TOPIC: Should Ghosting be allowed at GENCON?

Incognito wrote:
It's "dirty pool" but no different than all the issues with reprints/pseudo-reprints of the Horn of Plenty, followed by its eclipsing with the Charm of Avarice.

I'm not sure that analogy means what you think it means.

Dirty pool means to engage in unethical, unfair, or unsportsmanlike conduct.

I'm not sure how that could apply to the printing of RoR, CoGF, etc.

Mike Steele wrote: But, maybe that could be solved by training for the volunteers, and maybe signage like putting on all sides of the initial box something like "Initial 3 Token Pulls" and the other box would have "Treasure Enhance Tokens Pulls" or something.

Now that there aren't treasure stamps, this would actually be really easy to implement:

Each player gets a baggie with 3 treasure tokens in it with their XP sticker and completion token.

The mix for the stuff that goes in their bags could be different.

Matt wrote: I've also asked for and would like to see the CoA permanent available. Just make whatever URTE in print worth a point and modify trade goods accordingly. It doesn't cheaping the CoA but it makes it available as a path that if new players want to work on it they can. Not all of us drop $XXXX on tokens right from the get go.

Jeff has already promised the IS's will not be part of a transmute recipe, so this can't happen.

Mike Steele wrote:

Harlax wrote: In all of the recent threads related to URTEs there have been a lot of solutions in search of problems.


Until the problem is defined for us, we are mostly creating complexity without knowing whether it is actually solving a real problem.

This was in Jeff's post on TE Tokens, I think it's a pretty good problem definition:

"... In an effort to reduce fraud and abuse, ... "

"Reduce fraud"
Agreed. All over that. Shoot them all.

"...and abuse"
Whoa. This is where I'm a little confused. We've been sharing tokens for years, and blatantly advertising "we have URTEs for everyone." (Check every GT planning thread for years, just for starters.) And every coach I've seen asks "everyone have a CoA?" and listens as we discuss how we add up to 10 between us.

If that's what this is referring to, I'm sure none of us, coaches included, realized it was considered abuse. If we did, we'd have been a lot sneakier about it. Okay, or maybe not done it. Like renting tokens. I don't know if it can legally be prohibited, but Jeff asked us not to, so we don't because that's all the reason we need.

But yeah, other than that one word...

Joshua Long wrote: Why not then set a max number of ghosts a party can have? (I'm thinking more of a fixed number vs 1 extra ghost per player.)

I can answer that:

Because if there's a limited number of ghosts allowed, then people will argue about who gets to use the available ghost slot(s).

For example, if I buy 2 tickets but 1 of my friends can't make it, and Joe buys 2 tickets with intent to ghost one of them for the treasure, but the party is only allowed ONE ghost, then who gets to have that ghost wristband? Joe, because he invested in a second CoA and wants to use it? Me, because my friend is legitimately ill? What if Joe isn't treasure farming but his friend is also ill? Or if he says his friend is ill? Do we need a Doctor's note as proof?

You can say, "Okay, the party can have 2 ghosts", or 4 ghosts, or 6.. but the problem will still be who gets to claim those slots if multiple people have a desire (or need) to ghost.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Incognito wrote:
It's "dirty pool" but no different than all the issues with reprints/pseudo-reprints of the Horn of Plenty, followed by its eclipsing with the Charm of Avarice.

I'm not sure that analogy means what you think it means.

Dirty pool means to engage in unethical, unfair, or unsportsmanlike conduct.

I'm not sure how that could apply to the printing of RoR, CoGF, etc.

I think Eric is referring to the promise that HoP would never be reprinted, but then kind of was because you could get one literally with the MCoF or functionally by making a CoA, which many saw as a breaking of that promise. HoPs dropped in value by 30%-ish as a result.

So maybe not "dirty pool" as you defined it, but some felt betrayed nonetheless.

Raven wrote:

Joshua Long wrote: Why not then set a max number of ghosts a party can have? (I'm thinking more of a fixed number vs 1 extra ghost per player.)

I can answer that:

Because if there's a limited number of ghosts allowed, then people will argue about who gets to use the available ghost slot(s).

For example, if I buy 2 tickets but 1 of my friends can't make it, and Joe buys 2 tickets with intent to ghost one of them for the treasure, but the party is only allowed ONE ghost, then who gets to have that ghost wristband? Joe, because he invested in a second CoA and wants to use it? Me, because my friend is legitimately ill? What if Joe isn't treasure farming but his friend is also ill? Or if he says his friend is ill? Do we need a Doctor's note as proof?

You can say, "Okay, the party can have 2 ghosts", or 4 ghosts, or 6.. but the problem will still be who gets to claim those slots if multiple people have a desire (or need) to ghost.

If that would become the case then the proceeds would be split equally amongst all that would want to ghost it.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: But, maybe that could be solved by training for the volunteers, and maybe signage like putting on all sides of the initial box something like "Initial 3 Token Pulls" and the other box would have "Treasure Enhance Tokens Pulls" or something.

Now that there aren't treasure stamps, this would actually be really easy to implement:

Each player gets a baggie with 3 treasure tokens in it with their XP sticker and completion token.

The mix for the stuff that goes in their bags could be different.

Or, make it even simpler: Every player pulls 3 tokens from the Treasure box as they collect their completion lot - No Treasure chips involved. Just 3 pulls. The volunteer handing out XP codes and completion tokens doesn't even need to look at the party card.

Then anyone who has TE's approaches a Second volunteer, and receives Treasure Chips (equal to the number of bonus Chips they are entitled to) and leaves the Epilogue room. They go to a centrally located Treasure Draw box, and pull their bonus loot there, from a box which may or may not be as rich as the Epilogue mix.

This prevents newbies from accidentally pulling from the wrong box, and it means token-heavy players aren't going to be clogging up the line at the XP desk doing their dozens of pulls.

Raven wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: But, maybe that could be solved by training for the volunteers, and maybe signage like putting on all sides of the initial box something like "Initial 3 Token Pulls" and the other box would have "Treasure Enhance Tokens Pulls" or something.

Now that there aren't treasure stamps, this would actually be really easy to implement:

Each player gets a baggie with 3 treasure tokens in it with their XP sticker and completion token.

The mix for the stuff that goes in their bags could be different.

Or, make it even simpler: Every player pulls 3 tokens from the Treasure box as they collect their completion lot - No Treasure chips involved. Just 3 pulls. The volunteer handing out XP codes and completion tokens doesn't even need to look at the party card.

Then anyone who has TE's receives Treasure Chips (equal to the number of bonus Chips they are entitled to) and leaves the Epilogue room. They go to a centrally located Treasure Draw box, and pull their bonus loot there, from a box which may or may not be as rich as the Epilogue mix.

This prevents newbies from accidentally pulling from the wrong box, and it means token-heavy players aren't going to be clogging up the line at the XP desk doing their dozens of pulls.

+x, where "x" is equal to my quota of "+1" for the rest of the year.

I don't like rules. They're just things for gamers to figure out a way around. It's what we do. But do this, and you don't need to change any rules at all.

Joshua Long wrote: If that would become the case then the proceeds would be split equally amongst all that would want to ghost it.

Split equally?

What if I'm a newbie and have no TE's but Joe has 2 CoAs? Does he have to share his CoA loot "equally" with me? Or do I get 3 chips and he gets the rest? That has the ptential to really piss off a lot of new players.

And what if neither of us have TEs? How do you split 3 treasure pulls?

How do you split the 10-pack at the beginning between 3 people who all want to ghost the slot?

It sounds like a fair plan, but it's not really workable in practice.

(BTW, Josh - I hope you don't take my comments as a personal attack: Your idea/question is a valid one! It gets brought up every time Ghosting is discussed. But every time, it also gets put down because there's too many complications to it. Still, we're brainstorming, so please feel free to keep throwing your ideas into the ring)

Brad Mortensen wrote: +x, where "x" is equal to my quota of "+1" for the rest of the year.

Sorry - I'm not following. Could you explain what you mean by quota for the rest of the year?

I don't like rules. They're just things for gamers to figure out a way around. It's what we do. But do this, and you don't need to change any rules at all.

True.
Basically, this solution is admitting defeat: It's saying the TE problem is not going to be solved with other restrictions, and just going straight to watering down the loot mix. But doing it in a way which doesn't hurt the newbies as much (hopefully).

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Incognito wrote:
It's "dirty pool" but no different than all the issues with reprints/pseudo-reprints of the Horn of Plenty, followed by its eclipsing with the Charm of Avarice.

I'm not sure that analogy means what you think it means.

Dirty pool means to engage in unethical, unfair, or unsportsmanlike conduct.

I'm not sure how that could apply to the printing of RoR, CoGF, etc.

I think Eric is referring to the promise that HoP would never be reprinted, but then kind of was because you could get one literally with the MCoF or functionally by making a CoA, which many saw as a breaking of that promise. HoPs dropped in value by 30%-ish as a result.

So maybe not "dirty pool" as you defined it, but some felt betrayed nonetheless.

Plus it was made available as an incentive in several different years after it went "out of print". So maybe it was never reprinted, but the original printing was offered repeatedly after the "no reprint" promise. Of course, Jeff had a chorus of voices that missed it the first time around demanding that it be made available for them also. Jeff often has "no win" choices, and does as good a job as possible I think.