Quote from: CRKrueger;579415The only use "suggested anythings" are for is to give the newbie GM a hand on developing his own eye for what will work in his campaign, not for training the next gen of Screen-Monkeys to feed the RPGA's Cult of Entitlement.

Spinning off of this comment, and with the analysis of the design changes discussed in other threads from 2e-to-3e and 3e-to-4e, it occurs to me that the  concept of organized play could have been a factor as well.

Does anyone know the history of the RPGA, and specifically what impact WoTC had on it?

It seems to me that the 'cult of RAW', 'player entitlement', and even 'deck building' behaviors make a lot more sense in the realm of organized play.  With WoTC having a background in this through MTG and even Pokemon, perhaps there was an impact to push the game in that direction.  Paizo's entire reason for printing books is their organized play module sales, and the concept of every GM running every session in the exact same way is very much alive in that culture.

But, then again, the RPGA existed for over a decade before this transition.  Thus the question...

Is this related?

The RPGA has a long and tangled history; even to trace the times it was owned by the owner of D&D and the times it wasn't is beyond me. I do feel that organized play was a key aspect of what WotC saw as responsible for Magic: the Gathering's ongoing success and growth, and I don't doubt that this strongly informed their approach to 3E and the RPGA from the get-go. You could probably back this up with public statements from Ryan Dancey while he was at WotC or shortly after he left. Old TSR personnel have also identified it as one of the four pillars of the company, the others being D&D, Dragon Magazine, and Gen Con.

I'd want to see some evidence for your idea that organized play wags the dog at Paizo, though. An old gaming buddy of mine now works over there on  their stand-alone modules and organized play adventures. At Gen Con I was giving him shit about my theory that Paizo's subscription model means that they benefit most from cultivating an audience who don't actually play. I've heard rumors of market research to this effect, and it makes sense to me that their best customers are former DMs whose only current way of scratching their gaming itch is to read more fat, lushly described-and-illustrated novelistic adventure paths than they could ever actually run, and former players who won't say "I don't need another book of feats that my cleric might want to choose at level 15 because I'm playing a fighter".

My friend's response wasn't "no, you've got it backwards, encouraging people to play is our gravy train" - and since he's a relatively new guy there, the fact that OP modules is his job supports the idea that it's not where they are focusing their deepest expertise. Instead he was like "Pathfinder Society is a marketing expense, and since we see a direct return on every other thing we publish but none on this, the fact that we do it at all means we're committed to encouraging a culture of play as a long-term investment in our community."

We wound up more or less agreeing that a gym is a decent metaphor. They're doing great if a lot of people subscribe but never go to the gym - if everyone who signed up for a membership on New Year's Day really kept their resolutions they'd have to expand their space and buy a lot more machines - but they also have to provide enough services to keep those people who do want to actually work out happy, and maintain the idea that being a gym member means you're part of a healthy lifestyle whether you go or not.

I went to Gen Con and played in some 'Pathfinder Beta Organized Play'.  That's my only stint with organized play, but I do think I qualified as an RPGA DM (there was some online quiz on the Wizards of the Coast website, if I recall correctly).  

The fact is, the number of 'organized play' players is really very small compared to the number of gamers.  I don't mean to imply this site is representative, but I gather that very few people have done any 'official' gaming, and they like it that way.  

Organized play is good for people that don't have a better option for scratching that gaming itch, but it isn't a 'real game' in many ways.  For example, in some organized play you can't transport 'treasure' acquired within the module to another module.  Things just get a little - twisted - from what you would expect in normal play.  

So I don't think Organized Play is much more than an afterthought - a chance to provide some fan service, but it's never very high profile compared to the other gaming lines.

Quote from: Tavis;579740I'd want to see some evidence for your idea that organized play wags the dog at Paizo, though.

To be fair, I've lumped their organized play modules and their Adventure Paths into a single bucket, and I hadn't realized that I was doing that.  Still, I'm not seeing a lot of value in the distinction, and I do believe there's an expectation that any two GMs run those roughly the same way.  So that assumption holds.

Absolutely not.

An adventure path is designed to provide a 'campaign' from 1st to 20th level, but it's not 'organized play' and there is NO expectation that they're run the same way.  Side-treks and modifications are defintely expected - the things that tend to be the same are certain 'set-piece' encounters.  The way you get to them might vary, but the likelihood that you experience a 'similar encounter' to another group is pretty likely.

Now, that's a good thing, because it builds a common language players can use with each other.  "How did you handle the Frost-Giant Jarl in the throne room?"  Anyone who had that experience can relate - whether you explain that you had tricked him into thinking you were a group of Frost Giant children or you slaughtered him - you have a common point of reference.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579777The way you get to them might vary, but the likelihood that you experience a 'similar encounter' to another group is pretty likely.

Right, and this is almost identical in function to organized play.  It is far, far more stringent for a GM than typical module use.  Imagine the level of surprise to discover that there was no "Frost-Giant Jarl" in the throneroom at all, but it was instead a medusa.  Now remove the Adventure Path and insert that same change for a one-shot module instead.  Same surprise for the same change?

Probably not.

Most people don't read the modules prior to playing them.  The surprise would only come later when discussing it with other groups.  Then the players can wonder which version was 'closer' to the published version until/unless they read it.  

Sandboxes are good, but the sandbox should have several possible adventures.  And some of those adventures are probably multi-part epic spans.  The DM may not plan a particular story, but a particular story should be available. A Paizo style adventure path is one such adventure arc that can be included in a sandbox campaign.  If the PCs never go to the city or country that the adventure path occurs, they may never know of it.  If they don't step in and save the day, someone else might - or they'll see what happens if the adventurers 'lose' that campaign - unless it is world destroying, that can be interesting, too.  That should be a feature of any 'dynamic' sandbox.  Villains are constantly putting plans into motion, so the world six months from today may be different from now.  The bone golem you ran away from at 3rd level might not still be there when you reach 10th...but it might be.  Some things should change, some things probably shouldn't - but that depends on what else is happening in the world, too.

The RPGA, and the idea of regulating how GMs run their games in any context, is utterly retarded.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;580079The RPGA, and the idea of regulating how GMs run their games in any context, is utterly retarded.

RPGPundit

RPGA didn't really sustain itself until it figured out how to run Living campaigns. That the is the core appeal of the organization to players. Progressing through a shared campaign with hundreds of other players.  In fact it is highly addictive to more than a few players.

The whole regulating GMs comes from the attempts at being fair to all players of a Living campaign. If Trouble at Abberset is being run at several dozen sites the logic is that without standards the referee at ABC Gamestore in Brownton Georgia will just hand all the item cards over to his favorites.  If cheating becomes a regular occurrence then the Living campaign will collapse as players will not play. Defeating the purpose of Living campaigns in the first place.

Multi-chapter LARPS have to face the same issues, so I become quite familiar with the situation.

I am not against it, the one feature I like is the ability to play the same character from event to event, gain items, and XP.  But I found I like refereeing roleplaying games at conventions more.

Its just so totally contrary to everything I think about how to run or play a game...

RPGA has always "belonged" to TSR/WotC. There were no other owners. The Living Campaigns have become more and more "fan run" over the years, but WotC still manages from the top.

Organized Play is a huge cash cow.

If second tier RPG companies really wanted to make money, they would definitely jump on the Living Whatever bandwagon.

Organized Play makes life easier for GMs and players, and that results in more GMs and players who buy books. These are your core fans and they buy more crap than any other gamer.

Most regional conventions have a separate department just for RPGA because it represents a huge attendance pull. Love them or hate them, RPGA and PFS are legion.

It is not unusual for the Organized Play section of a convention to equal or even outsize the entire RPG attendance. As a con organizer, these people are key for your badge profit, your room nights and making vendors happy.

Quote from: Spinachcat;580646RPGA has always "belonged" to TSR/WotC. There were no other owners.

The gap between this answer and my question is pretty wide.  For example, I don't believe in any such creature as a "TSR/WoTC".  There was TSR who didn't know what they were doing, business-wise, but focused on putting out a specific kind of game.  Then TSR died.  WoTC came and reanimated the carcass, making it more like Magic the Gathering / Pokemon in the process,and later attempted the same reboot inspired by MMOs.

But never were there TSR people and WoTC people both in control, debating about the direction of the game, as far as I'm aware.

Anyway, it could just be a coincidence that the necessary underpinnings for Living Campaigns crept their way into the core rules right around 3e.  But I rather doubt it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;580933I don't believe in any such creature as a "TSR/WoTC".

Check out books that were published during the transition period.