Why Organized Play has been an Awesome Experience

[Hussar]

Hussar, they weren't all negative. I described the RPGA as having the best players and GMs that WotC had. And if you read the features and benefits that OP offers to grognards those comments were directed at both games.

It was also pretty clear that I said that great gamers play either game, too.

I was very emphatic that no matter what game you play at home, that if you go to play a 4E game in stores, that will make you a better gamer and GM at home.

Moreover, this was an opinion post that I wrote and posted in the general section -- not on the front page. Russ chose to move it to the front page, not me.

You can take that decision up with him if you like.

Nothing I said had anything to do with where this article appears. I read this (and made a comment) before it was moved. I'm giving an honest critique, not trying to pick a fight. When I read the article, my first thought was, wow, great piece on Pathfinder OP. I wonder why he feels the need to piddle all over WOTC at the same time.

That was just my opinion.

If you don't mind a bit of advice - be absolutely positive in a post like this. That's fantastic. Leave the "comparisons" out and this becomes a much better article.

 

[Alphastream]

Hussar, they weren't all negative. I described the RPGA as having the best players and GMs that WotC had.

It wasn't clear to me from reading your article whether you were always using the term "RPGA" as "Organized Play" or "WotC Organized Play". RPGA means many things to many people (especially these days since the term is no longer used by most new players... and this column doesn't define what RPGA is/was). Because of this, as a reader it wasn't clear to me if you were attributing positives to all of OP or just WotC.

Regardless, my personal perspective is that we are better off without negative comparisons, especially the type that are subjective assessments (an example would be saying that one OP campaign has better adventures than another, which would be just about impossible to quantify/prove). A comparison around something like release schedule is a bit easier: we can talk about Shadowrun Missions and LFR and compare how many adventures each has released and compare how often they are behind schedule... though even such a comparison is of little value if our goal is to promote organized play. It might instead be better to discuss the common problem of admins working with authors to release adventures and discuss best practices and possible solutions. I think that kind of column would be interesting, especially if you had the heads of some organized play campaigns kick in some commentary. I bet EN World could get that kind of column going and it would have pretty high value.

I want to underscore that while I had these issues as a reader, I do want to see more columns about organized play and I would be pleased to see you write them. You clearly have some good ideas, great enthusiasm, and have good insights into aspects of Organized Play.

 

[abel_marko]

Organized Play

Hey, thanks for the article! It's always good to hear about people's `organized play' experiences, be they PFS, RPGA, LFR, WotC's OP, or something else.

I will echo the sentiments that your piece seems clearly to be `down' on one group and `up' on another, whether that was intentional or not. It's not really a big deal, but there is always confusion in this area, and occasionally it balloons into a LOT more confusion, so I like to try to keep an eye out for these things.

For example: your description of how treasure works in LFR is significantly off, about as accurate as saying ``Since 1998, Americans file their federal income taxes exclusively via Interpretive Dance.'' It's not a big deal, and I'm sure you didn't mean to cause any trouble, but I'm always curious when rumours like this get passed along as truth.

I hope this reply doesn't come across as a complaint or insult. I really am glad to see well-written experiences with organized play, be they positive or negative; too much of the discussion in this area has become ``Thing A sucks! You should only do Thing B instead!''. It's an exciting time for OP in general, as things like WotC's Encounters and Lair Assault and programs bring new people directly into stores, while things like PFS, LFR, AoA, and Living Divine bring new options, directions, and expressions to convention, home, and store play.

(Disclosure: I am an admin for Ashes of Athas, and I have friends who are and/or have myself been involved in PFS, LFR, Living Divine, and several others).

 

[abel_marko]

Now that I've posted this, I see that one of my fellow AoA/OP boosters Alphastream has mostly said what I had in mind - sorry for the duplication.

 

[Gaming Tonic]

Whether it is some sort of gamer elitism or perhaps just the first reaction of some players to always be negative, organized play has received some hard thumps. Now why it might not necessarily be everyone's cup of ale, it has merits for expanding the interest in our hobby and providing gamers an organized place to meet other gamers. This alone is worth the price of admission...oh wait it is FREE. If it isn't for you, that is okay. It is for someone else. Remember that different players and DM's can change the experience greatly. The more mainstreaming of the hobby allows us to find other players for other games. It wasn't always this easy trust me. Encounters or Pathfinder or whatever you do at the game store doesn't have to be your weeks total of gaming.

 

[Retreater]

The article seems a little erroneous when it suggests that Paizo is more significantly invested in PFS than WotC is through its Organized Play. D&D Encounters includes full color printed adventures, maps, tokens, character sheets, in-store posters and tents, and reward packages for DMs and players. The same is true of Game Day.

On the other hand, Paizo offers no incentives to run Society adventures, just hassle and additional costs for the organizers (in my case, the volunteer GMs.) From my own experience, I have seen the differences in $4 adventures from Paizo compared to the free LFR adventures (with also the option for writng your own.) When I am purchasing these on my own, printing these on my own, and supplying my own flip mats and other supplies, WotC's OP somehow seems more generous.

From the gaming store owner's perspective (which I heard when trying to organize PFS locally), Paizo has done a bad job of getting the word out to store owners and customers. Where are the posters and promo kits? In truth, Paizo depends on their fanbase to cover all of these expenses.

From a player's perspective, PFS's rules are too cruel and draconian. In my perspective they drive off the new player more than welcome him. The tier approach of play means that a GM must turn away new players whose characters do not fit a level range (or players who have to start over with new characters due to character death.) Even if a character fits in an appropriate tier, he may be 5 levels or so behind other characters, forced into a subpar position in the party.

The labyrinthine requirements of scheduling and reporting events is an added hassle. Additionally, whether you want to play or GM, you will need to download and print a 32 page guidebook to Society play, create an account on the Paizo boards, download a player number and faction card, and register your character's vitals on the site.

While I appreciate Steel Wind's excitement for Society, I think in some ways this article misrepresents the experience I've had with PFS. I merely wanted to clarify that Wizards is actually doing a damned good job with their organized play. As a DM of both systems' OP, I have to admit I feel much better supported by Wizards than Paizo. (I know this is not a
popular sentiment because most think WotC hates its fans - however, they are very good
at courting new customers, which is a massive part of OP, which Paizo doesn't seem to grasp.)