Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Adventure blurbs

Expand Messages
  • keyoke_diacherus
    True, and I thought the same. However, how do we tell with any ease when CORE-23 will retire? : ) Keyoke
    Message 1 of 22 , Jun 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      True, and I thought the same. However, how do we tell with any ease
      when CORE-23 will retire? : )

      Keyoke

      --- In LivingFR@yahoogroups.com, MikeD <miked_msn@...> wrote:
      > You are assuming that for some reason they will restart at 1 at some
      > point. If they "just keep going" I doubt that anyone will confuse
      > CORE-31 with CORE-1 <g>
      >
      > --
      > MikeD mailto:miked_msn@...
      >
    • Joe Fitzgerald
      ... You look at the dates when you order it, or you look at the adventure when you read it, or you read the campaign standards when they come out, or you read
      Message 2 of 22 , Jun 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LivingFR@yahoogroups.com, "keyoke_diacherus" <Diacherus@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > However, how do we tell with any ease when CORE-23 will retire? : )
        >
        > Keyoke
        >

        You look at the dates when you order it, or you look at the adventure
        when you read it, or you read the campaign standards when they come
        out, or you read offical campaign announcements or you look at
        community sites for the information or you hear from your convention
        organiser or or or or or or or or...


        Joe
      • jhorred
        In that case you can t tell just by looking at the number when it retires like the current system.  At the same time, maybe they will number them to where
        Message 3 of 22 , Jun 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment

          In that case you can't tell just by looking at the number when it retires like the current system.  At the same time, maybe they will number them to where it'll be easy to tell, without having to reference another document to find out.  The suggestions below are all welll and good for a GM when they are in the process of ordering and running a mod, but when the GM is glancing over a list trying to decide which mod to order, they don't help much.  The WotC site tends to run slow and opening each mod to check retirement dates can be time consuming.  I would hope they create somekind of sequential numbering system, like the current one, that includes a reference to the campaign year. 

           

          JEff



          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Joe Fitzgerald <joerpga@...>
          To: LivingFR@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Monday, June 2, 2008 4:20:58 PM
          Subject: [LivingFR] Re: Adventure blurbs


          --- In LivingFR@yahoogroup s.com, "keyoke_diacherus" <Diacherus@. ..>
          wrote:

          >
          > However, how do we tell with any ease when CORE-23 will retire? : )
          >
          > Keyoke
          >

          You look at the dates when you order it, or you look at the adventure
          when you read it, or you read the campaign standards when they come
          out, or you read offical campaign announcements or you look at
          community sites for the information or you hear from your convention
          organiser or or or or or or or or...

          Joe


        • Karl
          ... ... No Mike, I m not assuming that (and please don t put (virtual) words in my mouth). I just think that it the year numbers make it
          Message 4 of 22 , Jun 3, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LivingFR@yahoogroups.com, MikeD <miked_msn@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hello Karl,
            >
            > Monday, May 26, 2008, 6:03:11 PM, you wrote:
            >
            > K> --- In LivingFR@yahoogroups.com, "jcregister2000"
            <jcregister2000@>
            > K> wrote:
            > >>
            > >> CORE-1 Inheritance
            > K> ...
            > >> CORE-2 The Radiant Vessel of Thesk
            >
            > K> I notice there are no year markers on these mods. I think
            > K> that's a shame, it will end up causing difficulties in the long
            > K> run IMO.
            >
            > You are assuming that for some reason they will restart at 1 at some
            > point. If they "just keep going" I doubt that anyone will confuse
            > CORE-31 with CORE-1 <g>

            No Mike, I'm not assuming that (and please don't put (virtual) words
            in my mouth).
            I just think that it the year numbers make it easier to work with
            mods. At least some category-type information in the name can be
            helpful - as per core - we could even have level-type info in the
            name. And as other have suggested, in LG we can tell when a module
            is set to expire from the name without having to look it up elsewhere.

            Having attempted to play most of the D&D campaigns, as well as LG, I
            found the LG naming more useful to me.

            Karl
          • kaililitu
            ... A reference to the campaign year would be very useful; even giving everything a two-digit number (e.g. CORE-01 instead of CORE-1 ) would be an
            Message 5 of 22 , Jun 3, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              > The WotC site tends to run slow and opening each mod to check
              > retirement dates can be time consuming. I would hope they create somekind
              > of sequential numbering system, like the current one, that includes a
              > reference to the campaign year.

              A reference to the campaign year would be very useful; even giving
              everything a two-digit number (e.g. "CORE-01" instead of "CORE-1")
              would be an improvment to avoid confusion when people let software
              sequence stuff in alphanumerical order. With 12 Cores a year two
              digits should last us till 2017, which is about as long as the Living
              Greyhawk campaign is going to have run for...

              Once we start getting mods (besides the Preview ones) which retire at
              some date other than the end of 2009, I certainly intend to make
              retirement easy to see (possibly even segregating scenarios by
              retirement date) on the http://www.lfr-oxford.oxif.org site. Which
              I'll be doing some more work on soon, have had a lot else on my plate
              lately.

              Xan Ophis
            • DKings3374@aol.com
              In a message dated 6/3/2008 4:29:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, karll70@yahoo.com writes: No Mike, I m not assuming that (and please don t put (virtual) words
              Message 6 of 22 , Jun 4, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 6/3/2008 4:29:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, karll70@... writes:
                No Mike, I'm not assuming that (and please don't put (virtual) words
                in my mouth).
                I just think that it the year numbers make it easier to work with
                mods. At least some category-type information in the name can be
                helpful - as per core - we could even have level-type info in the
                name. And as other have suggested, in LG we can tell when a module
                is set to expire from the name without having to look it up elsewhere.

                Having attempted to play most of the D&D campaigns, as well as LG, I
                found the LG naming more useful to me.

                Karl
                 
                 
                 
                I suspect that when they actually start releasing modules for play, that they will have a system in place to differentiate which mod is which, and when it expires. They learned to do this for Living City more than 15 years ago.
                 
                In any case, it might be a good idea to wait until the campaign starts before worrying about it
                 



                Handlebar
                I wear the mustache :-}




                Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
              • Brian
                CORE-1 through CORE-99: end of 2008 CORE-100 through CORE-199: 2009 CORE-200 through CORE-299: 2010 etc., etc.??? Maybe? Still not as clear-cut as COR7-XX, but
                Message 7 of 22 , Jun 4, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  CORE-1 through CORE-99: end of 2008
                  CORE-100 through CORE-199: 2009
                  CORE-200 through CORE-299: 2010

                  etc., etc.???

                  Maybe?

                  Still not as clear-cut as COR7-XX, but what are you gonna do when
                  your campaign doesn't happen to start nice and neat in the year 2000?
                  They could keep going I suppose, and start with CORE8-XX and go up
                  from there. But that might confuse people who are just getting into
                  Living Campaigns... "Hey, why does it start at 8? Where's 1 - 7?"

                  But I think Mr. Handlebar has the right idea:

                  "...it might be a good idea to wait until the campaign starts before
                  worrying about it..."

                  Hey, if we could figure out THAC0, we'll be able to figure this out.

                  -Brian
                  imrpga
                • David Adams
                  ... You understand THAC0?! Cheers, Dave.
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jun 4, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Brian wrote:
                    > Hey, if we could figure out THAC0, we'll be able to figure this out.
                    >
                    You understand THAC0?!

                    Cheers,

                    Dave.
                  • Al Beddow
                    ... Hell, THAC0 is sooo old, it was an article/letter in Dragon Mag back under 1st ed. Unfortunately WotC implemented it in 2nd ed, taking the secret of
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jun 4, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      David Adams wrote:
                      > Brian wrote:
                      >
                      >> Hey, if we could figure out THAC0, we'll be able to figure this out.
                      >>
                      >>
                      > You understand THAC0?!
                      >
                      > Cheers,
                      >
                      > Dave.
                      Hell, THAC0 is sooo old, it was an article/letter in Dragon Mag back
                      under 1st ed. Unfortunately WotC implemented it in 2nd ed, taking the
                      "secret" of what characters needed to hit a specific AC and put it in
                      the hands of the players.

                      And as DM in 1st ed I used THAC0 behind the screen but never told the
                      players the info.

                      Al B.
                      Spokane, WA
                    • David W. Baker
                      ... Maybe modules won t retire on arbitrary dates in LFR. If a module is just as relevant and fun to play years after its initial release, maybe LFR will keep
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jun 5, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Mon Jun 2, 2008, Diacherus@... wrote:
                        >True, and I thought the same. However, how do we tell with any ease
                        >when CORE-23 will retire? : )

                        Maybe modules won't retire on arbitrary dates in LFR. If a module is
                        just as relevant and fun to play years after its initial release,
                        maybe LFR will keep good content developed with a lot of effort
                        available for play.

                        LG didn't start out with arbitrary module retirement. That was
                        something tacked on around the time of the RUPture.

                        David
                      • Jonathan Wilson
                        Personally I like the idea of not retiring Adventures... I can t tell you how many in LG I would have loved to played but they were retired and then I had to
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jun 5, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Personally I like the idea of not retiring Adventures... I can't tell
                          you how many in LG I would have loved to played but they were retired
                          and then I had to play the final year wrap-up module without know the
                          details of the previous modules.

                          - Jonathan

                          On 6/5/08, David W. Baker <dwb@...> wrote:
                          > On Mon Jun 2, 2008, Diacherus@... wrote:
                          > >True, and I thought the same. However, how do we tell with any ease
                          > >when CORE-23 will retire? : )
                          >
                          > Maybe modules won't retire on arbitrary dates in LFR. If a module is
                          > just as relevant and fun to play years after its initial release,
                          > maybe LFR will keep good content developed with a lot of effort
                          > available for play.
                          >
                          > LG didn't start out with arbitrary module retirement. That was
                          > something tacked on around the time of the RUPture.
                          >
                          > David
                          >
                          >
                        • MikeD
                          Hello David, Thursday, June 5, 2008, 5:32:17 PM, you wrote: DWB LG didn t start out with arbitrary module retirement. That was DWB something tacked on around
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jun 6, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello David,

                            Thursday, June 5, 2008, 5:32:17 PM, you wrote:

                            DWB> LG didn't start out with arbitrary module retirement. That was
                            DWB> something tacked on around the time of the RUPture.

                            Just a bit of a clarification.

                            The retirement date was not 'arbitrary'. It was specific and ... from
                            what I remember at the time ... decided upon based on the 'resources'
                            required to support an always expanding list of mods ... some of which
                            would require extensive rewrites as the LG campaign 'evolved' with
                            changes to access rules and the like.

                            --
                            MikeD mailto:miked_msn@...
                          • David W. Baker
                            ... Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I still think the implemented LG scenario retirement policy was arbitrary. I hope LFR does better. David
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jun 6, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Fri Jun 6, 2008, "MikeD" wrote:
                              >DWB> LG didn't start out with arbitrary module retirement. That was
                              >DWB> something tacked on around the time of the RUPture.
                              >
                              >Just a bit of a clarification.
                              >
                              >The retirement date was not 'arbitrary'.

                              Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I still think the implemented LG
                              scenario retirement policy was "arbitrary."

                              I hope LFR does better.

                              David
                            • kaililitu
                              ... I m gonna agree with the opinion that the policy was somewhat arbitrary - while it did follow a system, this system meant that some scenarios were
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jun 8, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I still think the implemented LG
                                > scenario retirement policy was "arbitrary."

                                I'm gonna agree with the opinion that the policy was somewhat
                                arbitrary - while it did follow a system, this system meant that some
                                scenarios were available for general play for around 22 months and
                                others were available for about 6 months.

                                > I hope LFR does better.

                                I believe i saw mention somewhere that all scenarios released between
                                now and the end of 2009 will retire at the end of 2011? If they can
                                stick to the announced regular release schedule, and keep scenarios in
                                play for two years after the year of release rather than just one,
                                this will be a *great* improvement in module availability and
                                retirement over LG - with scenarios available for general play for
                                between 25 months and 35 months.

                                Xan Ophis
                              • Dave McAlister
                                ... I ve never understood the need to retire scenarios anyway. Why can t they people play them anytime? I came to LG a little late (the tail end of Year 3) and
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jun 8, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > I believe i saw mention somewhere that all scenarios
                                  > released between now and the end of 2009 will retire
                                  > at the end of 2011? If they can stick to the announced
                                  > regular release schedule, and keep scenarios in play
                                  > for two years after the year of release rather than
                                  > just one, this will be a *great* improvement in module
                                  > availability and retirement over LG - with scenarios
                                  > available for general play for between 25 months and 35
                                  > months.

                                  I've never understood the need to retire scenarios anyway. Why can't they
                                  people play them anytime? I came to LG a little late (the tail end of Year
                                  3) and it was really annoying that I could play any of the original
                                  scenarios.

                                  Dave
                                • MikeD
                                  Hello Dave, ... DM I ve never understood the need to retire scenarios anyway. Why can t they DM people play them anytime? I came to LG a little late (the
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jun 9, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hello Dave,

                                    Sunday, June 8, 2008, 8:49:24 AM, you wrote:

                                    >> I believe i saw mention somewhere that all scenarios
                                    >> released between now and the end of 2009 will retire
                                    >> at the end of 2011? If they can stick to the announced
                                    >> regular release schedule, and keep scenarios in play
                                    >> for two years after the year of release rather than
                                    >> just one, this will be a *great* improvement in module
                                    >> availability and retirement over LG - with scenarios
                                    >> available for general play for between 25 months and 35
                                    >> months.

                                    DM> I've never understood the need to retire scenarios anyway. Why can't they
                                    DM> people play them anytime? I came to LG a little late (the tail end of Year
                                    DM> 3) and it was really annoying that I could play any of the original
                                    DM> scenarios.

                                    Retirement was based on the fact that things evolved ... we went from
                                    3.0 to 3.5, for example, and there just were not enough people to
                                    rewrite and reedit all the prior mods. After that, the LGCS rules
                                    continued to evolve and change as new books were released and so on.
                                    Again, there were no resources to go back and check every mod for
                                    things that needed to be changed.

                                    And based on the problems that I hear about the ordering system's
                                    fragility, would you really want to make it worse by adding more
                                    demand to it? <wink>

                                    Perhaps LFR will be more 'stable' and so that not make retirement a
                                    necessity because of campaign changes. And the computer system is
                                    continually improving, so maybe that won't add pressure to limit the
                                    number of mods. Also in that same vein, there will be fewer mods in
                                    LFR than was the case with LG's regional rules, so that might help
                                    reduce the work load as well.

                                    --
                                    MikeD mailto:miked_msn@...
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.