TOPIC: Missed GenCon, Game Hole Con exp for 2016?

Incognito wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

bpsymington wrote: People make a good argument against raising NM XP higher than HC (people might run NM even if notm prepared for it).

Still opposed to being able to earn extra XP at alt cons. Yes, partly for selfish reasons, but there are also other valid arguments that have already been made.

I haven't seen one?

What is the reason to not be able to earn XP at alt cons (excepting speculative reasons like "it might be against TDs contract with Gen Con")?

I understand the reason for capping XP to one con per year - although I think it's debatable. I don't understand why someone who goes to WyC and GHC and runs both dungeons at hardcore for three years should be level 0.

You could make the argument that the WYC/GHC events aren't likely the same events as the GenCon ones.

So far, WYC/GHC have all been Redoubt/Redux events. It's a separate discussion/argument whether Redoubt/Redux events should have the same XP (bearing in mind that some past GenCon events have been Redoubt).

However, it might seem odd if that person who has done WYC all 3 years has only done Redoubt/Redux events has the same XP as someone who has been doing all of the newer events.

Since retro/redux dungeons presented at Gen Con and Gen Con SoCal awarded full XP - this argument does not convince me. (Subject to the rule that no more than 1 run per dungeon per season counted).

---

Adding XP to WYC/GHC adds an additional level of logistics.

IIRC at WYC, there is no formal Epilogue room. You just bring the party card to the front desk / ticket area, where it is often Lori who handles that - giving you treasure chips and your participation token.

Once you start adding more - XP codes (if different types), pins, etc., it becomes more and more of a burden. They might need extra volunteers just for the Epilogue.

Not to mention that different XP codes increase the chance of mistakes being made - just look at this year when Epilogue volunteers messed up and were handing out the wrong XP cards!

This is a practicality argument. If True Adventures finds it impractical to award XP, they won't/shouldn't do it.

This kind of speculation is not helpful in understanding what players should want in a rewards program.

I'm completely receptive to there not being XP at alternate events for practical reasons - but this is not an "argument" for why there should not be XP at alternate cons. It is at best a "reason" for why there may not be XP at alternate cons (unless the person making the argument is in a position to know and be responsible for the practical matters).

We should strive for what is desirable and let practicality crush our dreams.

---

Another argument is that the smaller cons are supposed to be introducing TD to newer players, possibly filtering them into attending GenCon.

Newer players are much less interested in XP. I know lots of new players who never even bother to enter the XP cards they get at GenCon!

Allowing XP to be earned at smaller cons could result in experienced players crowding out the newer players at the smaller cons. For example, Brian the Sinister Wizard would rather do other stuff at GenCon. So instead of playing TD at GenCon, he can get the XP by doing TD at the smaller cons - but this might crowd out newer players at those smaller cons.

Speaking of which, why don't we also float the previous XP proposal that at the smaller cons, XP is offered only for players that are below a certain player level (for example, only 0th, 1st, and 2nd level players, etc.)?

This I find somewhat compelling - but ultimately weak.

We have on this very thread new players complaining about their lack of XP at alternate cons and expressing their frustration, and how it is demotivating, and how it might impact their future attendance. These are not theoretical concerns.

To pat them on the heads and say: "There there - this is all for your benefit, if XP were allowed grognards might hypothetically invade and the maybe you wouldn't be able to attend at all!" seems pretty weak beer to me.

I _do_ agree that in very limited capacity / invite only situations (like WyC last year) no-XP is reasonable. But once registration is open to the public, I think this justification evaporates.

But! Stipulated - there are some arguments against XP at alternate cons.

travis wrote:

Incognito wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Here is a survey I invite everyone to take on this topic:

www.surveymonkey.com/r/XVWCGWH

You will see the community results when you complete your survey (absent the free text options).

Once everyone has had a chance to respond, I will post the results, including the free text options, here.

Thanks for doing that.

For #1, I was a bit conflicted so I put down Other:

Personally, it would be advantageous for me to have no XP cap. Although I am in the Top 20 for XP, this would help me catch up with those higher than me who are unable to attend the other cons. However, I benefit from living in the Midwest. It would be rather unfair for those on the East and West Coasts to fall behind in XP because they can't make it to the Midwest *three* times a year!

I was also a bit neutral for Questions #5 & #6. There weren't any good answer options so I just went with a compromise "Partial" answer.

is it really unfair to them though? if they aren't going to all the events that TD is offering, shouldn't the people that *do* go to all those events eventually be considered to be at the top?

Exactly what Im thinking. I keep seeing posts that talk about giving less experience at alt conventions, and other posts with people concerned about the top 100, but in reality experience should be the same at any convention as long as there is a cap of some kind, and people going to all conventions would eventually end up being in the top 100. Its not anyone elses fault if I can only attend one convention a year so why should the rules protect me and my game status. There needs to be a fair and balanced system that includes all conventions and both new and veteran players.

As a side question I keep seeing it mentioned that xp should not be awarded at alt cons because they are redux dungeons, but if I run the same TD event at Gen Con more than once whats the difference? Half of my Deeperdark group ran it before and stayed quiet while the other half figured out the puzzles so don't they still get more exp at the end? Im curious because Im not sure. I have never run the same event twice.

I also like the proposal to limit XP at alt cons to players under a certain level or limit - it rewards participation by new players, who would then be more likely to want to go to GC.

If you run the same event, same difficulty, twice, you only get XP for one run. The highest total XP from one of those runs goes towards your total. I would like to restate my desire that the max stays at 4k per year and, starting next year, all cons can count towards your total. It keeps people moving at that same pace and preserves the 'status' of the top players if they continue to play at least two different dungeons per year.

Fascinating that a subject with almost no in game effect has such an active and growing thread!

bpsymington wrote: I also like the proposal to limit XP at alt cons to players under a certain level or limit - it rewards participation by new players, who would then be more likely to want to go to GC.

This is about the only thing I am really totally against. If your XP level can be 'protected' then everyone's should. Either make XP available to all or none, cap it or don't cap it, but don't have one set of rules for one group and another set for everyone else.

jedibcg wrote:

bpsymington wrote: I also like the proposal to limit XP at alt cons to players under a certain level or limit - it rewards participation by new players, who would then be more likely to want to go to GC.

This is about the only thing I am really totally against. If your XP level can be 'protected' then everyone's should. Either make XP available to all or none, cap it or don't cap it, but don't have one set of rules for one group and another set for everyone else.

I'm not strongly for or against this type of proposal, but think the logistics of tracking who or who is not eligible make it unpractical. For that reason alone I would generally oppose it.

jedibcg wrote:

bpsymington wrote: I also like the proposal to limit XP at alt cons to players under a certain level or limit - it rewards participation by new players, who would then be more likely to want to go to GC.

This is about the only thing I am really totally against. If your XP level can be 'protected' then everyone's should. Either make XP available to all or none, cap it or don't cap it, but don't have one set of rules for one group and another set for everyone else.

Valid argument.

travis wrote:

Incognito wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Here is a survey I invite everyone to take on this topic:

www.surveymonkey.com/r/XVWCGWH

You will see the community results when you complete your survey (absent the free text options).

Once everyone has had a chance to respond, I will post the results, including the free text options, here.

Thanks for doing that.

For #1, I was a bit conflicted so I put down Other:

Personally, it would be advantageous for me to have no XP cap. Although I am in the Top 20 for XP, this would help me catch up with those higher than me who are unable to attend the other cons. However, I benefit from living in the Midwest. It would be rather unfair for those on the East and West Coasts to fall behind in XP because they can't make it to the Midwest *three* times a year!

I was also a bit neutral for Questions #5 & #6. There weren't any good answer options so I just went with a compromise "Partial" answer.

is it really unfair to them though? if they aren't going to all the events that TD is offering, shouldn't the people that *do* go to all those events eventually be considered to be at the top?

By that logic, then XP should be awarded for True Grind (though I personally don't agree with that). Grind is an event that TD is offering, so shouldn't you have to play Grind to be considered to be at the top?

You could argue that big token buyers support TD much more than a casual attendee. So maybe there should be XP for sufficiently big token purchases? (I personally would be against that but it's an interesting argument).

Or here's a proposal that I have made before and will make it again: How about a small amount of XP for volunteers? Say 100 XP, or even 1 XP (which would raise the cap) just for volunteering? So if you really wanted to be in the top, then you would have to give back by volunteering for TD as well!

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Incognito wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

bpsymington wrote: People make a good argument against raising NM XP higher than HC (people might run NM even if notm prepared for it).

Still opposed to being able to earn extra XP at alt cons. Yes, partly for selfish reasons, but there are also other valid arguments that have already been made.

I haven't seen one?

What is the reason to not be able to earn XP at alt cons (excepting speculative reasons like "it might be against TDs contract with Gen Con")?

I understand the reason for capping XP to one con per year - although I think it's debatable. I don't understand why someone who goes to WyC and GHC and runs both dungeons at hardcore for three years should be level 0.

You could make the argument that the WYC/GHC events aren't likely the same events as the GenCon ones.

So far, WYC/GHC have all been Redoubt/Redux events. It's a separate discussion/argument whether Redoubt/Redux events should have the same XP (bearing in mind that some past GenCon events have been Redoubt).

However, it might seem odd if that person who has done WYC all 3 years has only done Redoubt/Redux events has the same XP as someone who has been doing all of the newer events.

Since retro/redux dungeons presented at Gen Con and Gen Con SoCal awarded full XP - this argument does not convince me. (Subject to the rule that no more than 1 run per dungeon per season counted).

GenCon SoCal wasn't a retro/redux dungeon. It was the identical dungeon as the GenCon that same year. That would actually be better since it provides consistency. Similarly, IIRC, True Realm offered the same dungeons available at GenCon.

---

Adding XP to WYC/GHC adds an additional level of logistics.

IIRC at WYC, there is no formal Epilogue room. You just bring the party card to the front desk / ticket area, where it is often Lori who handles that - giving you treasure chips and your participation token.

Once you start adding more - XP codes (if different types), pins, etc., it becomes more and more of a burden. They might need extra volunteers just for the Epilogue.

Not to mention that different XP codes increase the chance of mistakes being made - just look at this year when Epilogue volunteers messed up and were handing out the wrong XP cards!

This is a practicality argument. If True Adventures finds it impractical to award XP, they won't/shouldn't do it.

This kind of speculation is not helpful in understanding what players should want in a rewards program.

I'm completely receptive to there not being XP at alternate events for practical reasons - but this is not an "argument" for why there should not be XP at alternate cons. It is at best a "reason" for why there may not be XP at alternate cons (unless the person making the argument is in a position to know and be responsible for the practical matters).

We should strive for what is desirable and let practicality crush our dreams.

I'd say practicality is the most important factor at the end of the day.

You can spend all the time you want mooning over a utopian scenario of what "should be." You can claim it would be desirable if the world had better income equality which would negate the "pay to play" argument or the importance of tokens.

Given the status quo, it is both a reason *and* an argument for why there might not be XP.

---

Another argument is that the smaller cons are supposed to be introducing TD to newer players, possibly filtering them into attending GenCon.

Newer players are much less interested in XP. I know lots of new players who never even bother to enter the XP cards they get at GenCon!

Allowing XP to be earned at smaller cons could result in experienced players crowding out the newer players at the smaller cons. For example, Brian the Sinister Wizard would rather do other stuff at GenCon. So instead of playing TD at GenCon, he can get the XP by doing TD at the smaller cons - but this might crowd out newer players at those smaller cons.

Speaking of which, why don't we also float the previous XP proposal that at the smaller cons, XP is offered only for players that are below a certain player level (for example, only 0th, 1st, and 2nd level players, etc.)?

This I find somewhat compelling - but ultimately weak.

We have on this very thread new players complaining about their lack of XP at alternate cons and expressing their frustration, and how it is demotivating, and how it might impact their future attendance. These are not theoretical concerns.

To pat them on the heads and say: "There there - this is all for your benefit, if XP were allowed grognards might hypothetically invade and the maybe you wouldn't be able to attend at all!" seems pretty weak beer to me.

I _do_ agree that in very limited capacity / invite only situations (like WyC last year) no-XP is reasonable. But once registration is open to the public, I think this justification evaporates.

Yet plenty of other forumites seem all too eager to adopt a patronizing attitude that players need to be protected from themselves from doing a difficulty level that is too hard for them (that was the argument against more XP for Nightmare).

But! Stipulated - there are some arguments against XP at alternate cons.

Yes. My goal was to provide arguments. Not necessarily the best arguments out there or even ones I personally agree with. But at least now it can be said that arguments were made....

jedibcg wrote:

bpsymington wrote: I also like the proposal to limit XP at alt cons to players under a certain level or limit - it rewards participation by new players, who would then be more likely to want to go to GC.

This is about the only thing I am really totally against. If your XP level can be 'protected' then everyone's should. Either make XP available to all or none, cap it or don't cap it, but don't have one set of rules for one group and another set for everyone else.

For the sake of argument, you could point out that there is already a precedent for this - True Dungeon Mini-Quest only gave XP to those of sufficient low level.

Some posters seem to be pointing to past occurrences of XP given for Redoubt adventures as providing a precedent that all future Redoubt/Redux adventures should necessarily grant full experience.

Well, if you want to play the precedent game, then you also have to take into consideration TD Mini-Quest....

I guess I should take that survey.