll have to forgive my spit and bile, though, as I've only ever encountered the sucky half.

well duh, otherwise the experiment would have ended a long time ago :smallbiggrin:

and you are fully excused as I happen to know that AL has the potential to be a great as any place that gathers random people for the same purpose. and with a real influx, but not overall total growth of the community (if the posts on facebook are any indication)
I can only deduce that there are a lot of people leaving AL in favour of no DnD or homebrew.


If it's too constraining as a system, why is your main complaint about lore sources and your second about a specific style of play within the system? 5e is the most open we've ever seen an edition of D&D. You can easily take it and use it in any fantasy setting (either your own 'brew or a third party setting).

simple: it's the best and most glaring example. I could cite certain concepts that are nigh impossible to execute out of the box (like a thrown weapons expert who can actually be as useful as a non thrown weapons expert), or the fact that no known official material exists for eberron, greyhawk, spelljammer, dark sun, or any other setting that isn't forgotten freaking realms. even within the FR the planes are hardly fleshed out.

as for most open, I think that title still belongs to 4th. Like it or not, it was consistent across the board, wether that meant classes,
effects, numerical values, number of tolls in one's kit, all you needed to do was change the flavour and presto. different setting,
from high fantasy to modern space age. 5e comes close, but is much more rooted in fantasy.


Not quite, actually. The PHB+1 rule limits options by never letting extra sources interact with each other on one character. So sure, a DM should know a bit about every book, but he only ever needs to worry about, for instance, how SCAG works with PHB, or EE works with PHB. He never needs to worry about how SCAG spells interact with EE races or whatever.
Until you have a party that starts interacting with each other. And besides, I have yet to see something outperform a PHB wizard played at full intelligence and tactical options. Or a well used druid or cleric. the only difference with 3.5 is that the lore bard might be the scariest of them all.

OH NO you made me defend AL WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!!??
I believe this link is applicable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuHvpUrLn8M):smallamused:

I know that all this is subjective, and thus your opinions are just as valid as mine, but my experience has been different. Every single time I've tried a new system (currently in a long-term pathfinder game) I've wanted to go back to the simplicity and fun of 5e.
well, to be honest, Call of Cthulhu 7th ed. seems to have stuck with me...