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

[caudor]

I don't hate the RPGA; I appreciate the fact that it exists for D&D fans. Anyway, here's my sob story:

My first (and only) experience was not really a good one. I had been wanting to play in an RPGA event for a very long time. After years, I finally discovered a group that was close enough (still a good long drive) and I was really excited about the opportunity. I hooked up with the group via email and soon the big day came.

When I arrived I found a group of folks that knew each other really well; they obviously had been playing together for a while. I won't go into all the details, but they were not exactly polite and did not make me feel welcome at all. Still, I was very polite and upbeat myself in hopes they would warm up a little. They didn't, and I did not return.

Maybe they just didn't like me. Group dynamics are like that sometimes. Nevertheless, my encouter with the RPGA was a big let down. I know that one group doesn't represent the entire RPGA. Most D&D players I know are very friendly and conversational.

That was several years ago. To this day, I have not had the desire to risk that experience again.

 

[tomBitonti]

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.

Shawn

(Much additional text omitted.)

Only thing is, "deserving the chance to playtest" shouldn't be used here as a cool benefit (as in "cool, I get to play the new version early"). Here "deserving" should mean "I've been selected to represent a class of gamers and to influence the direction of the game". Then, there would be many deserving gamers -- in proportion to the size of different subsets of the gaming community.

From that point of view, focusing on the RPGA is terrible disservice to those many many representative gamers.

I look at it like this: A part of the play test effort is to do exactly what is labeled as "throwing darts". The testing, to be effective, must go through the effort of casting a wide net and selecting good representative testers. Focusing on the RPGA to avoid that work is shirking a responsibility.

Focusing on the RPGA makes sense only if WotC had pre-selected the RPGA as its target market.

 

[Roger]

I just wanted to thank everyone in this thread. I'd been thinking about getting some more play in, but had somehow forgotten that the local RPGA chapter was an option. I'll be looking into it; will update if I find anything interesting.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[smerwin29]

Only thing is, "deserving the chance to playtest" shouldn't be used here as a cool benefit (as in "cool, I get to play the new version early"). Here "deserving" should mean "I've been selected to represent a class of gamers and to influence the direction of the game". Then, there would be many deserving gamers -- in proportion to the size of different subsets of the gaming community.

From that point of view, focusing on the RPGA is terrible disservice to those many many representative gamers.

A couple things. First, this assumes that the thousands of members of the RPGA are "a subset of gamers" and are somehow not representative of WotC's audience at a whole, and I contend that assumption is incorrect. Second, I never said "deserving the chance to playtest" meant a cool benefit. And it certainly should NOT mean "representing a class of gamers to influence the direction of the game." "Deserving of the chance to playtest" means being able to be counted on to follow directions, provide insight, and return relevant and accurate data and opinions.

I look at it like this: A part of the play test effort is to do exactly what is labeled as "throwing darts". The testing, to be effective, must go through the effort of casting a wide net and selecting good representative testers. Focusing on the RPGA to avoid that work is shirking a responsibility.

Focusing on the RPGA makes sense only if WotC had pre-selected the RPGA as its target market.

Again, this assumes that the members of the RPGA--the thousands of members with divergent play styles, likes and dislikes, and opinions on what kind of game they like to play--are not representative of the whole WotC/D&D audience. My direct interaction with RPGA members of all stripes over the last 10 years has led me to conclude that the diversity is there. The "throwing darts" comment was in reference to the chances you were taking with those you can trust to provide feedback--not gaming beliefs or play styles.

The RPGA was used to gather some (not all) of the playtesters precisely because the organizational framework was in place to facilitate communication and know that these players could be counted on to do the work--and NOT see it just as some cool thing they get to do before other players--and take the responsibility seriously.

I think people are missing a small but significant difference between market research and playtesting. Market research should provide information to formulate the goals of the design. Playtesting should judge the success or failure of the design in reaching those goals. You want market research to cast that wide net--you do not necessarily want playtesting to do that.

 

[billd91]

A couple things. First, this assumes that the thousands of members of the RPGA are "a subset of gamers" and are somehow not representative of WotC's audience at a whole, and I contend that assumption is incorrect.

Just a quibble...

Statistically speaking, assuming that the RPGA membership is representative of WotC's audience as a whole actually is problematic. It does reflect a systematic bias - for people willing to participate in an organization like RPGA. As a result, any inferences you try to make about D&D players at large using RPGA as your sample are weaker than using a proper random sample.

That said, RPGA may well represent a fairly diverse group. They are, however, literally a subset of gamers.

 

[Ariosto]

Yes, choosing design goals and testing the design are two different undertakings -- and I see how RPGA might be especially suited to much of the latter.

That RPGA might have had inordinate influence on the former seems to be the issue people are raising. The current organization looks like a very good marketing tool, but perhaps it would be less so with a less suitable game. Previous games were in one way or another "messier," and those less tidy aspects were considered by many part of the games' appeal.

Simply not liking the result is practically irrelevant if it's better for WotC's business. On the other hand, if it turns out to be a poor choice in that regard, then there may be incentive to re-evaluate the decision making process.

 

[Arkobla Conn]

A couple of thoughts on the RPGA

After being associated with them for almost 10 years, I'm of mixed emotions about the group now.

I played in the 2e and 3e campaigns and loved them both. I've started the 4e campaign and....have really disliked the changes.

It could be my 4e bias (I dislike it more than 3e) but I liked the way Living Greyhawk was administered. No individual Certs (which was sad, but appropriate) but a 'accounting sheet' for each adventure. This seem the easiest way to deal with characters. Since going to 4e, all the accounting is online, and woe be to anyone who can't log in. My sons don't have logins and we can't now figure out how to track their characters. They've been using numbers for years that apparently no one set up. And I've tried contacting the folks who administer this....to no avail. I can't even seem to coordiante getting them a new number without going to a con. (I had been running RPGA events at home with them and their friends as I've passed both versions GM tests)

Gaming at the Cons is a mixed blessing as well. For the record, I firmly believe that RPGA conference folks make up only a portion of the gamer base. They are a different breed of player. There are significant differences to all of the games I play in the RPGA and to all of the games I play home brew...and these changes are almost exclusively tied to the type and personality of the players.

And the move to 4e, at least initially, caused a horrid downturn in the quality of the mods. Add that to the awful use of skill challenges and the over emphasis on combat made for terrible events.

(To be fair, all mods commented upon were year 1 AND the best use of a skill challenge was in one of these mods....I'm talking generalities, not specifics in my comments)

All that said, some of the best folks I've ever gamed with are in the RPGA...and definately the worst. You do make great friends and can have a great time and I think its a part of the community we should have. I am, however, one of those folks who believes that WOTC puts too much emphasis on RPGA style gaming which had a direct correlation to how 4e was designed...which is ultimately why I think 4e is a weaker product than 3e.

 

[exile]

I'd like to preface this post by saying that I like the RPGA. I enjoy Living Forgotten Realms currently. I enjoyed Living City back in the day. I missed Living Forgotten Realms because of surgery residency (I missed pretty much five years of my life).

All of that said, I do have two RPGA sob stories, and this thread seems a good place to share them.

My first experience with the RPGA came at MegaCon back in the early to mid nineties in Orland. I was playing in my first ever Living City game. My character was Devon, a paladin of Lathander. I played through the game and had a great time, then came the time to hand out certs. A +1 Long Sword was one of teh items that could be selected, and it would have been perfect for my character. Another player though, one who didn't even use long swords, refused to let poor Devon claim the weapon, forcing me to dice off for the cert. I lost, and it sucked, but I kept playing, having a good time for a few years with old Devon.

The second experience came with an RPGA group back in Louisville. They advertised themselves as an open RPGA group, played at a local store, posted sign-up sheets. In any case, I once signed up to play with them and showed up in a timely fashion. When I arrived they fed me line about the sign-up being for another night (the sheet was conveniently taken down), and said that they were playing their home game that night. I know I was there on the right night at the right time, and I was simply excluded. People can have their home game. I have no problem with that, but they shouldn't advertise them as an open game.

Anyway, those are my RPGA sob stories. All in all though, I dig the RPGA, both of yesterday and today.

Chad

 

[darjr]

You can get an rpga number on line. The support people are also very helpful and I was surprised to find them working through the weekends.

DCI / RPGA Membership Card Requests

The above is the page describing how to get 'cards' but at the bottom there is a link to customer service. I've been told that you can sign up and get an rpga number via that route.

Note that I also had to 'resurrect' my rpga number when 4e came out. I didn't know my password or number, just the email I used to sign up with.

 

[tomBitonti]

A couple things. First, this assumes that the thousands of members of the RPGA are "a subset of gamers" and are somehow not representative of WotC's audience at a whole, and I contend that assumption is incorrect. Second, I never said "deserving the chance to playtest" meant a cool benefit. And it certainly should NOT mean "representing a class of gamers to influence the direction of the game." "Deserving of the chance to playtest" means being able to be counted on to follow directions, provide insight, and return relevant and accurate data and opinions.

Ya, I'll give you that one. I thought to edit my note a bit to qualify my last point ... that is "only if ... and only if the RPGA is not representative of 3.5E playersl."

I do think that the players in the RPGA tend to a particular play style that is not on the whole representative. But, that is entirely IMO. I haven't done a survey of players to even know what percentage of all role players or all D&D players, or all 3.5E players, are the RPGA.

My own experience with RPGA (at a FLGS) was negative. As a plus, there were lots of weekly games. As a minus, the quality of GMing was poor, and the adventures did not lend themselves to character development or role-playing. (That may be a result of the poor GMing: I think a good GM would be able to create a higher quality experience.)

Now, there is a separate question, which is whether or not selecting the RPGA as representing a target audience is a bad idea. I ask that from the point of view of "would the RPGA be a good high return on investment market for 4E". Or, does the RPGA represent the qualities of customer's that WoTC might want to attract as the market for 4E.

The RPGA does allow Wizards to bootstrap the 4E playing community, making efficient use of the accumulated experience and community development.