What does the go D20 ruling mean for the living campaigns?

[Darrin Drader]

Maybe it's time for another organization to take over what the RPGA should be. For the fans by the fans. Anytime a gaming corporation owns an organization like that it will not be all that it can be.

Ryan Dancey tried to do that with Organized Play. I don't know any specifics, but I heard that they weren't doing to well in a business sense.

 

[Adso]

Check the front page.
I personally find this infuriating. Sure, WotC owns the RPGA and has no reason to support other peoples' game systems - but it's another nail in the coffin of an organization that was once member-focused and now isn't, and I think that sucks.

I highly disagree with this statement. One of the chief reasons contributing to the decision to drop non-d20 System games was the fact that fewer and fewer RPGA members were playing these adventures. In this way we have adopted the focus that our member’s play pattern has already made a virtual reality.

They’re other factors as well, like the fact that RPGA is a WotC-owned and operated organized play department, and there are some gray areas in creating, running, or supporting event that present games that we do not own. While over the years we had many loose agreements with other game publishers in regards to these programs, loose agreements only go so far, and as the RPGA membership grows, and our distribution of adventures becomes broader, loose agreements become more problematic if the owners of the those games find any kind of fault with what we are doing.

Folks who want to run organized play for roleplaying games outside of the ones that we either own or license really should work with the companies that do own them. That company should be making the decision on how they are presented, how they are packaged, how they are distributed, and ultimately how they are played in an organized play event rather than it defaulting to a system that was ultimately created for different versions of the D&D game, and distributed by an entity that at the end of the day is their to drive the success of Wizards of the Coast products.

This was a hard decision for us. It was a program decision. It was a business decision. And ultimately it was a decision based on the play patterns of our membership, the expectations of potential members, and the fact that we really wanted to focus on what we do best—organized play for Wizards of the Coast roleplaying games and the d20 System events. While I knew that some people would be frustrate and even infuriated with the decision, I do believe it was on many levels the best, and maybe the really the only decision to make.

 

[Oni]

Wow, all I can say is that is incredibly lame.

 

[Drawmack]

Living Rokugan has decided not to convert to d20. First thing this means is that they have to lose the "Living" as it's copyrighted, but they also have to decide if they want to close up shop or go it alone.

I'm hoping for the latter. It's a really popular campaign in Missouri.

I'm confused here. Is the Living Rokugan name copywritten by WotC or just the world Living? If it is just the word Living then how exactly can they say that you can't have this specific word as part of your system name?

I mean I could come out with Dragons and Deepholds or Dungeons and Mythical Flying Creatures. Neither of those is copywritten and would not be protected. So I don't see how they could copyright just the Living???

I'm sure I'm just being stupid and overlooking something obvious but I thought I'd ask.

 

[Bagpuss]

I believe Easyjet, Easyrentacar, Easy..... lost its claim to the word Easy in court so I doubt Living XXXX could be claimed either.

 

[Piratecat]

Stephen, I have tremendous respect for you, and goodness knows that I have a deep and abiding love for the RPGA - I've run close to 170 RPGA tournaments over the last ten years, played in almost as many, and been a Regional Director. I stand by my feelings. The RPGA has slowly evolved into an organization with a mandate to promote WotC product, and not to improve gaming as a whole. I can't help but see that as short-sighted.

A business decision such as this one is obviously not the same as a member-supported decision. I'd be surprised to hear that notable Living Seattle organizers, such as Wes Nicholson of Australia, were in favor of this change. Is he? If I tuck on my MBA hat I realize that this change may be understandable from a business perspective, if the organization wants to stay funded, but that doesn't mean that the mandate is a "good thing" for gamers.

Unfortunately, the lack of nurturing for gamers and other systems tends to have a backlash. I learned to play Shadowrun, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, and other RPGs for the first time at a RPGA table. Speaking only for myself, my gaming experiences would have been dramatically poorer if this was not the case.

I look forward to your opinions on this. I'm not a big fan of Living events in general, and since I don't know the numbers involved I'm operating at a disadvantage. Can you share any of the business logic with us, please?

 

[Henry]

I have to take the 'Cat's side in this one. The first thing I thought when I read this this morning is that the RPGA is shooting itself in the foot, from a P.R. standpoint.

However, part of what Steven says is undeniably true. It does behoove the companies in question to open a dialogue with the RPGA concerning more slid agreements to avoid any concerns of litigation.

If the main reason WotC/RPGA is doing this is to promote d20, I have strong reservations about the change; If it is for legal or monetary concerns, I would like to think that the companies owning those games would like to address it. Had they even heard of these concerns before now? Were they allowed to respond to these concerns, or were they handed the ultimatim just as it appears in the news?

If the RPGA simply wishes to divest themselves of the Living Seattle and Living Rokugan settings, why did they not do so up front, rather than making an issue that is unlikely to occur in a year's time at best?

Too many questions for one person to answer - but they really need to be addressed for the members' concerns, I should think.

 

[Outlaw]

If the RPGA simply wishes to divest themselves of the Living Seattle and Living Rokugan settings, why did they not do so up front, rather than making an issue that is unlikely to occur in a year's time at best?

Well, at the meeting for the different campaign heads on Friday morning, it was said that all parties involved had been contacted about the decision. Then the Virtual Seattle director said "This is the first I've heard about it." The Rokugan director had learned the secret the night before.

I think the whole concept of gaming frequency is a biased sample as Living Greyhawk is more popular than any other campaign by a large distance and the RPGA is wanting to focus on that campaign (as apparent by its recent point change system that rewards you for playing LG at RPGA run conventions). So, saying Rokugan (which is extremely popular, although it's still growing since it's a new setting) didn't have the right numbers is misleading. No campaign except one has the "right" number. But it doesn't stop there. Other campaigns that have already converted to the d20 system, such as Living Jungle, were told that they had to increase their table count or be cut. Although Jungle isn't a huge success, it has a strong fan base.

The RPGA has stopped promoting gaming and has started promoting its "game."

There's a big difference and although this may seem sound business strategy, limiting options will cause people to look elsewhere. Perhaps all the "we should start our own group" complaining that's been around will finally solidify into something where the gamer can play games.

 

[Adso]

I look forward to your opinions on this. I'm not a big fan of Living events in general, and since I don't know the numbers involved I'm operating at a disadvantage. Can you share any of the business logic with us, please?

The business logic is simple, and a mainstay for every company with a business plan—know your market, support that market, and trim the fat where you can in lean years. We know what people are playing through our reporting. Less than 1% of the membership is playing non-d20 System games.

As for Virtual Seattle, both Ian Richards and I talked to Wes Nicholson about this. While disappointed, he does understand the reasons why we made the decision. VS numbers have been slipping consistently for the past couple of years. For every game of VS reported to us there are 500 tables of other, d20 Living events (that is not counting D&D events, just other d20 Systems). Living Rokugan's numbers are similar, falling well below younger d20 System (and non-WotC-owned setting) campaigns.

The RPGA is a 20+ year organization, filled with enthusiasts who have stuck with this hobby long after the Johnny-come-lately packed it up to play Everquest 8 hours a day. And with each member there is a fond story of finding a great game or program, and a desire to keep the nostalgia alive. My personal favorites are team events. More than 10 years ago, before Living City hit our conventions, my gaming group played those events religiously. We loved them. We won a lot. And we all joined the RPGA to participate in them. I would love team events to be a strong a vital part of the RPGA, but the fact is, with the exception of the D&D Open, which is the largest and longest-running D&D organized play tournament in history, it just isn’t. While there is a part of me that would love to see everyone share the same enjoyment that I had playing team events, is it smarter to launch a new program that I doubt will be played, or put those resources into working with the D&D Open team to make their event the best it can be? Every once in a while I get an e-mail from someone asking to bring home Dawn Patrol events—that’s right Dawn Patrol. Why? Because early in its history the RPGA ran some great Dawn Patrol events, and the players of those events look back fondly at them. But tastes change, and we have a larger organization to support.

You pick your battles. And you go for giving the best time to the most players. The RPGA is not, and never has be a stagnate organization.

When we have tens of thousands of active members playing Living d20 events each month, and less than a hundred playing non-d20 System games in the same amount of time, how can the decision to focus more on the programs members play most not be a member-supported decision? They have made their decisions with their play patterns. And we have listened to how they are playing RPGs.

Just like every other department at Wizards of the Coast we have been affected by cuts. We have had our budget cut as our membership soars. When I first started working at Wizards of the Coast the RPGA had eight full-time employees, and a much larger budget. Now two years later we have over double the amount of members (and events run each year) with two full-time employees. We have to maximize what we do best.

Will a small group of people be disappointed? Yes. Do I deeply respect the opinions of the people in that group? Yes. But even they must know that it is our goal and our mandate to provide the programming that players want to play. That, coupled with the fact that Wizards of the Coast should not do the organized play and marketing for games owned or run by other companies unless we have a deal in writing with those companies, I submit makes this decision the best and smartest one for the organization.

 

[jgbrowning]

It sounds like their killing the "living" campaigns. Ah, the irony.
Well just the one's that don't use their system.

joe b.