After all these years, they still haven't figured out how to have a "tournament" style RPG where your character is independent of your table, and you don't end up with somebody showing up to a game with a character decked out like a Christmas Tree of magic items.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1017074Only reason Pundit didn't drop in with "It's shit" is because his pseudonym is in it.

Which was brilliant

Quote from: Voros;1017071What exactly is the issue, that organized play is linear?

I don't mind at all that it exists or that people enjoy it.  I just don't want to play in it, or with the modules designed for it, or with people that expect that kind of experience.  I'm quite happy growing my own groups the same way I always have, with the basics available.  Just stating why I don't buy the modules.  

Think of it as a group of people enthusiastically consuming a food you can't stand.  You don't want any part of it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1017151I don't mind at all that it exists or that people enjoy it.  I just don't want to play in it, or with the modules designed for it, or with people that expect that kind of experience.  I'm quite happy growing my own groups the same way I always have, with the basics available.  Just stating why I don't buy the modules.  

Think of it as a group of people enthusiastically consuming a food you can't stand.  You don't want any part of it.

That still tells me nothing about the actual content, just that you don't like it. Is it, as Voros asked, too linear? Does it have too many goblins? What?

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1017074Only reason Pundit didn't drop in with "It's shit" is because his pseudonym is in it.

Happy new year, everyone.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1017157That still tells me nothing about the actual content, just that you don't like it. Is it, as Voros asked, too linear? Does it have too many goblins? What?

Linear doesn't help, though I don't mind a little linear from time to time.  It's more the "path" part of it--the idea that even in the non-linear parts, they will be looping back around to the main plot.  I also don't care for an official list of things that are always in, with everything else out, and the GM has no say.  Ruins a lot of the reason for playing for me.  

Nearly all the campaigns I run are some kind of high or epic fantasy, with a strong dash of sword and sorcerer now and then.  But despite those similarities, each campaign is quite different within those bounds.  A big part of how it is different are the custom changes to creatures, cultures, allowed classes, etc.  As I said earlier, I have little interest in running a game with the default healing rules.  I run one campaign a lot closer to the default than the other campaign is, but if I ran the default, it wold be the exception, not the rule.  What's the point of having a modular ruleset if you only use a handful of modules?

I also dislike running published, official material in general, because it's more work for me.  I have one of those minds that has no trouble putting together the pieces the way I want, and retaining that at the table.  An adventure I put together myself has notes that I barely need to reference.  This used to be six of one, half a dozen of the other, but the older I get, the harder it becomes to absorb detailed notes in a published format and use those without changing them.  Much easier to absorb the gist of something, mix it into the setting I want to use, and run that.  That's anathema to organized play.  

I agree with much of Byrce Lynch's criticism of how many modules are put together.  In WotC's case, a big hardback book with a series of connected events is about the last thing I need.  My own notes, in contrast, are mainly disconnected locations, creatures, magic, cultures, trade groups, etc. Then on top of that, my "adventure notes" might be only one or two pages for a given adventure.  That style, of course, would be a nightmare to run in organized play.  

Now separate from my dislike of organized play and adventure paths in general, I also find myself distinctly not whelmed by the WotC tastes and sensibilities.  Though perhaps something has made it into their work that I'd like OK, if I could overcome the hurdles above enough to buy and read the product.  I suspect from what people have said that there are parts of Tyranny of Dragons that I could use in a home game.  The rest, I'm just not interested.  Of course, that's not a knock on WotC--it's rare for any product to hit my preferred sensibilities.  Most OSR product seem to be either too gonzo for me or too dark.  WotC seems to be the opposite--too pedestrian, maybe.

Quote from: jeff37923;1017109... I've run games at pubs and FLGS where during the game Adventurer's League and Pathfinder Society organizing members have come on over to my table and tried to recruit my players for their Organized Play game right in the middle of my own game being run, those moments of rudeness were loudly addressed when they happened - but they haven't stopped happening..

Seriously?  That makes me angry just thinking about it.  Disproportionately angry.  Hit them with a chair type angry.  

There are laws in your state against poaching right?  I think you would have a workable defense.

Quote from: Headless;1017173Seriously?  That makes me angry just thinking about it.  Disproportionately angry.  Hit them with a chair type angry.  

Yes, but the police frown on assault cases done over a Tabletop RPG, so.....

Quote from: Headless;1017173There are laws in your state against poaching right?  I think you would have a workable defense.

There are, but I think they only apply to hunting and fishing, so no dice there either.

EDIT: Here's the thing though. I've known many of these people for years in my local gaming scene and it isn't that they are bad people overall, they have just been encouraged to engage in these rude and shitty behaviors. It was far worse when WotC came out with 4E and they were being unpaid corporate shills for that game nonstop.

Thanks, Steven. I haven't read any of WotC's published adventures in years, so that's really helpful.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1017186Thanks, Steven. I haven't read any of WotC's published adventures in years, so that's really helpful.

Nice review of Tomb of Annihilation - http://dungeonofsigns.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/tomb-of-annihilation-review.html
He also reviewed Lost Mine of Phandelver in the starter set - http://dungeonofsigns.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/lost-mines-of-phandelver-review.html

I owned the latter and had a similar negative impression, especially the terrible "quest hub" village.

I'm not sure why WoTC are so bad at adventures - the last thing they made that I think was even moderately good was Forge of Fury in 2000, reprinted (with inferior maps) in Tales From the Yawning Portal. But 5e runs OSR etc modules fantastically well, so it's not a huge problem.

Quote from: S'mon;1016927If you're GMing and dislike feats, I strongly recommend you not use that option. I use feats in tabletop game but not in online game, and both approaches work fine.

I mostly run dnd 5e at an open table club setting where all the core rules are used (and no more) , including feats.
There's not that many feats in dnd and not everyone chooses them anyway, o it's not a big deal for me.

Quote from: S'mon;1017223I'm not sure why WoTC are so bad at adventures - the last thing they made that I think was even moderately good was Forge of Fury in 2000, reprinted (with inferior maps) in Tales From the Yawning Portal. But 5e runs OSR etc modules fantastically well, so it's not a huge problem.

I doubt it is exhaustive, but I think two contributing factors are:

A. Writing by committee.  The "vision" of their adventures, such as it is, comes across as something put together like a corporate mission statement more than anything really felt.

B. They've got a weird mix of both adherence to formula but also refusal to use some of the tried and true things.  It is as if only the one writing the mission statement is allowed to be "creative". Then the writers are stuck with the formula assigned.  "We need to be different while keeping all the important stuff the same!"  Sure, that'll work out fine.  

I guess if you are on a team writing a big module on a certain timeline, you can't help but do some of that.  Still, I'd think it would come across better if they gave some of their writers a little more leeway, and told them to take some chances.

Quote from: jeff37923;1017181There are, but I think they only apply to hunting and fishing, so no dice there either.
.

Do the poaching laws say "hunting and fishing?" Or "fish and game?"

Quote from: danskmacabre;1017229I mostly run dnd 5e at an open table club setting where all the core rules are used (and no more) , including feats.
There's not that many feats in dnd and not everyone chooses them anyway, o it's not a big deal for me.

Feats & Multiclassing are listed as optional rules, not core rules.

It really is hard to choose between a feat and an ASI. They did a pretty good job with that. Everyone benefits from more CON, of course, most classes gain AC from more DEX, a bunch of good skills depend on WIS or CHA, and of course every class is a bit MAD in 5e.