D&D 5E Wizards not taking Gencon seriously?

[Staccat0]

3. The Epic wasn't as good as some people would have liked. It wasn't as interactive as previous years and some people thought it was too easy or too boring.

Also, as an honourable mention, I'll add 4. The lights went off at midnight in the middle of the Epic due to an automatic timer that wasn't shut off and no one was able to get them turned back on so a bunch of people just gave up and left in the middle of the game.

Most of the issues weren't really Baldman's fault. But people have grown to expect a level of showmanship mostly created by WOTC in the past that was missing this year. I gather that Baldman expected WOTC to donate books as prizes for the All-Access pass people and WOTC changed their schedule to released their books too late to come out at Gen Con, leaving them without anything to give out.

I was pretty bummed by my epic experience, and was there when the lights went out. It was my understanding that the game was over though. Now you are making me afraid that my DM was so out of sync (poor guy just got tossed into the deep end) that I missed something.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I was pretty bummed by my epic experience, and was there when the lights went out. It was my understanding that the game was over though. Now you are making me afraid that my DM was so out of sync (poor guy just got tossed into the deep end) that I missed something.

I wasn't there. I just read some posts over on the WOTC boards where someone was saying their DM was nearly an hour and a half behind because he showed up late and also didn't hear the announcement to continue on to the next part of the adventure and when the lights turned off they just decided to end it there.

Plus a bunch of people on twitter were saying things like "What the heck happened to Mulmaster? There were rumors that it was destroyed before the lights went off and we left after that."

So, it sounded like people didn't properly get to hear or experience the end of the adventure because of the lights going out.

 

[Staccat0]

I wasn't there. I just read some posts over on the WOTC boards where someone was saying their DM was nearly an hour and a half behind because he showed up late and also didn't hear the announcement to continue on to the next part of the adventure and when the lights turned off they just decided to end it there.

Plus a bunch of people on twitter were saying things like "What the heck happened to Mulmaster? There were rumors that it was destroyed before the lights went off and we left after that."

So, it sounded like people didn't properly get to hear or experience the end of the adventure because of the lights going out.

Iiiiiinteresting... Our game started 90 minutes late withg a GM who was just grabbed and didn't know what was happening (poor guy)

An old man spit organge gatorade on me (and the DM's PHB) and asked questions seemingly based on another game system. It was just combat combat combat and I was playing a lvl 1 rogue (who usually wasn't really allowed to get his sneak attacks for reasons I didn't fully understand) beside a bunch of lvl 3 characters so... I doubt I missed much in terms of experience.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

An old man spit organge gatorade on me (and the DM's PHB) and asked questions seemingly based on another game system. It was just combat combat combat and I was playing a lvl 1 rogue (who usually wasn't really allowed to get his sneak attacks for reasons I didn't fully understand) beside a bunch of lvl 3 characters so... I doubt I missed much in terms of experience.

The specials are normally extremely combat heavy. Their purpose for the longest time was to represent large battles that took place or extremely difficult missions against extremely dangerous foes. Last year we fought against a Dragon and its army while each table took on missions to destroy siege weapons or sneak behind enemy lines.

They have a reputation for being deadly sustained battles. But they are generally structures into pieces and the pieces are handed out based on what level the table is and what the results of the earlier part of the adventure was. They are often hard to run unless you've had plenty of time to read the entire thing before hand so you can get an idea of exactly how it all fits together.

Though they also have a reputation for being finished by the author the day before GenCon starts and not having been distributed to the DMs until an hour before the event starts.

All this situation has done is given me a huge desire to correct the problem by DMing again. I haven't DMed at GenCon for a number of years now. Although I can't say I'm the greatest DM on the planet or anything, the stories being told make me feel really bad for the players at Gen Con and I think I can at least exceed the experiences people are talking about.

It's just that since I started dating my girlfriend a couple of years ago, I haven't been able to justify spending the entire con running tables and not spending it with her.

 

[Coreyartus]

I find it ironic that Mearls and Crawford say that the tabletop version of D&D is the heart of the brand for podcast interviews the weekend of the con, yet WotC doesn't express that at the very con they say is about gaming. In fact, they justify not being there because they want to do PAX, which is more centered on videogames, and thus has more press.

You'd think they'd at least support their own OP's games and venue, regardless of who is running it...

I'm glad they've stepped up and offered the swag the All-Access players for their $150 tickets (shocker--ya set a precedence and don't tell anyone otherwise, did they expect when tickets were that price at their "gaming venue" that people wouldn't hold the brand at least partially accountable even if they weren't directly responsible?), but benign neglect is still neglect. No presence at Gencon, reduced staff, reduced release schedule, completely volunteer (and practically un-empowered) OP Admins... Not incredibly endearing, frankly. If that's what it means to them to support the heart of their brand, I'm frankly surprised they're surprised at the recent vocal backlash. They're experienced professionals with years of con experience. They should know better.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Not incredibly endearing, frankly. If that's what it means to them to support the heart of their brand, I'm frankly surprised they're surprised at the recent vocal backlash. They're experienced professionals with years of con experience. They should know better.

From everything they've been saying lately, I'm not entirely surprised. They've said their focus is on multimedia experiences and growing the BRAND of D&D rather than the GAME of D&D.

To me that has always translated to "We need to keep the game in publication in order to say 'We're the D&D company', but the game's main goal is to get us video game and movie deals that are worth WAY more money than selling books." I get the impression that decision was made at a level higher than any of the folks actually working ON D&D. They were likely told "Don't worry, you get to keep making D&D...just with a bit smaller budget." They are working with what they were given the same as the rest of us. I kind of feel bad for them, actually.

Though, I suspect their years of con experience is precisely what made them think they could pull their support and everything would go fine. For the last couple of years their support was minimal anyways and everything worked out. Dave Christ and Baldman always do a great job running the con and I'm certain the people at WOTC said "They've pretty much been running the thing without us for years anyways, I don't see the problem with pulling back just slightly more."

 

[Hand of Evil]

The problem is Hasbro, they do not have a booth at Gen Con, we are not just talking about a failure with WotC but Hasbro, a game company that is not even promoting new games.

 

[Kramodlog]

I find it ironic that Mearls and Crawford say that the tabletop version of D&D is the heart of the brand for podcast interviews the weekend of the con, yet WotC doesn't express that at the very con they say is about gaming. In fact, they justify not being there because they want to do PAX, which is more centered on videogames, and thus has more press.

Saying the PnP RPG is the heart of the brand is just PR. Ok, a bit more than PR has it is whatstrated the brand and it is responsable for all the fluff, but the video games are the the priority for the brand now, that has been pretty clear for a while now. Nathan Stewart, WotC's Brand Director & Executive Producer for Dungeons & Dragons, said to Frobes Magazine that "Dungeons and Dragons stopped being a tabletop game years or decades ago".

I think they learn from some of their mistakes with 4e. Instead of doing all the changes at once and trying to sell them, they just do them gradually and let people learn by themselves or explain them a bit after the fact. It took sometime before a lot of people realized only two APs a year and maybe some handbook was going to be the norm. People are just realizing now that the APs will be set in on the Sword Coast because the video game is set there. People learn that WotC was dropping GenCon for PAX at GenCon or after. Etc.

 

[Osgood]

For the past several years the D&D presence at Gen Con has been increasingly disappointing. This year was a huge let down. I don't really care to play at cons (it's not the style of gaming I enjoy and every time I have tried I wind up with bad DMs or disruptive players) so without seminars or a storefront, there's not much D&D for me at Gen Con any more. The whole approach to cons seems like the decision makers don't understand their importance... but in general I have been perplexed by many of the marketing choices of the past several years.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

The whole approach to cons seems like the decision makers don't understand their importance...

This is not a dig at you, Osgood, so please don't take it that way. You just said something that I could respond to that was easy to quote.

The VAST majority of gamers (and it's been quite a big number due to my many, many years in the Army which exposed me to an ever rotating crop of players as either I moved from duty station to duty station or watch other come into my duty station) I've played with over the past 30+ years have never been to a con, have had no desire to do so and when confronted with the opportunity to do so, will let it pass by. Heck, I'm heavy into RPGs and only attended my first con 3 years ago after playing for 30 years. Even then, the best part of those cons for me were trying out games I wouldn't normally play (board games, RPGs, etc.) and not in shopping for tidbits for a game I'm already playing. Meeting and conferences and such were actually a distraction and kind of annoying as they interrupted my time playing fun games with others who were enthusiastic about gaming.

Given that bit of background, here comes the question: What is the importance of cons beyond catering to those who have already bought into the whole gaming experience and, then, only the fraction who will take the time, expense and hassle of participating in a con? I've never understood it, so that piece would need a lot of clarification. Prior to the instant transmission of information that is the internet, I can understand that cons were an excellent venue for the dissemination of information to a large group who could then get that info out to others, but we don't need that anymore.

To my eye, cons are candy. Tasty and sweet, but unfulfilling. I get a far more satisfying experience going to a well stocked and supported game store that does some in-store gaming.