The Angry GM on D&D Encounters

[Pauper]

As the actual article goes, I don't find Voltramax's points to be nearly as salient as Angry's.

Agreed. It also sounds like, just from the information in Voltramax's article, that this was the last straw in a long series of disagreements. The 'sour grapes' tone in his article doesn't help that perception, either.

That said, it does seem worrying if the "official" AL response is to try and silence someone who wants to critique the program from the inside.

Well, let's be honest -- the guy had already demonstrated that he wasn't a very good ambassador for the program. Consider the distinction between a player posting the cool cert he got from playing AL at his local store versus an admin posting certs that will be given out for an unnamed event -- the latter is a lot more likely to create hurt feelings and a negative experience for a lot of gamers. People who spoil unreleased products get fired from actual companies all the time in the real world, and this isn't that much different. This doesn't invalidate Voltramax's criticisms, but it does mean we should take them with some pretty large grains of salt.

I don't think anything is to be gained by someone official commenting on this specific incident. On the other hand, I do think it's imperative that someone at WotC comment on the (now growing) perception of Adventurers League as 'Organized Play done on the cheap'. There's Angry's original rant, which has now spawned much more discussion and probably will continue to do so. There's growing evidence, such as the closure of WotC's own discussion boards, that WotC as an organization is still very much in a belt-tightening mode. There's the AL pre-gens, which were created as part of a contest among the Local Coordinators in AL, but which then got posted to the WotC website without so much as an edit for consistency between the sheets, much less a review for accuracy. Heck, for someone at WotC to actually effectively edit the character sheets for consistency, there would need to be an editing standard, which, since the sheets themselves were the result of another contest, probably doesn't even exist. (Note: that link goes to the WotC boards, and will be dead by the end of October of 2015.)

I'm looking at the cover page of an AL adventure I ran back when I was a store organizer back in 2014, and two of the three people listed as 'Development and Editing' are volunteers! It's all very well and good to say that you're going to make use of talented fans to help you promote your business -- lots of businesses do this -- but the AL volunteers have been going above and beyond for quite some time** to the point where it's almost unfair how much of the burden they carry for AL's success. I get that nobody at WotC is going to throw their managers or their Hasbro overlords under the bus, but someone who actually draws a paycheck from WotC needs to own this issue, and it needs to be at least one of the people actually listed as belonging to the "D&D Adventurers League Wizards Team".

** - Case in point -- while a lot of virtual ink was spilled on how AL was organized at GenCon 2015, the reality is that, at one point, there was a real possibility that no AL Epics would have been run there. The volunteer admins, after fielding a lot of criticism, decided to organize not just one but two Epics for GenCon. Some have chosen to accentuate the negative with respect to these Epics (not as interactive as past Battle Interactives, seemingly poorly organized, etc.), but the fact that they happened at all is a testament to how much the volunteer admins want AL to succeed, and the degree of labor, all of it a labor of love, they're willing to put in to make that happen. Though there are legitimate criticisms to be made of AL, every critic (myself included) should keep this point in mind: without the work of the volunteer admins, AL likely would already have fallen apart.

--
Pauper

 

[kalani]

Slight Correction Pauper: ​I won't address your points (as you are more than entitled to your opinion) but I do need to correct you on one thing:

Regarding AL Pregens: The Pregens listed on WotCs website (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/character_sheets), and those listed as "AL Pregens" in Dragon+ (Issue #2 I believe) were not created by the LCs.

In fact, to my knowledge - the AL coordinators and staff had nothing to do with them. Within hours of the Dragon+ article being posted, several of the AL staff commented about the pregens not matching the AL rules for character creation, and in some cases - not even being legal by the PHB (this was especially true in respect to one dual-wielding pregen, and several having incorrect equipment packages).

I do not know what vetting process goes into creating these Dragon+ articles, but to date - we have noticed some issues with the AL article(s) published to date (I haven't read the latest issue yet, so I can't speak to it - but the pregen article was full of errors).

The pregens created by the campaign staff themselves are vetted carefully, and edited for legality. You can find the pregens designed by the LCs here:

• AL Downloads Page
• Elemental Evil Pregens
• Hillsfar Pregens: Drow Fighter, Wood Elf Cleric, Human Wizard, Halfling Fighter, and finally Hill Dwarf Rogue

 

[TheAngryGameMaster]

The Angry GM here. I ain't going to go into a long thing, here. I already had my say. I just want to clarify a couple of things before I step out and let you folks continue the discussion...

My point was never to bash the people running the Adventurer's League. They are a volunteer group. They don't get a lot of say in what they get from WotC. I'm running Encounters. Why? Because, the store I volunteered at was offering Encounters and didn't have a DM. So I stepped up to do it. Because I love getting new people into the game and giving lapsed players a chance to get back into the game. And, of course, giving people a chance to play. And, based on what's published at WotC's website and what's published at the Adventurers League website, Encounters IS the program for that. Quite frankly, the whole Encounters/Epics/Expeditions thing? It's really kind of confusing. And most of the players I've talked (not GMs, not organizers, players) don't know one from the other. Hell, even in the store I'm in it's just advertised as D&D Night. Come play D&D. Cool. So, there's already an issue of not knowing what program to run. And, as far as I know, it's not up to the GM anyway. It's up to the store. Maybe, if I'd known the difference, I would have said "oh, yeah, Expeditions! Cool!" But it isn't exactly clear. And I'm not stupid. I've been running games a long time, I've been involved in a number of organized play programs for various things over the years. It's needlessly confusing. So maybe I ended up running the wrong thing. That - IN ITSELF - is a problem.

The reason I was angry - and what prompted to write that article - is that for this "weekly Wednesday play program, geared for a casual play audience with short sessions each week" where players are told "each session only takes 1-2 hours to play, so it’s easy to fit your game in after school or work. And each week there’s a new and exciting challenge. Jump in anytime!" I was told to run the first three chapters of Out of the Abyss. A very complex adventure path whose first "adventure" involves a very complicated jailbreak scenario in a completely alien world with no less than 14 NPCs with rich backstories, complex interactions, and who feature prominently throughout the adventure. It is highly esoteric, extremely complex, and not the sort of thing that easily gets broken into (1-2 hours of play). Now, I'm all for that sort of game. Hell, that's closer to the I run at home than some random dungeon crawl. But when you have no idea who's sitting down at your table - especially from week to week - that's not what you throw out. At my table, I've got a 10-year-old kid the kid's casual dad, a teenager, two power gamers, and a story role-player. The first session, as written, is basically the players sitting in their cell or doing work detail and getting to know all of the NPCs and the secrets and the politics so they can plan a jailbreak. Imagine if I'd actually followed those instructions for that group. I'd have one player the following week.

And it seemed half-assed. Like Adventurers League said "hey, we need a path for newbies and casuals and short Wednesday night games" and WotC didn't want to be bothered to write or provide anything, so they looked around the office and saw Rage of Demons or The Dragon Queen or whatever other adventure module, tore out the first three chapters and said "here, give them this... then tell them to buy the full adventure to continue." That's either half-assed or scammy. That's why I'm mad. Because WotC has A LOT to gain from organized play. It sells their freaking game. And they are letting a bunch of volunteers basically do the job for them and the support is half-assed and opportunistic. That made me mad. I'm not mad at Adventurers' League. I love that AL exists. I love that I've taught 5E to a new group of players who come back every week. That ten-year old kid and his dad, well, not sure but they seem to come from a broken home. That's how they spend time together. At my game. And the kid loves it. And he's opened up to me. Because I treat him like just another player. That's great. That's why I keep going back every week.

But I'm angry and I'm sad. Because WotC doesn't seem to give a crap. And that's why I wrote what I wrote. Keep that in mind.

 

[Fiddleback]

Just an FYI for you folks.

We've had an official email from D&D Adventurers League representatives and have updated Voltramax's article accordingly.

For reference: http://www.madadventurers.com/adventurers-league-from-behind-the-screen/

 

[kalani]

I just wanted to say - Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even one that disagrees with you. As long as everyone remains civil with each other, differing opinions are a good thing as it can lead to discussion of how best to improve upon the way things are done. It's when things get heated, or disrespectful that I personally have a problem with things.

Ideally, everyone should also try to have as-informed an opinion as possible. While it may be impossible to have all the facts, I personally try to refrain from forming an opinion until I have as much information as possible.

In this case - I think AngryGM was acting on some misinformation colored by his personal experiences and perspectives with the program. This is itself insightful, as understanding the perspective of GMs on the ground (who may not have access to good information sources, or may not know they exist) only helps us improve our methods of information distribution.

I won't really speak to Voltramax's article except to say that if he is the same LC who was asking whether we should write a rebuttal post in our FB discussion, I highly doubt he was let go for suggesting the idea. While the idea was shot down as being unnecessary (as everyone is entitled to an opinion - even AngryGM) and IMHO - may have caused more damage than good (as it may have appeared as damage control), there was no animosity directed toward the LC for suggesting the idea.

 

[Steve_MND]

The Angry GM here. I ain't going to go into a long thing, here. I already had my say. I just want to clarify a couple of things before I step out and let you folks continue the discussion. [...]

You know, honestly, I can't broadly disagree with much that Angry GM here said. It's many of the same things several of us have been commenting on, to varying degrees, since AL went live. I'd like to think as time goes on, situations like GenCon, etc., will get WotC/Hasbro to re-evaluate how it is handling AL*, but I'm far too much of a cynic anymore to actually expect it.

*Note that I said WotC/Hasbro, not the volunteers doing the actual boots-on-the-ground stuff. I suspect they are laboring under any potentially awkward systems as much as the rest of us are.

 

[koga305]

Not gonna happen. Just like any business or large organization, you almost never, ever provide details of why a person was let go publicly, both for the company's and the individual's sake. That's between them and them only; if Voltramax wants to go about throwing his (understandably-biased) opinion on what happened, of course, that's his decision, but I doubt seriously WotC/Al/Hasbro would bother writing up a rebuttal as to why a random volunteer was let go.

That's not going to happen. When someone, in this case Ryan, does something that forces us to remove them, we are not going to detail situation that for the public. That would be unprofessional and inappropriate. He was not removed "just for engaging with Mad Adventurers" as engaging with social media is definitely part of the LC job (see my post above). We would much rather people sling their stones and arrows at us rather than us trying to pile on an individual.

Yup. Those things actually make a lot of sense, and I suppose I was being kind of harsh when I was asking for an official statement. The main point was that Voltramax's post seemed to suggest some things about AL that didn't seem like they were true (specifically, that you didn't want him to engage with Mad Adventurers) and let the guy go over that), and it's nice to get some official confirmation that they're not. Though I agree with Angry's point that some aspects of the AL could be done better, I think the folks in charge do a very good job of running the program

Just an FYI for you folks.

We've had an official email from D&D Adventurers League representatives and have updated Voltramax's article accordingly.

For reference: http://www.madadventurers.com/adventurers-league-from-behind-the-screen/

And there we go! That seems like the right response to the Voltramax article.

I'd still love to see an official AL piece responding to Angry's article, though. He is a reasonable guy and I think his goal with the rant was to foster some discussion about how things could be improved - and maybe catch the attention of the folks at WotC who might be able to make decisions about better supporting the Encounters program.

For those of you that didn't catch the Twitter exchange, Angry and the AL Twitter account had a great discussion about his article and the views on the Adventurers League. In particular, the AL account mentioned that "you can expect some big changes next season" - exciting!

 

[Pauper]

In this case - I think AngryGM was acting on some misinformation colored by his personal experiences and perspectives with the program. This is itself insightful, as understanding the perspective of GMs on the ground (who may not have access to good information sources, or may not know they exist) only helps us improve our methods of information distribution.

This seems like a decent rationalization, but I have a problem with it -- if Angry did decide to jump in and get more involved in the online resources and available modes of communication, I don't think he'd find many reasons to change his mind. There are plenty of issues that start at the top of the food-chain that suggest the same basic problem, that the program is being run 'on the cheap' and with little consideration for the folks it's being run for:

- The pre-gen situation. Thanks for the update, by the way -- I'd neglected to consider the distinction between the LC-provided pre-gens and those direct from WotC, and the LC-provided characters are much better organized and more consistent in their presentation. But this simply throws the relative lack of same from the 'official' WotC sources into sharper relief -- why are the characters being published by volunteers so much more...well, professional, than the characters being published by the folks getting paid for their time?

- The Adventurers League Player's Guide. Even after two iterations of the ALPG, there are still sections that haven't been updated to reflect better explanations and understanding, despite the admins having sent those explanations up the food chain months earlier. Basic copy-paste errors exist that make some rules seemingly contradictory, to the point where the FAQ on the Organizer's page flat out says that the ALPG is wrong in places. Again, the explanation given is that the volunteers don't have access to the ALPG and rely on WotC to make the changes, but again, why does that mean the volunteers would end up doing a better job than the professionals?

I get it -- there's a lot of uninformed criticism out there that doesn't really do much to help. And the admins absolutely go above and beyond in making up for a lack of support from the mothership. Heck, I was at GenCon 2015 -- I saw the admin staff busting their butts to organize the *two* Epics, to keep Fai Chen's open longer than the originally published hours because it proved popular, and generally try to keep their smiles on when it seemed that some folks only showed up looking for reasons to complain, whether their complaints seemed reasonable or not. I really do get it.

But Angry's criticism isn't uninformed -- it's the honest response of a guy who volunteered to bring new people into the game and instead was given tools meant to sell products to new people that they probably don't really need. And it's not the only example of where the rhetoric we get from the mothership isn't matched by the effort being put out by the people who work there.

I used to be one of those guys who defended the WotC staff on behalf of the volunteers. But they've dropped the ball so frequently that I've almost lost faith that they can actually carry it. Almost. After all, Dragon+ has slowly improved over its first three issues, and the seemingly obligatory intelligent magic item in the hardcover adventure got handled much more smoothly this time around than it did in Horde of the Dragon Queen. I don't think the problems at the top are due to a lack of will or desire to see Adventurers League succeed; I think they have everything to do with the focus of the AL WotC team being pulled in many different directions and as a result they just assume the volunteers will take care of anything they don't catch, like a movie director who assumes that flaws in the filming can be fixed in post-production.

If the WotC folks can be convinced that this issue is a clarion call for them to renew their focus on the Organized Play program, and thus achieve an improvement there similar to the improvements we've seen in other areas where WotC has chosen to exercise focus, then I think this will ultimately end up being a good thing for the program. But if the folks at the top of the AL food chain look down and shrug, "eh, the volunteers will handle it, they always do," then I'm not sure the problems at the core of the program can ever really be fixed.

--
Pauper

 

[Fiddleback]

And another update has occurred. For..... reasons.

 

[Caecafortuna]

Wow, lots of drama over the past 24 hours. Thanks for all of the feedback provided, it has been very informative. I count myself lucky, we have four regular DMs at our store and I fill in as a fifth, when needed. Not having participated in organized play previously, I had no preconceived notions on what to expect from AL. There have been some valid points raised and, hopefully, they will lead to improvements in future seasons. I get the sense, from my personal experience, everyone at our store has fun, which should be the ultimate goal. If the experience could be made more fun (and lead to more sales of product), all the better.