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

Re: [LivingFR] Adventure blurbs

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.