TOPIC: About Power Creep . . .

Ha ha, we heard those stories anyway, at least I did. I had uncles in the US military in Europe and the Pacific during WW2. No country whose soil was fought over escaped atrocities. That war could be viewed as the low point of the century.

I'm going to put in a strong vote for 3 difficulty levels.  I'm one of those players in what I suspect is a rapidly growing group that's finally getting a good stack of rare tokens and enough experience to slide well and figure out the puzzles.  But, I'm not willing to shell out a lot of cash for purps.  With rares getting cheaper and cheaper, I see a lot of people entering this group of players in the next few years and they are going to represent a majority of the players.  Plus, the more years that TD runs means more repeat players which means fewer new players.<br /><br />So, for this group Normal is just too easy but Nightmare is too hard (especially if you are playing with random people because the rest of your friends are too cheap to play).  So, you can have Normal for the new/casual players, hardcore for the experienced players and those who are willing to handicap themselves even if they have a lot of good tokens, and nightmare for those who want a "let's see if we can actually do the impossible" kind of experience.<br /><br />I suspect anything more complicated like token limits or official artificial power caps is going to be too hard to regulate, DM, and will just overly complicate things for most players.<br /><br />As for XP, keep it simple and let people get XP for thier two best runs regardless of difficulty (even if they are the same, so the casual player can do both combat and puzzle.  They did pay for tickets afterall).  That keeps the experienced players from having to play Normal to get their full xp for the year and be less than thrilled by playing way under thier ability.<br /><br />So, if I wasn't clear PLEASE bring back Hardcore.

Isn't it in TD's interests to try to funnel those who already have a good chunk of tokens into nightmare? Shouldn't they be encouraged to purchase tokens by wanting to go beyond normal? If so, then adding a middle difficulty level wouldn't be the greatest idea. In the past, I had thought it a good idea to have multiple difficulty levels but that's mostly from a player's perspective. I'm not sure it's in TD's interests to do so.

Yes, I'm speaking more from a player perspective.  I think there is a big distinction between having a nice red collection and purping out to have a shot finishing Nightmare.  The cost difference could be considerable and no matter how much TD may want to encourage token sales, a lot of players are just not going to bite.  So then you end up with a lot of players left in the middle who are not challened by Normal but don't want to/can't spend enough to equip for Nightmare.  Plus, Nightmare may have to keep getting even tougher to satisfy the best players, so it will be that much harder for the middle group of players to feel it's worth the cost of a ticket to even try it.

<br />Isn't it in TD's interests to try to funnel those who already have a good chunk of tokens into nightmare? Shouldn't they be encouraged to purchase tokens by wanting to go beyond normal? If so, then adding a middle difficulty level wouldn't be the greatest idea. In the past, I had thought it a good idea to have multiple difficulty levels but that's mostly from a player's perspective. I'm not sure it's in TD's interests to do so.<br />

<br /><br />sure, you might have a few people that will buy the extra tokens so they can be equipped to take on nightmare.  then you will also have those that buy less tokens because they dont need them to go on a normal run.  but i would guess the majority of those who want to stay at the middle level of token purchases (enough to get good rares, but not URs) will just complain that they have to choose between too easy or too hard.

Yep, and as long as a percentage, even if it's a minimal percentage, of those move on to nightmare and buy more tokens, it's a TD win as far as profitability goes. Meanwhile, even if people start to drop out, there will always be new blood filtering into normal.

<br />Actually, Germany had to attack the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union were in offensive positions thus poised for an attack on Germany. Germany knew this and therefore caught Stalin off guard by attacking first. Thus, since the Soviet Union were in offensive positions, they were caught with their pants down, allowing Germany, within the first month, to capture more Soviet Union military equipment that Germany had of its own. This then allowing Germany to roll to within 20 miles of Moscow, and Moscow only saved by -40 temp winter. Without U.K. and U.S.A. supplies and support, U.S.S.R. was at that point, finished. <br />

  Not really.  The Germans lacked any sizeable force of long range bombers.  The bulk of Soviet factories were out of range even from Moscow.  If the Germans had taken Moscow it wouldn't have broken the Soviets.  Remember Stalingrad?  Very little foreign material helped the Soviets there.  The Soviets had three things of their own that prevented the Germans from beating them, Winter, the ability to field an army the size of Germany's entire population, and it's size.  Losing Moscow would have hurt, but even without our aid a lot of historians believe the German's would have eventually failed.

There have been various suggestions for adding additional difficulties beyond Nightmare, but I feel I must remind people of the 12 minute time limit we're dealing with. There comes a point where it doesn't matter how good you are, or how good your DM is, 12 minutes will not be sufficient time to beat down a buffed monster to zero, even if he poses no danger to you. While DMing Iuz, I had some Nightmare parties roll through that could have stood toe to toe with him all day long and never been in significant danger, their stats were just that good. Problem is, he could do the same to them. There was one Nightmare group where only one person in the party could hit on less than a natural 20, and given the size of the 20, the most perfect sliding in the world might have got 4 sliders on it (I never saw more than 2 at a time, myself). The party wasn't badly equipped, they just didn't focus on To Hit bonuses, and died as a result. With the Mindflayer, the board was designed in such a way that, even if you weren't taking damage from him, it was hard to hit the tiny numbers right at the top of the board without going over. You would eventually, it just took time. <br /><br />Fights where time runs out just aren't fun! <br /><br />Knowing you could have beaten the monster if only you had another round or two, or conversely, knowing you survived only because time ran out before the monster whittled your party down, are both completely unsatisfying. As a DM, I know we all try our darnedest to resolve each round as quickly as possible, but as a player there are times I've felt like screaming at the DM to just add it up and move on, how can they be this slow? Buffing up monsters to even greater levels will exacerbate this problem significantly, and will result in more groups being beaten because of time, rather than actually being unable to complete the task. This is especially the case due to the fact that very few rooms are just combat - most combat rooms includes a small puzzle, a monologue, exploration time, or something else that chews through precious minutes. It doesn't matter how talented you are at sliding, and how well equipped you are - if you only fit in 2 or 3 combat rounds, some things just can't be done! I know that the time limit is part of the challenge, but if we were to have something beyond what Nightmare was this year, I think it would require a longer room time to allow the uber parties to really flex their muscle and allow the event to reach its potential, which obviously doesn't work with the current dungeon model. <br /><br />So, what would be my personal preference? I'd have to think about it a while, but working from the top of my head, I'll make the following proposal. I'd like to see two dungeons, which instead of being puzzle and combat versions of the same thing, are difficulty based.<br /><br />1) The two dungeons could be either mirrors of each other (with one, obviously, being harder), or could be different, like in 2005 with Assault Atop and Battle Beneath. Personally, I'd like them to be different, but I could stomach them being mostly the same to help keep costs down for item duplication and the like, if that is a concern.<br /><br />2) Instead of selling tickets as Puzzle or Combat and then picking Normal or Hard, go back to selling tickets as Normal or Hard, and let groups pick puzzle or combat. Because both dungeons run all day, this doesn't screw people over based on timeslot, and allows those who wish it to guarantee themselves a challenge, while making sure newbies aren't coerced in to playing a difficulty they're not comfortable with. <br /><br />3) The rooms where a difference exists between puzzle and combat simply are preset with the items for both challenges. The monster who guards the puzzle isn't present for a puzzle group, so they have to solve the problem themselves. With a combat group, the monster is present, but drops a scroll with the puzzle's answer (or at least a HUGE hint) when killed. There are ways to have a room be flexible between puzzle or combat, and most DMs are used to handling a bit of both.<br /><br />4) Because each dungeon is geared towards its difficulty, no time is wasted having the DM run to shroud clues, and those sfx and props that are only used for one level or the other don't need to be made or set-up in duplicate. The DMs will have fewer stats to memorize, and will be ready in advance knowing that every group coming through their door is of a certain type. Also, it would be easy to put trusted veteran DMs on the side that will be more challenging to run, while giving our newer volunteers vital hands-on experience DMing in a slightly less frantic environment, where they won't be as overwhelmed by the piles of new things getting thrown at them. This chance at on-the-job training helps create better DMs, and happier volunteers, which would mean more returning veteran volunteers for the next time.<br /><br />5) With the dungeons split up between difficulty levels, and continuing this year's idea of not having a massive overarching soundtrack that dominate everything, you could actually create different time limits between the sides. Maintain the traditional 7 rooms at 12 minutes per room for normal, and make rooms 15 minutes on the hard side to allow greater immersion, more drawn out combat, and truly mind-crushing puzzles. Make the hard side 6 rooms to gain a few of those extra minutes back, and steal the extra 6 minutes from the training room - they signed up for hard difficulty, they better be ready to study fast and get fighting! <br /><br />6) Space in the mustering room and exit room can still be shared easily, just as it is currently. If the 15 minutes plan is used for the hard dungeon, the intake of groups, and therefore the out processing as well, would be staggered through-out the day. Whether that would be a blessing (Halleluiah, we only have to deal with one group at a time!) or a curse (Wait a minute, how many start times do we have to worry about now?) would be something the Admin staff has much better insight on than me, so I won't speculate.<br /><br />7) Experience would remain as it is currently - getting experience for one easy run, and one hard run. This would be the case regardless of if the dungeons are the same or different, and regardless of how many rooms a given dungeon had. Combined with talking point number 2, however, this will reduce player frustration stemming from not being able to get a group for a hard run that gives exp. Now, you can buy yourself a single ticket, and guarantee yourself a run that gives you experience, instead of having to drop the money for 8 tickets, just to be sure you get a hard run. TD doesn't have any trouble selling out, and I don't think there is any risk that this would reduce demand sufficiently to have an affect. If we had two different dungeons, I think this could actually increase demand greatly, as people who previously only did a puzzle OR a combat run (the dungeons, honestly, are nearly the same) suddenly want two tickets, to see all the incredible coolness that TD has to offer.<br /><br />8) Pretty much any gamer, even one who isn’t really in to pen and paper gaming, understands the idea of a target experience level for a module. If one is an “introductory module” and one is an “advanced module,” it doesn’t leave much question in their minds about what they’re getting in to. <br /><br />9) I feel that the dungeon should be more lethal. The easier dungeon should be equivalent to previous years’ hardcore, and the harder dungeon should be at least equivalent to this year’s Nightmare (especially if we’re talking 15 minute rooms!). Maybe this goes against the market research, but in the first years, surviving seems to have really meant something. These days, not surviving normal mode usually means you screwed something up horribly, and even on Nightmare it was generally the time limit or failure on the last puzzle that got people, not the lethality of the dungeon itself. I can count on one hand the number of parties that showed up during my 20 hours in room 7 with anybody dead. Several had been resurrected by various means, but actual ghosts were almost never there. Because the challenges in the hard dungeon would not have to be set up in way that they can easily switch back to easy mode, the hard mode could be made very genuinely difficult! <br /><br /><br /><br />So no, I don’t expect any of this stuff to be implemented immediately, or at all, but it’s fun to dream isn’t it? As a life-long gamer and gamemaster, this is what I’d love to see happen. I don’t know what implications my suggestions would have on the budget or logistics, but I’m certainly willing to throw everything I’ve got at helping get any part of this brought to fruition. There are problems, to be sure. For example, how to make up the lost money from 1 party per hour under 15 minute rooms? I don’t know offhand. Would the time stagger I suggested result in chaos for Lori and the rest of our Admin crew? I don’t know that either. Still, I like brainstorming, and in response to the OP about power creep, I think this is the best way to handle it. Instead of trying to fight it and keep everybody on a level playing field, I say we embrace the fact that it will always be there, and start fighting fire with fire. The “character level” may stay the same, but the experienced players need a challenge that is up to their level.<br /><br />I hereby submit my ideas to be torn apart and reworked by the forum, with no delusions about their plausibility. Go at it folks!<br /><br /><br />

<br />There have been various suggestions for adding additional difficulties beyond Nightmare, but I feel I must remind people of the 12 minute time limit we're dealing with. There comes a point where it doesn't matter how good you are, or how good your DM is, 12 minutes will not be sufficient time to beat down a buffed monster to zero, even if he poses no danger to you. While DMing Iuz, I had some Nightmare parties roll through that could have stood toe to toe with him all day long and never been in significant danger, their stats were just that good. Problem is, he could do the same to them. There was one Nightmare group where only one person in the party could hit on less than a natural 20, and given the size of the 20, the most perfect sliding in the world might have got 4 sliders on it (I never saw more than 2 at a time, myself). The party wasn't badly equipped, they just didn't focus on To Hit bonuses, and died as a result. With the Mindflayer, the board was designed in such a way that, even if you weren't taking damage from him, it was hard to hit the tiny numbers right at the top of the board without going over. You would eventually, it just took time. <br /><br />Fights where time runs out just aren't fun! <br /><br />Knowing you could have beaten the monster if only you had another round or two, or conversely, knowing you survived only because time ran out before the monster whittled your party down, are both completely unsatisfying. As a DM, I know we all try our darnedest to resolve each round as quickly as possible, but as a player there are times I've felt like screaming at the DM to just add it up and move on, how can they be this slow? Buffing up monsters to even greater levels will exacerbate this problem significantly, and will result in more groups being beaten because of time, rather than actually being unable to complete the task. This is especially the case due to the fact that very few rooms are just combat - most combat rooms includes a small puzzle, a monologue, exploration time, or something else that chews through precious minutes. It doesn't matter how talented you are at sliding, and how well equipped you are - if you only fit in 2 or 3 combat rounds, some things just can't be done! I know that the time limit is part of the challenge, but if we were to have something beyond what Nightmare was this year, I think it would require a longer room time to allow the uber parties to really flex their muscle and allow the event to reach its potential, which obviously doesn't work with the current dungeon model. <br />

<br /><br /><br /><br />That is an excellent point Evan! One possible solution is that the emphasis on higher difficulty levels is NOT on extra HP's or armor class (or maybe just one instead of both), but instead the focus is on lethality of the monster. Extra attacks, attacks which deal much more damage, and much higher attack bonuses. That would make the monsters far more dangerous without making them impossible to defeat due to time constraints.<br /><br /><br /><br />

<br />So, what would be my personal preference? I'd have to think about it a while, but working from the top of my head, I'll make the following proposal. I'd like to see two dungeons, which instead of being puzzle and combat versions of the same thing, are difficulty based.<br /><br />1) The two dungeons could be either mirrors of each other (with one, obviously, being harder), or could be different, like in 2005 with Assault Atop and Battle Beneath. Personally, I'd like them to be different, but I could stomach them being mostly the same to help keep costs down for item duplication and the like, if that is a concern.<br /><br />2) Instead of selling tickets as Puzzle or Combat and then picking Normal or Hard, go back to selling tickets as Normal or Hard, and let groups pick puzzle or combat. Because both dungeons run all day, this doesn't screw people over based on timeslot, and allows those who wish it to guarantee themselves a challenge, while making sure newbies aren't coerced in to playing a difficulty they're not comfortable with. <br /><br />3) The rooms where a difference exists between puzzle and combat simply are preset with the items for both challenges. The monster who guards the puzzle isn't present for a puzzle group, so they have to solve the problem themselves. With a combat group, the monster is present, but drops a scroll with the puzzle's answer (or at least a HUGE hint) when killed. There are ways to have a room be flexible between puzzle or combat, and most DMs are used to handling a bit of both.<br /><br />4) Because each dungeon is geared towards its difficulty, no time is wasted having the DM run to shroud clues, and those sfx and props that are only used for one level or the other don't need to be made or set-up in duplicate. The DMs will have fewer stats to memorize, and will be ready in advance knowing that every group coming through their door is of a certain type. Also, it would be easy to put trusted veteran DMs on the side that will be more challenging to run, while giving our newer volunteers vital hands-on experience DMing in a slightly less frantic environment, where they won't be as overwhelmed by the piles of new things getting thrown at them. This chance at on-the-job training helps create better DMs, and happier volunteers, which would mean more returning veteran volunteers for the next time.<br /><br />5) With the dungeons split up between difficulty levels, and continuing this year's idea of not having a massive overarching soundtrack that dominate everything, you could actually create different time limits between the sides. Maintain the traditional 7 rooms at 12 minutes per room for normal, and make rooms 15 minutes on the hard side to allow greater immersion, more drawn out combat, and truly mind-crushing puzzles. Make the hard side 6 rooms to gain a few of those extra minutes back, and steal the extra 6 minutes from the training room - they signed up for hard difficulty, they better be ready to study fast and get fighting! <br /><br />6) Space in the mustering room and exit room can still be shared easily, just as it is currently. If the 15 minutes plan is used for the hard dungeon, the intake of groups, and therefore the out processing as well, would be staggered through-out the day. Whether that would be a blessing (Halleluiah, we only have to deal with one group at a time!) or a curse (Wait a minute, how many start times do we have to worry about now?) would be something the Admin staff has much better insight on than me, so I won't speculate.<br /><br />7) Experience would remain as it is currently - getting experience for one easy run, and one hard run. This would be the case regardless of if the dungeons are the same or different, and regardless of how many rooms a given dungeon had. Combined with talking point number 2, however, this will reduce player frustration stemming from not being able to get a group for a hard run that gives exp. Now, you can buy yourself a single ticket, and guarantee yourself a run that gives you experience, instead of having to drop the money for 8 tickets, just to be sure you get a hard run. TD doesn't have any trouble selling out, and I don't think there is any risk that this would reduce demand sufficiently to have an affect. If we had two different dungeons, I think this could actually increase demand greatly, as people who previously only did a puzzle OR a combat run (the dungeons, honestly, are nearly the same) suddenly want two tickets, to see all the incredible coolness that TD has to offer.<br /><br />8) Pretty much any gamer, even one who isn’t really in to pen and paper gaming, understands the idea of a target experience level for a module. If one is an “introductory module” and one is an “advanced module,” it doesn’t leave much question in their minds about what they’re getting in to. <br /><br />9) I feel that the dungeon should be more lethal. The easier dungeon should be equivalent to previous years’ hardcore, and the harder dungeon should be at least equivalent to this year’s Nightmare (especially if we’re talking 15 minute rooms!). Maybe this goes against the market research, but in the first years, surviving seems to have really meant something. These days, not surviving normal mode usually means you screwed something up horribly, and even on Nightmare it was generally the time limit or failure on the last puzzle that got people, not the lethality of the dungeon itself. I can count on one hand the number of parties that showed up during my 20 hours in room 7 with anybody dead. Several had been resurrected by various means, but actual ghosts were almost never there. Because the challenges in the hard dungeon would not have to be set up in way that they can easily switch back to easy mode, the hard mode could be made very genuinely difficult! <br />

<br /><br />I'm loving these ideas! Hopefully we'll be able to see them implemented in the years to come!<br /><br /> =D  =D  =D<br />

one thing i want to point out; i dont think anyone (well, at least most) was suggesting a difficulty above nightmare, it was more that there will need to be something between nightmare and the current normal, for those who arent loaded with purps, but are still well equipped and experienced (thus normal is too easy).

<br /><br />9) I feel that the dungeon should be more lethal. The easier dungeon should be equivalent to previous years’ hardcore, and the harder dungeon should be at least equivalent to this year’s Nightmare (especially if we’re talking 15 minute rooms!). Maybe this goes against the market research, but in the first years, surviving seems to have really meant something. These days, not surviving normal mode usually means you screwed something up horribly, and even on Nightmare it was generally the time limit or failure on the last puzzle that got people, not the lethality of the dungeon itself. I can count on one hand the number of parties that showed up during my 20 hours in room 7 with anybody dead. Several had been resurrected by various means, but actual ghosts were almost never there. Because the challenges in the hard dungeon would not have to be set up in way that they can easily switch back to easy mode, the hard mode could be made very genuinely difficult! <br /><br />

<br /><br />While I like most all of what was suggested, I am not so sure that we need all runs of the dungeon to be more lethal.  I would like to point out that each year we get a lot of new players just starting out with only their first bag of tokens.  Several times, the coaches (and other "old timers experienced players") provided a little extra armor or weaponry just to give the new folks a decent chance at survival.  While we do have many players that are tokenaholics (and yes: "Hi, I'm Glendavar and I'm a tokenaholic..."), there are just as many (and probably many more) brand new players not quite ready for more than a basic dungeon for their introduction.  For TD to survive and grow, we must keep getting new players and that means some form of low level beginning being available for them.  <br /><br />It is the same kind of issue DMs face in local gaming groups -- how to add a new 1st level in with an experienced party.  You can hope the group will look out for new ones (no guarantees) and focus the monster's attack on the higher levels (with an occasional swing at the new person to keep them involved and learning), but in a TD setting the DMs will not be able to tell the 1st timer from the veteran easily and it would be adding another task for the DMs to keep track of in their limited time with the party.  Enjoyment for all (players and DMs) seems to be one of the main points that really makes TD so successful.  So, sometime you have to drop the level of intensity a bit in the basic dungeon to find that balance point for mixed groups of novices and veterans.  Just my 2 coppers worth, what do you think?     

There is no doubt that you make sense and these issues would be ignored only at the designer's peril. Don't you think the current standard mode (as opposed to nightmare) covers that though? It seemed to me that it did this year. We had new people in our nightmare run and we kept them alive but it took a lot of tokens. One thing to remember is that critical thinking and wits are pretty important in TD too. It's not only about AC and damage slides (not to belittle those - they are necessary - just not all of it).