Organized Play: Can You Learn To Love It?

As we continue to get ready for GenCon, lets look at the bright side of Organized Play programs. And we'll look at the seamy underbelly while we're at it.


Two More Columns til Gencon….Two More Columns til GenCon…

View attachment 58395

So, 13th age just launched. The ink is still wet (but doesn't smell as good as that old purple ditto ink did in grade school…..). And they've already kicked off their organized play campaign.

I find it telling that the project that has been pitched as a "Love Letter to D&D" made sure that it's initial Go-To-Market plan includes an organized play campaign. Clearly, from the publisher's point of view, there's something to value about OP. But so many people have such negative things to say about organized play games. Are they just the vocal minority?

My Organized Play History

When I moved to Kansas from the East Coast, I left behind my high school and undergrad gaming groups and contacts. Over the first few years here I started a couple of failed groups with friends who were mildly interested in gaming, or willing to put up with giving the game a try if I would just shut up about them.

But all of those attempts were short-lived and mostly anemic.

I met a local guy in an online gaming forum; we met for coffee, talked about games, and that led to the two of us trying to put together a gaming group with friends we could both bring to the table. That group ultimately didn't quite succeed, but it did introduce me to another local gamer friend who took me along to my first Living Greyhawk game.

And that's pretty much where it started for me. Living Greyhawk enabled me to find a game almost any weekend I wanted to find one; it introduced me to a bunch of new players, and helped me get back into the hobby that I had been trying to find my way back into for years.

Eventually, I connected with enough people through LG to put together a home game. And, with some changes in personnel and game system over the years, that group has been going strong ever since.

So, I owe my current home game -- which makes me very happy.

Organized Play at the Big Conventions

Finding a game with your local group is one thing -- taking part in the offerings that a large con can leverage is something else entirely.

• Competitive Play: The D&D Championship, FourthCore Deathmatch (not an RPGA event, but still a sort of competitive organized play) and a few other options take the game experience and make it competitive. (I'm not sure if PFS has a Championship-style offering -- if they do, please post it in the comments and I'll update this)
• Large-Scale Interactives: The Battle Interactive is a staple at some of the larger conventions. It brings together the efforts of dozens of tables playing through the same adventure, all working to achieve the same collective goal.
• Introductory Games for New Players: One of the obvious benefits of these OP offerings is they're a low-impact way for inexperienced players to try out a game for the first time -- and in a lot of cases the OP groups offer dedicated introductory sessions for the new players.

Dealing With The Downsides

There are no shortage of threads on this or other RPG boards that delineate the problems with organized play. In the end, they come down to some risks we take when we venture out of our comfortable home game rooms and try to connect with other players.

1. Other People can be Crappy - That's a risk anywhere, really. Sure, you're more likely to run into a smelly fatbeard or ubermunchkin than you are a trust fund snob, but one way or another, meeting new people means a risk that you'll meet someone you don't like for one reason or another. Hey, they might not like you, either!
2. Other DMs can be Crappy - It's exciting to play with different DMs, because each one brings something unique to their game -- even in an organized play environment. Of course, just like when you meet new players, meeting new DMs takes the risk that you'll wind up not liking what they're doing. But there's also a chance you'll like it -- or get a good idea from them.
3. The Adventures can be Crappy - A lot depends upon where the adventures come from, but in a lot of OP campaigns, the adventures are fan-written, and don't quite have the polish that we expect from a print adventure. Very often there are connections to previous adventures that you may not have played, or don't remember the details of because it's been too long. And the convention format may force a sort of railroadish adventure that you don't enjoy. But, even on the most scripted railroad, it's possible to have a good time with the details.

See a pattern there? The problems we associate with these OP events pretty much can all be summed up with the idea that anything new is a risk -- meeting a new food, a new book, a new game, or a new player -- they all run the risk of being something that you will wind up not caring for. But if you don't get out there and try something new, you're going to be stuck at home eating the same PBJ, reading the first Wheel of Time book over again, playing first edition D&D and only playing rogues.

So, what do you think -- is Organized Play awesome? A means to an end? Or not worth touching with Piratecat's 10' pole?

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I truly enjoy games where the threat of dying and having it cost you makes for a more emotionally intense game.

Actually, while I was often annoyed by the bookkeeping involved, I do miss that element of the LG campaign from time to time. It was possible to really build a character -- over a period of years playing in local home games and at conventions, picking up weird certs and obscure items here and there. An 8th level character that developed organically was a much more interesting thing than one that was just whipped up to play at that level.

I get why that sort of OP -- at least in the case of D&D (I'm not sure about PFS) -- has gone away. In a lot of ways it's a lot more friendly to casual players than it used to be. But I do miss it from time to time.

-rg

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

So, much like the in-game world, one of the downsides of organized play is dividing the loot! That seems appropriate.

I've never spent time at an organized play event and I don't go to a ton of cons but I've been running home games for decades. I was somewhat interested in things like 4E Encounters and LFR but the non-con events were always scheduled (locally at least) on nights where it just was not an option.

Overall I assume there's some value to it from the company's perspective or they wouldn't do it. Buzz, visibility, recruiting - I'm sure that's a big part of it.

 

[Umbran]

None whatsoever. This is a "what do you think" thread. Thus, the "if".

Just so we don't start talking past each other - my initial reaction was due to the lack of if in your original statement.

Such research is unlikely to exist even for WotC.

Organizations can, and do, get feedback from the people involved. If people playing organized games were regularly telling them, "Hey, this stank, and the players I was with also literally stank!" I suspect they could draw some conclusions from that. It will not tell you about people who kept their mouths scrupulously quiet, but if you had a horrible game, and failed to give feedback, well, that's your own fault, now isn't it?

It's very difficult to determine how many people the hobby might capture if it did things differently, or how many people gave it a shot and left, or what drove such people away.

See above - in an organized situation, it is easy as pie to find out if the people who were involved were generally happy or not. Details may be fuzzy, but the basic generalities are not hard to come by.

Again, this is a thread for speculation and opinions, as the OP's question makes clear.

Yeah. So, my opinion that we should not base business decisions on personal preferences fits right in, now doesn't it?

What if I told you that I don't like "reality shows", and if I were in charge of CBS, there never would have been a "Survivor"? Or that I'm a vegetarian, and if I were in charge of McDonald's, there would be no meat on the menu? Am I then "passing judgment" on those things? Am I taking them away from people who do like them, hypothetically?

Bit of apples and oranges there - reality shows and fast food are available all over the place, from many vendors. Taking away one venue of such isn't going to significantly impact access to the genre. The same is not currently true of organized D&D play.

Also, if you were McDonalds, and decided to turn the entire chain vegetarian, I expect the economic crash-and-burn would lead to your quick exit as He Who Is In Charge. So, when you use this as your analogy to taking away organized play, well, you aren't doing yourself many favors, now are you?

 

[Balesir]

What if I told you that I don't like "reality shows", and if I were in charge of CBS, there never would have been a "Survivor"? Or that I'm a vegetarian, and if I were in charge of McDonald's, there would be no meat on the menu? Am I then "passing judgment" on those things?

Well, you are passing judgement on those things, but in a thread of comments responding to a request for opinions, that's really not such a bad thing.

The nub, though, comes when you express the opinion that the operators of those businesses are wrong to do what they do - which you are effectively claiming by saying that "it's not what you would do" (presumably because, despite any identified business advantage - which there must be for any business to countenance the activity - you think it's wrong for anyone to do these things). In doing this, you are being intolerant. Tolerance is pretty unambiguously a good thing, but plenty of folk are intolerant. Objections to intolerance are themselves, of course, intolerant (ironically) - but they are proof that even intolerance must, on some limited occasions, be tolerated...

 

[Lwaxy]

Never been part of organized play. But I have randomly joined games at conventions which is pretty much the same "bad player" risk.

I suppose I could like it if done well, and if there was a regular event in my area I'd probably give it a try.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Overall I assume there's some value to it from the company's perspective or they wouldn't do it. Buzz, visibility, recruiting - I'm sure that's a big part of it.

People like me who really got into OP would create events at our local stores. They'd call all their friends to remind them to show up. They'd post flyers at stores across the city to encourage people to come. We certainly brought more than a few people into the hobby.

Plus, it has the benefit of being fairly casual while still having the possibility of being extremely deep. For instance, we'd run games days weekly at our game store for a couple of years. A bunch of people would show up every week. They'd buy new books as soon as they came out so they could try new classes and get new options for the characters they were playing. The dedicated players had 5 or 6 regular characters at various levels so that no matter what level the adventure was that we played, they'd have one that was appropriate. These are the same players who would make trips to other cities to get more and varied play experiences.

However, on the flip side, a bunch of more casual players knew that although we played weekly that there was no requirement to show up every week. They didn't have to dedicate themselves to a weekly group just to play D&D. They could play one LG adventure and then show up 2 months later with that same character and know that we'd accommodate them and they won't have lost any of the progress on their character that they got from their last session.

Some of these casual people picked up at least a PHB intending to play, even if some never showed up again. Maybe they went on to start home games...who knows? But a number of them would likely never have played D&D at all if they had to make a dedication to a play group.

Meanwhile, it opened opportunities for more play for the people who were heavily invested in it. If you have a level 13 character that you've leveled from level 1 in OP, you want to play it. As much as possible. Most D&D play groups only meet once a week or once every second week for a couple hours at a time. At our height, we were playing 4-5 adventures a week, each was 4 hours long. When you play a game that much, you're more willing to spend money on it(just look at the Free to Play video games that exist these days, they make lots and lots of money simply because players are so invested in the game). Plus, the OP games allowed almost every option in every book, so they had the assurance that they could use material in any book they bought.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It will not tell you about people who kept their mouths scrupulously quiet, but if you had a horrible game, and failed to give feedback, well, that's your own fault, now isn't it?

People aren't that simple. Sometimes they tell you what they think you want to hear. Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they're limited by their knowledge. Getting feedback is hard. Getting honest feedback is really hard. Getting honest and informed feedback is really really hard.

More to the point, if your business is built on getting people to buy products and play at home, information about what happens in an organized play setting is not really relevant.

Yeah. So, my opinion that we should not base business decisions on personal preferences fits right in, now doesn't it?

It does. It just strikes me as naive. Research is not some all-seeing objective lens through which we view the world. The vision of the people in charge decides what research will be done and how, and it's then for them to decide how they'll interpret and use that information. There's no such thing as an opinion-free business model, for better or for worse.

Bit of apples and oranges there - reality shows and fast food are available all over the place, from many vendors. Taking away one venue of such isn't going to significantly impact access to the genre. The same is not currently true of organized D&D play.

But, as I've noted, unlike those items, D&D is freely available to everyone. If someone really likes an organized play campaign, they can set one up themselves and perhaps disseminate it widely, and it'll succeed or fail on its own merits without the company making any input into it whatsoever. Which leaves the company to focus all its time and energy on the game itself and make it better. Everybody wins.

Also, if you were McDonalds, and decided to turn the entire chain vegetarian, I expect the economic crash-and-burn would lead to your quick exit as He Who Is In Charge. So, when you use this as your analogy to taking away organized play, well, you aren't doing yourself many favors, now are you?

Maybe. But the goal of life is not to make money. Throughout all businesses, there is money to be made by widely disseminating poor quality products and services, keeping cost low but finding various ways to entice people to buy anyway. D&D has moved strongly in the McDonald's direction in that regard. I don't believe in doing that stuff.

If I were in charge of a food company, I'd focus on providing quality, healthy food, treating everyone in the company fairly and keeping them happy, and providing the best possible experience for customers. I expect that any large company would quickly dispose of me on that basis. I say that's a good thing.

If I were in charge of a game company, I'd focus on providing the best game possible and providing products and services to support its use. I wouldn't try to create a separate, marginalized, and standardized game experience as a promotional tool. Would WotC hire me as their top man? Probably not. But again, I think that says something good about me.

All of which goes towards the point that I don't like organized play. If there are other people that do, that's fine, but they're unlikely to change my mind. I dislike it on principle, because (as in the original post above), I think that personal relationships and individual creative freedom are inherent to the experience, and that those are compromised in organized games. If someone played in an organized game and had fun, it doesn't falsify that principle, and it doesn't mean that their experience wouldn't have been infinitely more rewarding in a home game. I suspect that providing these types of organized games loses WotC a lot more money than it gains them, but that's purely speculative and it could be the other way around. I don't care. My only stake here is in supporting the kind of positive experience that I've had in gaming.

 

[Balesir]

People aren't that simple. Sometimes they tell you what they think you want to hear. Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they're limited by their knowledge. Getting feedback is hard. Getting honest feedback is really hard. Getting honest and informed feedback is really really hard.

All that is true, but your answer seems to be to replace it with your own view alone - how is that better from anyone's viewpoint but your own? Basing policies on feedback and evidence, however flawed that feedback and evidence may be, seems to me to be much superior to basing it off of one persons views. The only area where I can think that the "lone vision" is better is art, and that is because the feedback/dispersed judgement comes after the creation.

More to the point, if your business is built on getting people to buy products and play at home, information about what happens in an organized play setting is not really relevant.

But roleplaying games are not solely intended to be played at home. I remember playing D&D in a games club sometime around 1977, at the latest. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson I believe first started playing D&D at their wargames club. Conventions have been around for a loooong time. RPGs never were an "only ever play this at home, kiddies!" thing. They are a pastime as diverse in their location and circumstances of enjoyment as they are diverse in play style, game setting and system focus. You might personally like them best when played with a fixed set of players in the privacy of your own home, but that isn't the entirety of "D&D", or even of RPGs. You are mistaking the bit you see and like for the whole thing.

Research is not some all-seeing objective lens through which we view the world. The vision of the people in charge decides what research will be done and how, and it's then for them to decide how they'll interpret and use that information. There's no such thing as an opinion-free business model, for better or for worse.

I can agree with all of this - but I could not disagree more with your conclusion that we should therefore disregard research. Some evidence - even flawed evidence - is better than no evidence at all. Always. The alternative to "research isn't perfect" isn't to discard research, just as the solution to the fact that my eyesight isn't perfect isn't poking out my eyes.

But, as I've noted, unlike those items, D&D is freely available to everyone. If someone really likes an organized play campaign, they can set one up themselves and perhaps disseminate it widely, and it'll succeed or fail on its own merits without the company making any input into it whatsoever. Which leaves the company to focus all its time and energy on the game itself and make it better. Everybody wins.

Except that the company doesn't get a market grown by introducing newcomers to one aspect of a hugely diverse, vibrant and fulfilling hobby through a venue that features particularly their product. This is why the company may choose to materially support organised play -it's a marketing tool, like many others. And if they see benefit in using that tool, why shouldn't they?

But the goal of life is not to make money.

No, but the goal of business is to make money (specifically in competition with other businesses - which is where the democratisation of "good quality", or at least "good value", come from). The process, as it exists in the world, may not work perfectly, but see my earlier comments on that.

Throughout all businesses, there is money to be made by widely disseminating poor quality products and services, keeping cost low but finding various ways to entice people to buy anyway. D&D has moved strongly in the McDonald's direction in that regard. I don't believe in doing that stuff.

"Poor quality" is in the eye of the beholder. As long as there is competition, good quality - as judged by the people in the market collectively - will always win out. If higher production values that involve more cost fail, that is a sign that people as a whole do not consider the additional investment of resources (represented by the money price) worthwhile for the added utility. You may, personally, disagree with the judgement of the consumer base as a whole. I know I do on several points. But to say that ones own opinion should be set above that of the rest of humanity is sheer hubris.

If I were in charge of a food company, I'd focus on providing quality, healthy food, treating everyone in the company fairly and keeping them happy, and providing the best possible experience for customers.

Your first difficulty is going to be deciding what constitutes "quality, healthy food". The evidence is somewhat mixed and changes all the time. There are certain constants, sure - but almost all of them have exceptions. A friend of mine eats almost exclusively highly processed food, because if he doesn't he'll likely die (he has Crone's disease, as do thousands of others around the world).

The next issue will be that what you decide is "quality, healthy food" will almost certainly conflict with "providing the best possible experience for customers". Even assuming (and it's a big assumption) that I concur with your assessment of what is "quality, healthy food", I am one consumer whose experience would be marred by being told what I can eat "because it's good for me". I had that as a child, and can accept it as it was done then by my mother, but as an adult I would reject it coming from a stranger without hesitation.

All of which goes towards the point that I don't like organized play. If there are other people that do, that's fine, but they're unlikely to change my mind. I dislike it on principle, because (as in the original post above), I think that personal relationships and individual creative freedom are inherent to the experience, and that those are compromised in organized games.

Personal relationships with people met for the first or second time are different from those with long time friends, for sure, and creative freedom my or may not be constrained by being with new friends rather than old, but I would say that makes the experience different, not "compromised". And variety is the spice of life.

My only stake here is in supporting the kind of positive experience that I've had in gaming.

Which is fine, but you have expressed the wish to give that "support" by suppressing other kinds of positive experience that others have had in gaming. That is the wrong way to go about it. Competition among desired alternatives will generate a vibrant and diverse hobby with engaged, fulfilled participants. Only supporting one "approved" way to play will not.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4

 

[Ahnehnois]

The only area where I can think that the "lone vision" is better is art, and that is because the feedback/dispersed judgement comes after the creation.

D&D is a creative medium, isn't it?

You might personally like them best when played with a fixed set of players in the privacy of your own home, but that isn't the entirety of "D&D", or even of RPGs. You are mistaking the bit you see and like for the whole thing.

No, I'm aware of all the other venues. I just don't think they're as good. To say that organized play exists or has existed for a while doesn't mean that it should continue to.

I can agree with all of this - but I could not disagree more with your conclusion that we should therefore disregard research. Some evidence - even flawed evidence - is better than no evidence at all. Always. The alternative to "research isn't perfect" isn't to discard research, just as the solution to the fact that my eyesight isn't perfect isn't poking out my eyes.

Not necessarily. Some research is so flawed that it functions as disinformation, and is better off ignored. And in any case, this whole argument about research is purely conceptual. AFAIK none of us knows about any research relevant to the thread topic.

And if they see benefit in using that tool, why shouldn't they?

If they do, they should. I'm saying that I don't see that. I think the same dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

"Poor quality" is in the eye of the beholder.

Yep. I'm beholding some poor quality. No more to it than that.

As long as there is competition, good quality - as judged by the people in the market collectively - will always win out. If higher production values that involve more cost fail, that is a sign that people as a whole do not consider the additional investment of resources (represented by the money price) worthwhile for the added utility. You may, personally, disagree with the judgement of the consumer base as a whole. I know I do on several points. But to say that ones own opinion should be set above that of the rest of humanity is sheer hubris.

Whoa there, tiger. The market is not always right. If it was, "Avatar" would be the best movie ever. People can arrive at mistaken conclusions in a variety of ways, and indeed, businesses put a lot of money into fundamentally deceptive marketing, advertising, and other tactics designed to inflate perceptions of their products or otherwise induce people to buy them. This topic is likely to run afoul of the no politics rule if carried further, but suffice it to say, good quality sometimes wins but often does not.

Which is fine, but you have expressed the wish to give that "support" by suppressing other kinds of positive experience that others have had in gaming. That is the wrong way to go about it. Competition among desired alternatives will generate a vibrant and diverse hobby with engaged, fulfilled participants. Only supporting one "approved" way to play will not.

Who's talking about suppressing anything? My whole point was that sufficiently motivated people can organize themselves, whether it's one play group or an organization of thousands. To say that a company should not be putting money into providing a standardized play experience and focus on rules is not to say that they should go into your local convention center and eliminate all the games that are not up to specs.

Just as with an edition change, if all organized play were eliminated tomorrow, people would be free to keep playing however they choose. And if enough people wanted to play in some big "living" campaign, it would work. You could call it the market deciding what's best.

What I don't think should happen is the company that makes the game doing anything other than make the game. If someone wants to make a setting, or some miniatures, or set up an organized campaign, let someone do it and let it succeed or fail on its own merits. Let the company that makes D&D focus on getting the D&D part right for a change.

 

[Balesir]

D&D is a creative medium, isn't it?

It's creative, sure, but it's done by a group of people, not by an individual. I should perhaps have said "individual art" - I was thinking of painting, but sculpture or the like could also qualify. And note that there is still no monopoly on "quality" - the judgement simply comes after the piece is complete.

Not necessarily. Some research is so flawed that it functions as disinformation, and is better off ignored. And in any case, this whole argument about research is purely conceptual. AFAIK none of us knows about any research relevant to the thread topic.

Even poor research tells us what something is not - which is better than no information at all.

Whoa there, tiger. The market is not always right. If it was, "Avatar" would be the best movie ever. People can arrive at mistaken conclusions in a variety of ways, and indeed, businesses put a lot of money into fundamentally deceptive marketing, advertising, and other tactics designed to inflate perceptions of their products or otherwise induce people to buy them.

The problem with your assessment, here, is that it assumes some external authority on what constitutes "quality". To say that evidence for such an authority is sparse would be a gargantuan understatement.

By it's own lights - which are the ones that matter, to it - the market is always right. It has the final say; the only thing that can gainsay it is power and that proves itself wrong by its own execution.

It may be that you disagree with the market/masses. You have every right to do so. There may even be people who agree with you. But, unless you have some legitimate grounds for claiming superior authority as regards "quality", your consensus is merely a tautology. You agree with people who agree with you because they have the same views on the matter as you do. Everyone on the planet could say the same. But the final arbiter on what the market wants is always what people buy. Simples.

What I don't think should happen is the company that makes the game doing anything other than make the game. If someone wants to make a setting, or some miniatures, or set up an organized campaign, let someone do it and let it succeed or fail on its own merits.

This is at odds with itself.

Suppose a company wants to produce a roleplaying game that is primarily intended for the OP market. Its primary aim is to be played at clubs and as convention and gameshop play events. Why should they not "do anything other than make the game"? And why should WotC be debarred from making D&D with such an agenda?

If you were saying "not all game companies should support or focus any corporate effort on organised play", your point would be coherent. And, as an aside, I would agree with it. But you seem to be demanding that no RPG company should put any effort into organised play. That seems to be exclusive in a way that you claim that it isn't.

Let the company that makes D&D focus on getting the D&D part right for a change.

Again the assumption that there is some absolute, external authoritative version of what is "right". I'm afraid you are destined to be disappointed, on that one.

Especially if you think that the predetermined "right" version is the one you currently envisage it to be. That's a situation that never ends well.