NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Piratecat" data-source="post: 3791028" data-attributes="member: 2">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.)</blockquote>

Verification