D&D 4E Really?? Is RPGA really the best place to test 4e
- Thread starter DonTadow
- Start date
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Treebore said:
I got invited to several RPGA events by a friend who was trying to get me to join up. I was not impressed. Though I did meet a few cool people there, the majority of the experience was negative due to the personalities of many members (many were rules lawyers, power gamers, grief players, or other types of player typically ostracized from non-RPGA groups).
That said, I don't think it's fair to pick on the RPGA in this regard as my experience with all corporate-sponsored organized play organizations has been very much the same. Notably, my experience with White Wolf's Camarilla organization was very similar to my experience with the RPGA (except that I did join, only to drop out less than a year later).
I wonder, in retrospect, what it is that seems to attract undesireable player types to such organizations? Is it that, being a publisher-endorsed organization, there are more rules in place to ensure that anybody who pays dues can become a member, despite the fact that they may have highly undesireable personality traits? Is there a degree of official tolerance for such behaviors built in to organized play associations?
Anyhow. . . to address the OP. . . yes, I think that the RPGA is a great place for playtesting. Specifically, for stress-testing. If there is a loophole in the rules, I wholeheartedly believe that the undesireable RPGA members will find it and exploit it before a casual gamer could. If there is a problem with the rules, I wholeheartedly believe that the good RPGA players will be able to recommend a feasible solution before a casual gamer could.
Last edited:
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
I can't help but take offense to this comment. I don't know what type of "grief players" you ran into or what types of players are "typically ostracized" from non-RPGA groups as nearly every member of the RPGA I've ever met has been in a home game as well.jdrakeh said:
I, myself am a rules lawyer and somewhat of a power gamer. I don't think these are a bad thing and I have yet to be ostracized from non-RPGA games because of it. I found that some non-RPGA games that I've joined have not been my cup of tea since the DMs of them played fast and loose with the rules. They didn't actually know the rules of the game and didn't really care what the rules were as long as the game moved smoothly. One example was a DM who didn't know that you needed to charge in a straight line or that you couldn't charge if anything blocked your path and let people jump over 10 foot tall enemies with a DC 15 jump check because "it was cool", despite the fact that you can't move through an enemies' squares without making a DC 25 Tumble check of the enemy being 2 size categories larger than you.
So, you could say my experience with unfamiliar DMs in home games has been fairly negative overall. I really couldn't imagine fixing the tactical rules for 4th Ed by ignoring them and making up new ones all the time.
I really would like to know what type of "undesireable personality traits" you have found in RPGA members. People don't get along with everyone. I don't think my list of undesirable traits would be the same as yours. I think anyone who relies on logic and "common sense" more often than the rules is undesirable in my home games as I don't want to have to argue about "But it would make sense that I could do that, even though the rules don't let me" over and over again. I dislike DMs with god complexes and the "DM is always right" attitude.jdrakeh said:
I run into these people less often in the RPGA as they often leave the RPGA shortly after joining due to the fact that the game is too structured and rules based for them. So, that has caused my experience with the RPGA to be a fairly positive one.
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Majoru Oakheart said:
I was ammending what Treebore had posted.
In my (admittedly brief) experience with the RPGA, I became reacquainted with folks who had been ejected from numerous local non-RPGA games and who had been largely ostracized from local gaming outside of the RPGA due to their personality traits or conduct.
Now, I never represented that this was true of the whole RPGA, merely that this is what I personally experienced during my contact with said organized play association (and other organized play associations). To be perfectly clear. . .
I don't imagine that X chapter of Y association is representative of the association as a whole, though I absolutely do understand how an experience like mine might thoroughly dissuade one from ever giving said association another go.
Like it or not, the conduct of one chapter/club can really damage the reputation of the larger organization. That's the reality.
Okay, since you asked:
Spotlight Hog -- Player who wants to interject their character into every scene (even if not present) and/or ensure that they became the centerpiece of every scene by way of dominating all conversations in which they participate.
Rules Lawer -- Not admittedly a bad thing in and of itself, though I'm speaking of the folks who will stop a game session in mid-flow and loudly argue about personal interpretations of the rules in an effort to get their way. It's akin to throwing a tantrum.
Rules Exploiter -- Player who uses rules in a way that they are very obviously not intended to be used but can technically be used, due to the lack of a specific written statement forbidding such use. For example, building a Pun Pun-like character as a PC.
Grief Player -- Player who creates characters designed deliberately to irritate other players (e.g., a PC played in a tone contrary to that already established for the game) or simply devoted to doing whatever they can to sabotage the goals of other PCs.
MarySue DM -- A DM who creates a deliberately overpowered (compared to the PCs) non-player character with the intent of playing them as a PC.
While it's true that all of these player types and/or personality traits exist outside of organized play associations, in my experience (which, again, I am not representing as all-encompassing), I have found that they occur with much greater frequency within such organizations. Much to my chagrin.
Personally, I can count the players who exibit these traits that I have met outside of organized play associations on one hand -- although, to be fair, one of them did exhibit all of these traits and was far worse than anybody whom I have met via organized play associations.
I can literally fill a small notebook with the names of very unpleasant players whom I have met in different organized play organizations. Indeed, I made it a point to direct people away from certain organized play associations in particular geograpic areas (not the RPGA, in case you're wondering).
Last edited:
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
MerricB said:
Seriously? That's nuts. . . although, come to think of it, I can recall a guy in Topeka participating in Camarilla games for the same reason. He didn't join up for that reason originally, though. . .
He was a regular player for about two years when the then Domain Storyteller killed his character by fiat because she had constructed some kind of uber-conspiracy which he had uncovered (playing by the rules) before she wanted it to be revealed.
To keep her poorly contructed plot on the railroad that she had constructed, she killed his character dead without any tests or opportunities to resist (the RAW would have allowed him several of each and, in fact, would have made his survival likely).
Several players protested on his behalf only to be subsequently threatened with similar instances of death by fiat or denial of prestige points for participation that evening. This was when I quit the Camarilla and filed a complaint with the RST.
The player in question took a different approach -- he made a series of 'grief' characters and went back for every scheduled game session with the intent of ruining the Domain Storyteller's plots.
So, yeah, I could see the same kind of person nursing a grudge with the RPGA in that manner.
Last edited:
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
I DMed or played in more than 300 RPGA games between 1990 and 2001 (classic play/pregen character modules, not campaign play). While the first impressions some other people in this thread have had are important, I don't think they represent RPGA games as a whole.
In my experience, RPGA classic games boasted consistently better DMs and plots than non-RPGA games, and players of the exact same quality. (They'd also be more likely to actually muster a table, thanks to multiple DMs.) In an average table with six players, I'd generally expect to find two mediocre players, three average players, and one really outstanding player; when this average varied, it skewed to the "more better players" instead of "more mediocre players." [I've kept in touch with many of those outstanding players, and we get together at least once a year.]
The vast majority of DMs would vary from good to great. I'd only run into an actually poor DM quite rarely, maybe 10% of the time. And I'd learn something from every DM I gamed with, good or bad.
In a big con like GenCon, where I'd play 12 games, I'd expect four games to be the "really fun talk about them on the way home" games, 2 games to be disappointing, and 6 games to be perfectly serviciable but not outstanding.
(My experiences are biased by (a) after a while you know the good DMs and players, and try to be grouped with them, and (b) I'm willing to believe that classic games had a slightly different demographic than campaign games.)
In my experience, RPGA classic games boasted consistently better DMs and plots than non-RPGA games, and players of the exact same quality. (They'd also be more likely to actually muster a table, thanks to multiple DMs.) In an average table with six players, I'd generally expect to find two mediocre players, three average players, and one really outstanding player; when this average varied, it skewed to the "more better players" instead of "more mediocre players." [I've kept in touch with many of those outstanding players, and we get together at least once a year.]
The vast majority of DMs would vary from good to great. I'd only run into an actually poor DM quite rarely, maybe 10% of the time. And I'd learn something from every DM I gamed with, good or bad.
In a big con like GenCon, where I'd play 12 games, I'd expect four games to be the "really fun talk about them on the way home" games, 2 games to be disappointing, and 6 games to be perfectly serviciable but not outstanding.
(My experiences are biased by (a) after a while you know the good DMs and players, and try to be grouped with them, and (b) I'm willing to believe that classic games had a slightly different demographic than campaign games.)
Last edited:
Scholar & Brutalman
First Post
To answer the OP, I can't think of a better place for WotC to find playtesters than the RPGA and random selection of others. Which is what they're doing
The RPGA provides a pool of players that WotC already has data for, and knows the reliability of. As far as I can tell, they are not using the RPGA itself to playtest, but rather using the lists of RPGA DMs to select those who will playtest. One problem is that RPGA DMs are already a limited group that will tend towards certain preferences. The solution they are taking to deal with this is a random selection of players, and they're using the other easiest source they have have data for, their own boards.
One thing WotC can't do is ask for people to apply to be playtesters. They will almost certainly get thousands of responses, they will need massive resources simply to evaluate them, and they won't be able to check the truth of the applicants claims without resorting to referees. A request for applications will also tend to preselect those people with very strong opinions on what they want from D&D, rather than any kind of representative sample.
Another choice available to them is to choose the most prolific posters from various boards, such as their own boards or ENWorld, but here they will end up selecting people by their ability to produce thousands of posts. I suppose they can guarantee a lot of feedback in that case.
My only concern is that they may not have enough of a random sample. Ideally, I'd prefer a purely random sample of selected playtesters, but I suppose they wanted the RPGA people because they can be sure they'll get some feedback.
(Note, I'm not a statistician. I don't even play one on TV. I just like the idea of random selection.)
The RPGA provides a pool of players that WotC already has data for, and knows the reliability of. As far as I can tell, they are not using the RPGA itself to playtest, but rather using the lists of RPGA DMs to select those who will playtest. One problem is that RPGA DMs are already a limited group that will tend towards certain preferences. The solution they are taking to deal with this is a random selection of players, and they're using the other easiest source they have have data for, their own boards.
One thing WotC can't do is ask for people to apply to be playtesters. They will almost certainly get thousands of responses, they will need massive resources simply to evaluate them, and they won't be able to check the truth of the applicants claims without resorting to referees. A request for applications will also tend to preselect those people with very strong opinions on what they want from D&D, rather than any kind of representative sample.
Another choice available to them is to choose the most prolific posters from various boards, such as their own boards or ENWorld, but here they will end up selecting people by their ability to produce thousands of posts. I suppose they can guarantee a lot of feedback in that case.
My only concern is that they may not have enough of a random sample. Ideally, I'd prefer a purely random sample of selected playtesters, but I suppose they wanted the RPGA people because they can be sure they'll get some feedback.
(Note, I'm not a statistician. I don't even play one on TV. I just like the idea of random selection.)
kenmarable
Hero
The RPGA stole my puppy.FickleGM said:
brehobit
Explorer
I used to love the RPGA games, as did my friends. At GenCon it was the FEZ/ZEF and the RPGA events we'd really look forward to. FEZ/ZEF for goal-oriented with a bit of role-playing, and the RPGA events for the role-playing.
Things like the AD&D open were things we'd do if we had nothing else going on. Between my high school friends and myself we've tried about 8 RPGA events that were "goal based" and "continuing character" based. We've not liked any of them. I do have a number of friends who played a lot of these "Living" games. Most would be "power" players (by their own definition) who were really into becoming powerful, but enjoyed role-playing when it fit into the game. Now even they have complained that the RPGA events have turned into something closer to a board game. They still play, but it's mostly about power-ups...
I really wish there were more RPGA games where advancement was by vote for role-playing. (Are there any anymore?) Those were sometimes too silly, but often worked wonderfully.
Best? Fluffy Quest, some of the champion's things, and a story about a Rakshasa in a city who wanted a statue (that one was the start of 3e, so 2000 I guess--I had a great DM and a wonderful table of players).
There's nothing wrong with the RPGA. But the games played don't seem to be the kind of thing I enjoy.
Mark (charter member)
Things like the AD&D open were things we'd do if we had nothing else going on. Between my high school friends and myself we've tried about 8 RPGA events that were "goal based" and "continuing character" based. We've not liked any of them. I do have a number of friends who played a lot of these "Living" games. Most would be "power" players (by their own definition) who were really into becoming powerful, but enjoyed role-playing when it fit into the game. Now even they have complained that the RPGA events have turned into something closer to a board game. They still play, but it's mostly about power-ups...
I really wish there were more RPGA games where advancement was by vote for role-playing. (Are there any anymore?) Those were sometimes too silly, but often worked wonderfully.
Best? Fluffy Quest, some of the champion's things, and a story about a Rakshasa in a city who wanted a statue (that one was the start of 3e, so 2000 I guess--I had a great DM and a wonderful table of players).
There's nothing wrong with the RPGA. But the games played don't seem to be the kind of thing I enjoy.
Mark (charter member)
