Hatin' the RPGA? (Forked Thread: The real flaw of 3E/3.5E/OGL)

[smerwin29]

When I started playing D&D (and other RPGs) back in the late 70s, I was lucky enough to have a great and dynamic group of players. We created our own homebrew worlds and tons of houserules, took turns DMing campaigns, and basically wrung every drop of enjoyment out of the game for many, many years. Then came college, jobs, families, and the like, and our group was spread around the globe.

From that point forward, I looked for other groups in the places I landed in my life. Some groups were OK, many were terrible, but none stayed active and vibrant as long as that group I played with growing up. My wife and I both play, and when our daughter was born in 2001, we decided that we needed a hobby to help us have some time for ourselves--as my wife would be home from work and has the tendency to get a bit stir crazy. With the release of 3E, we thought we would give it a try again.

Unfortunately, there weren't a lot of players in our area. Some were not looking for new players, and after a few false starts we realized that other players in our area were not people we would want to have a regular game with. I'd run dozens and dozens of home campaigns over the years, but I had no time to do all the prep work with job and family and other obligations. This was when Living Greyhawk was getting started, and there were some semi-local players holding game days and conventions, so we thought we'd give the RPGA a try.

My only experience with the RPGA before this had been attending a game day. Long story short, I had been treated very rudely by the people there. This treatment gave me a very low opinion of people in the RPGA, but that was based on just that one instance many years previous, so we decided to try again at a small convention running Living Greyhawk adventures, just months after the launch of the campaign.

Our experience was wonderful. The DMs were great, which made the adventures fun, and while the other players were a mixed bag, we were able to meet players who shared our interest and situation, and from that we were able to put together regular game days. I did find some of the RPGA rules and regulations off-putting, and some of the
adventure writing was weak.

So rather than just complain on the Internet, I got involved. First is was just volunteering to do some work for the Living Greyhawk Triad for my region, and one thing led to another. Now I am freelancing for WotC, and I co-designed P3: Assault on Nightwyrm Fortress with Bruce Cordell. Yes, it was a lot of hard work for those intervening years, but it all started because I gave the RPGA another chance.

The RPGA certainly isn't for everyone. Would I love to be in a great home campaign again, like back in the day? I sure would. Nothing is better than that kind of gaming. But the RPGA, despite its flaws, serves a purpose. For those looking for a game, it provides opportunities where you can usually find a public game on any given weekend. For those who just want free content, you can basically run a home campaign by just using RPGA-sponsored content, without ever having to go to a convention or gameday. When you go to a convention or gameday, you have little control over the quality and attitude of the DMs or other players. I've seen some horrendous judges and irritating players. But I've also made some good friends. And I've seen MUCH scarier people and MUCH worse DMs at home games than at RPGA events.

The question of the RPGA being responsible for the direction of WotC's decisions is an interesting one, and while I have some insight into it through my involvement in Living Greyhawk (Triad member for Keoland), Xen'drik Expeditions (Factionmaster for the Crimson Codex) and Living Forgotten Realms (Global Admin for northern Western Hemisphere), that insight is all from the outside of WotC looking in.

There were complaints that the RPGA was the main playtester for 4e. The simple truth was WotC R&D needed initial playtesters for 4e (outside of internal playtests). They had some choices about how to go about it:

--They could accept applications from players, and therefore have to weed through hundreds of "gaming resumes" which would mostly say things like "I have a great group, we've been playing since 1976, we would be a great playtest group."

or

--They could go to the RPGA, which has records of how much play time certain DMs and players have had, and they could go to Chris Tulach and Dave Christ, who at every large convention get updates directly from players about which DMs and players are good and which are not so good. Chris and Dave could find those who they know are good AND who also have a home group that they play with regularly.

I know what choice I would have made. And that does not mean that people outside the RPGA weren't great, weren't legitimate choices for playtesters, and didn't deserve the chance to playtest. But if given the choice in setting up a large-scale playtest between solid commodities that are known and throwing darts, it doesn't take a genius to go the "known commodity" route.

I have seen people question whether the Forgotten Realms of 4e was created the way it was because of some need to interact with the RPGA. With this I can speak with a little more authority. It was not, and it continues to not. I have to interact directly with the "gatekeepers" of FR lore and development, and I am putting it mildly when I say that the RPGA bends to their will, and not the other way around.

The irony is that the people who try to paint the members of the RPGA as one thing (misfit, munchkin, power-gamer, etc.) would absolutely bristle if someone outside of the game tried to paint all D&D players with the same brush they themselves are using. The RPGA is not a single entity; it is an organization that contains a widely varied group of gamers--thousands of gamers with different ideas and styles. The assumption that the RPGA is any one thing is just plain wrong. The assumption that the RPGA members somehow have a bias toward some kind of play style is just plain wrong. You can sit down with a group at one RPGA event and get a totally different play experience than at the very next group. RPGA DMs have to be ready and capable to shift gears and handle these different play styles successfully.

I can completely understand if people have an opinion of the RPGA based on local experiences. Heck, it would be silly to tell people to PLAY RPGA if the only exposure they can get to it is a local group of RPGA players who are not fun to play with. And if that's the case, that's the case. However, to say that all, or a majority, or even a large minority of RPGA members are [fill in the blank] because of local experiences is at the very heart of bias and any of the -isms you want to use.

WotC's design focus does not "take the RPGA into account." WotC's design focus recognizes that the RPGA is a tool they can use, since it is a communication structure with which they can interact with thousands of players around the world.

Thanks for hanging in that long!

Shawn

 

[arscott]

The RPGA seems to be an outlier group with a disproportionate effect on how the game is designed; specifically, a game designed for RPGA play doesn't often meet the actual requirements of a home game (and, probably, vice-versa). Some of the goals are compatible, but others are not, and the RPGA has a louder collective voice than "home gamers."

I'll bite. In what way does a game designed for (the modern) RPGA play not often meet the requirements of a home game?

 

[Melan]

arscott: well, in a game between strangers, there is often a lack of trust that should be assumed in a standard home game; conversely, there may be a tendency to emphasise unambiguous rules that can be left to the books instead of allowing DM interpretation (and thus the dreaded fiat). I suspect the RPGA, being WotC's main focus group, has pushed the game towards more spelled-out and compartmentalised rules and approaches, and for many of us, that sucks.

As an example, here is how the command spell changed through the editions after it was introduced in 1e:

1e: This spell enables the cleric to issue a command of a single word. The command must be uttered in a language which the spell recipient is able to understand. The individual will obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so long as the command is absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e. “Suicide!” could be a noun, so the creature would ignore the command. A command to “Die!” would cause the recipient to fall in a faint or cataleptic state for 1 round, but thereafter the creature would be alive and well. Typical command words are: back, halt, flee, run, stop, fall, fly, go, leave, surrender, sleep, rest, etc. Undead are not affected by a command. Creatures with an intelligence of 13 or more, and creatures with 6 or more hit dice (or experience levels) are entitled to a saving throw versus magic. (Creatures with 13 or higher intelligence and 6 hit dice/levels do not get 2 saving throws!)

3e: The character gives the subject a one-word command, which she obeys to the best of her ability. A very reasonable command causes the subject to suffer a penalty on the saving throw (from –1 to –4, at the DM’s discretion). Typical commands are "Flee," "Die" (which causes the subject to feign death), "Halt," "Run," "Stop," "Fall," "Go," "Leave," "Surrender," and "Rest." (A command of "Suicide" fails because "suicide" is generally used as a noun, not as a command.)

3.5e (note the change in philosophy): You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of its ability at its earliest opportunity. You may select from the following options.
Approach: On its turn, the subject moves toward you as quickly and directly as possible for 1 round. The creature may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
Drop: On its turn, the subject drops whatever it is holding. It can’t pick up any dropped item until its next turn.
Fall: On its turn, the subject falls to the ground and remains prone for 1 round. It may act normally while prone but takes any appropriate penalties.
Flee: On its turn, the subject moves away from you as quickly as possible for 1 round. It may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
Halt: The subject stands in place for 1 round. It may not take any actions but is not considered helpless.
If the subject can’t carry out your command on its next turn, the spell automatically fails.

4e: You utter a single word to your foe, a word that demands obedience. You can choose to drive the foe back, order it closer, or cause the foe to throw itself to the ground. Hit: The target is dazed until the end of your next turn. In addition, you can choose to knock the target prone or slide the target a number of squares equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier

There is a definite move towards
a) making the spell wording as precise as possible;
b) narrowing its use down to combat ("encounter") applications.
The consequence is standardisation and the elimination of its creative potential. What use is command if sliding the target 3 + Cha modifier squares doesn't quite cut it?

Is the RPGA to blame for this? Probably not entirely. I suspect a wider feedback loop is in effect, where the RPGA serves as an echo chamber for misguided and harmful views on game design, which the current crop of WotC staff seem to possess. Then again, I am a self-confessed 4e hater, so FWIW, IMO and all those fancy acronyms apply.

 

[smerwin29]

in a game between strangers, there is often a lack of trust that should be assumed in a standard home game

This contains the faulty assumption that RPGA = gaming with strangers. I would estimate that 80% of RPGA play is played in groups that play together just as regularly as a non-RPGA home game.

There is a definite move towards
a) making the spell wording as precise as possible;

This is true. I am not sure how the RPGA caused this change in people's estimations though.

b) narrowing its use down to combat ("encounter") applications.

Not necessarily true. I have seen the 4e Command power used outside of combat on several occasions, both in and out of RPGA play.

The consequence is standardisation and the elimination of its creative potential. What use is command if sliding the target 3 + Cha modifier squares doesn't quite cut it?

Creative potential is eliminated only if the DM and the players choose to limit it. I have myself used the power outside of combat to make an NPC seem inebriated to town guards (dazed and falls prone).

Is the RPGA to blame for this? Probably not entirely. I suspect a wider feedback loop is in effect, where the RPGA serves as an echo chamber for misguided and harmful views on game design, which the current crop of WotC staff seem to possess.

Again, this assumes that the RPGA is somehow not representative of the wider D&D audience, and in my experiences I have never seen anything to prove that is the case. I play with/work with players and DMs and developers both in the RPGA and out--as well as outside of WotC completely. I have not noticed any tendencies for the players within the RPGA that fall outside of the tendencies of D&D players as a whole: they run the gamut, just as any players do.

Shawn

 

[Festivus]

arscott: well, in a game between strangers, there is often a lack of trust that should be assumed in a standard home game; conversely, there may be a tendency to emphasise unambiguous rules that can be left to the books instead of allowing DM interpretation (and thus the dreaded fiat). I suspect the RPGA, being WotC's main focus group, has pushed the game towards more spelled-out and compartmentalised rules and approaches, and for many of us, that sucks.

In my experience, the DM at the RPGA game table has final word on the interpretation of a rule... not WoTC. One of the nice things about unambigious rules is that you don't have to deal with arguments about what something can do at the table... this happened to me a long time ago and drove me away from the RPGA for a very long tme.

As for home games, LFR is what we run every two weeks at my home game. We all enjoy it, and it costs us nothing. The adventures are structured to the point that anyone can run them, which is nice because we take turns at the DM helm between three of us. The change to rewards being only for DMs was a help in getting the players to DM too. We also all DM at our local gameday once a month, also running LFR. The other nice thing about them is you get a complete story fit into about a 4 hour time slot... and some of the stories are really quite good.

If you haven't tried RPGA games lately, you might want to give them a try. It's very different even from LG days, far more enjoyable to me than LG. It only costs you the time to take the really easy DM exam and download the modules to take a look at them.

 

[billd91]

Again, this assumes that the RPGA is somehow not representative of the wider D&D audience, and in my experiences I have never seen anything to prove that is the case. I play with/work with players and DMs and developers both in the RPGA and out--as well as outside of WotC completely. I have not noticed any tendencies for the players within the RPGA that fall outside of the tendencies of D&D players as a whole: they run the gamut, just as any players do.

Shawn

I don't think that assumption is actually there, that RPGA is not representative of the wider D&D audience. What I think Melan is particularly getting at here is the Living Campaign, which really isn't representative of the wider D&D audience. It's a specialized form of campaign that happens to have a lot of success within the RPGA but exists hardly anywhere else.

Most characters either stay in the same game-table campaign or are transported among very few tables of players. But the Living Campaign characters have to be standardized enough that they can be used in any other Living Campaign group playing at the same average party level. And even if people play mostly with their friends, the campaign in general has to be able to handle the kind of gaming it was set up to promote - people bringing a continuing character to a scratch-gathered gaming table at a convention. And in order to do that, the rules have to be tighter, more precise, and I think Melan is right that the success of the Living Campaign model has had an impact on the rules of the game. That doesn't mean that the RPGA is unrepresentative as a whole. It just means that the RPGA promotes some forms of gaming that have different needs when it comes to rule support, needs that appear to have been taken into account in recent designs.

 

[Melan]

billd91: yup; that's what I was getting at. It's a sort of game with different needs and different solutions than an average tabletop game.

 

[Toben the Many]

RPGA and home games are nothing a like I can tell you that. The overall benefit is being able to play wherever you go in the world as long as there are other members of the RPGA in that location.

A lot of the hate for RPGA comes from the old days when, as mentioned, there was a more competitive feel to the organization.

(snip)

Another downside to RPGA is that you can get stuck with rules lawyers from hell who for very good reason can’t find a gaming group.

(snip)

The RPGA can be very cliquish.

(snip)

The RPGA has also had a heavy influence on the game as mentioned, especially concerning products and input.

(snip)

Judge shortage tends to be a big problem at RPGA events.

(snip)

Today’s RPGA is a lot different than it was 10 years ago, even five years ago. I’d recommend it to anyone trying to find a local game and coming up empty handed. Membership is free and a lot of good experiences are to be had. Try it!!

Also I should note that some of the bad experiences in the past are regional based and were not necessarily throughout the RPGA.

All fair criticisms of the RPGA. Most people I know who loathe it probably do for one or more of the reasons above.

That said, my RPGA experience has always been quite positive, because I found a core group of convention-goers who I found to be good people. When I went around the country gaming, I would meet these same people. Eventually, we became friends. So gaming in the RPGA was just like gaming with my friends.

The best thing I can say for the RPGA is that it has made me a much better player and GM. Because of the RPGA, I've sat down at the table with countless number of DMs (both good and bad). I've also GMed for countless numbers of good and bad players. Because of this, I've been able to walk away from each table learning something about myself and how to play or run games. I also had the great fortune of playing with people who weren't afraid you call you out if you did something bone-headed.

Just like going to an NC Gameday where you game with a bunch of ENWorlders, playing in the RPGA gets you exposed to a variety of styles, strengths, and weaknesses. I've definitely grown as a player of RPGs because of that.

 

[guivre]

Though WotC has since turned away from that mentality over the last couple of years, the current party size focus of four players serves as an example when compared to six player focus in previous editions.

The current default party size is 5 characters not 4. I don't feel like looking up if a default size was provided for previous editions, but I do know that I rarely, if ever played in groups with 6 players.

I don't think the RPGA has quit that much influence on the rules, especially not at that fundamental of a level. Nor is it a unified voice that influences design. At most it was a good place to catch bugs in the system.

 

[smerwin29]

While I understand the argument being made, I still think there is a flawed reach at cause and effect here. The crux of the argument I am hearing is this: A "Living Campaign" needs heavily codified rules to succeed, and therefore 4e was developed with heavy codified rules. I will not argue that rules are clearer and more codified in 4e. However, the assertion that Living campaigns, or the RPGA, were responsible for those design decisions just does not hold water. It is just as likely that other research told WotC that a major impediment to people playing the game, or continuing to play the game after having to leave one's group, was the fact that the rules were too complicated, or too open to interpretation, etc.