TOPIC: End the Combat and Puzzle Variations in 2014?

Chelsea Phillips wrote: I felt like many of the veteran players kept getting frustrated with less experienced players (such as myself) in the heat of combat or a timed puzzle...

This is indeed unfortunate. Sometimes people get so wrapped up in getting treasure and "winning" that they forget this is a group effort, and one open to the public too. But on the other hand, I can understand how people who spend several thousands of dollars a year on this game would get frustrated having their experience muddled. That's no excuse for messing up another person's fun though.

Chelsea Phillips wrote: ...players also like to claim classes based off of the tokens they have (I can't say I'm against this because I have gear specifically for druid and don't plan on budging from my class decision).

Yeah, the whole character selection thing is always a bit prickly for some. This can be especially true for more fanatical players. I have maybe $1,000 of ultra-rare and relic tokens that make me a killer Cleric, but would be pretty useless for most any other class. This investment makes me bristle a bit if there is contention for playing Cleric, but since I generally do ~4 runs a year I try to be considerate to newbies who may only have 1 run, and may or may not play again in the future.

Chelsea Phillips wrote: So to accommodate everyone, what if dungeon runs were split based on a true dungeoners xp level...

Well, we basically tried that; it's called Nightmare. Unfortunately tickets are so rabidly sought after that it's impossible to keep out inexperienced players from Nightmare runs, and veterans often grab regular runs too. The way the GenCon ticket sales are set up, it's apparently really hard to have separately purchased runs like that. But, it seems like Jeff was able to figure some system out for the AG runs, so it may be possible.

Count me in as someone who wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of the combat/puzzle variant. Having said that, I also agree with Mike, that if there's no distinction, the dungeon should end in a combat. It's just more satisfying, particularly if you haven't "chosen" a puzzle variant.

Others have suggested an epic battle at the end, and I like that idea, as well. I liked prior year dungeons where the puzzle and combat ended in the same room, doing different things to beat the room. What I didn't like about that scenario was that if either group failed their aspect, nobody got survior pins. I think if this idea were revisited, both groups would need to have equal say over both group's success (such as in a massive combat) or if you divide to keep the groups separate but working the same room, the other groups failure shouldn't impact your group's rewards.

I haven't run a PUG in a long time, but one thing I seem to remember is that in groups with a lot of first-time players, one easy route to victory for those groups is a normal puzzle run, where your brain is a bigger asset than your tokens. I know that it's usually a 4/3 versus 3/4 split, but that last room being a boss monster has wiped more PUG groups that I ran with than the puzzle version. So, I do worry that for newer players, this will result in fewer victorious experiences.

Also, if the intent is to keep people like me from buying multiple runs (I did either 5 or 6 last year, plus a Grind), offering a choose your own adventure option isn't going to help. I want to see all the variations, if possible, and unless the variation is very minor (like you said, a monster comes back to attack later or helps later), I'd still buy multiple runs to see an alternate room, or to do the puzzle instead of the combat. This could also cause fights in groups where some people have already done the puzzle, and some poeple have already done the combat, and they can't decide on who gets to "waste" their additional run. So maybe a choice isn't a great idea in terms of puzzle vs. combat.

I did four combat runs last year. And I plan the same this year.

Two with my son and his friend. I plan that again this year and hope to rope in two friends from college days.

Two more with a Synergy group. I finally had enough quality tokens to run nightmare, but not enough to equip my son and his friend.

From my standpoint eliminating combat/puzzle won't reduce my runs, but should make for more flexibility in choosing run times.

I don't like Losing content.

If losing the combat/puzzle means I get to see 2 or 4 fewer rooms I'm going to be very dissapointed.

I only get to play True Dungeon once a year and I want as much content availble as possible.

Replaying the same content is not the same unless I can experience new content in the replay.

I want more TD not less.

To this end, as long as the variation is availble in the run that allows me to replay it, i'm not for it.

Removing the puzzle/combat designation should really only be a means to end confusion and scheduling issues. It should not be a way to address having folks go on fewer runs.

Streamlining is good. Simplying the process is good. Adding in game choices that effect your experience is great especially if it opens up content and allows for some replay.

You a make a good point. I do 4 runs, one of each. Thats about the point where I feel I get enough value from my token purchase. I'd have a harder time justifying it for only two unique runs.

Elizabeth McCullers wrote:

Anthony brown wrote: Take the extra space and maybe make a 20 person encounter ... 2 groups 2 dm's ... hardcore epic battle. Would be nice to end a story arch with something like this.

Regards,
Anthony Brown

Ohh! I love that idea. Maybe not the end room, but somewhere in the middle. And the combat is against many opponents (3-5?), so the two groups have to quickly resort and figure out who will battle who... also giving more folks a chance to slide. Since normally the slide board is so full, several players get pressured not to slide to not clutter the good shots. You'd need several DMs, but since its a combined room, its less of a personnel pressure.

This sounds like an Epic idea... but it has been attempted (in several variants) in the past, and never seems to work out as well as people hope.

In 2007? when we battled the Evil Iuz, 2 parties ended in the same room, where one party had to defeat a puzzle while the other battled Iuz himself. When one team was done, they could help the other team. Unfortunately, this meant the odds of completing the final room were halved.... very few parties were able to solve both their own challenge in the allotted time AND then help another group which was also running behind. It led to a lot of hard feelings (We would have won if it wasn't for your lousy sliders!/misreading that clue!)

In 2009 we had multiple groups battling Smoak. Every party's "win" was independent of everyone else's. But still, we had people losing valuable time waiting for one group to file in and then another... or being unable to hear their DM over shouting from the other party. Admittedly that battle was really tough... but time still killed more players than Smoak did, and juggling 2 groups takes more time.

This has been tried in a puzzle-variant too:

In 2006 (Greyhawk Above/Below) one party would adventure to find an important clue which would help the other party solve their complex puzzle... but the parties who didn't get the clue-assist felt ripped off, and upset that their chance of a win was based on something they couldn't control.

Basically, although it sounds like a cool idea, it boils down to a nightmare of timing, coordination, and teams performing as well as the least common denominator. Everyone loves the idea of winning a big boss fight with a little help from some friends. No one likes the idea of losing a boss fight and blaming it on friends (or being blamed for it by friends.)

eldrad12000 wrote: Lets take out the idea of a 3rd dungeon or mini adventure. And instead maybe had one or two rooms in a dungeon where there is a kind of choose your own adventure path.
(snip)
would have some players wondering what they missed so it does allow for replay.

Many regular TD'ers love the idea of a "choose your own adventure" -style option. In fact, I have loved it on the very rare occasion when it was possible in the past. Unfortunately, in a scenario where you have people buying up extra runs to experience both Combat and Puzzle dungeons (only 2-3 rooms different), you would get those same people buying up extra runs to experience the "alternate adventure" route. And unlike Combat/Puzzle where you are guaranteed a different adventure, you would (As Seth just pointed out) have some people who already experienced Route A and others who already tried Route B, and someone would be upset either way when the party had to choose their path.

I think the slight replay-ability of having a monster help-or-hinder in a later room would be enough to make me enjoy a variant, but not desperately need to run again just to see it happen.

cdsmith wrote: The problem with expanding the Spring Event beyond AGs if it is held at Who's Yer Con is that WYC is a free con. Nobody is supposed to charge for games at WYC.

I would like to see that policy changed at WYC when it comes to larger attractions like True Dungeon. I'll talk to the people on the board of WYC when it comes to this. Maybe a hybrid approach would work for them.

One way around it would be to say that you could buy 6 packs of tokens at the store for $100 and it comes with a free Dungeon run. Technically that way they aren't paying to do the run

cdsmith wrote:

Picc wrote: ... As forum junkies we have to be careful to remember that not everyone views the dungeon through the same lenses we do...

VERY true. I have been on runs with people on Saturday that had no clue how any of the puzzles worked. I would only step in if they asked for a hint or were totally stuck.

When they would ask for a hint I would make it meaningful but somewhat vague. Something as simple as, "You might want to read that again..." can work wonders without making them feel like they didn't solve the puzzle.

Last year during the coaching room rumor purchase I made sure that people knew that if we paid for it it just might be IMPORTANT! That alone helped a great deal and I didn't have to say a thing in the switch room.

Very true. We often don't do a run until Saturday, and we really don't have much interaction with TD players the rest of GENCON (off doing other things), so the puzzles are still fresh to us, and I'm sure the vast majority of players fall into that same category

Raven wrote:

Elizabeth McCullers wrote:

Anthony brown wrote: Take the extra space and maybe make a 20 person encounter ... 2 groups 2 dm's ... hardcore epic battle. Would be nice to end a story arch with something like this.

Regards,
Anthony Brown

Ohh! I love that idea. Maybe not the end room, but somewhere in the middle. And the combat is against many opponents (3-5?), so the two groups have to quickly resort and figure out who will battle who... also giving more folks a chance to slide. Since normally the slide board is so full, several players get pressured not to slide to not clutter the good shots. You'd need several DMs, but since its a combined room, its less of a personnel pressure.

This sounds like an Epic idea... but it has been attempted (in several variants) in the past, and never seems to work out as well as people hope.

In 2007? when we battled the Evil Iuz, 2 parties ended in the same room, where one party had to defeat a puzzle while the other battled Iuz himself. When one team was done, they could help the other team. Unfortunately, this meant the odds of completing the final room were halved.... very few parties were able to solve both their own challenge in the allotted time AND then help another group which was also running behind. It led to a lot of hard feelings (We would have won if it wasn't for your lousy sliders!/misreading that clue!)

In 2009 we had multiple groups battling Smoak. Every party's "win" was independent of everyone else's. But still, we had people losing valuable time waiting for one group to file in and then another... or being unable to hear their DM over shouting from the other party. Admittedly that battle was really tough... but time still killed more players than Smoak did, and juggling 2 groups takes more time.

This has been tried in a puzzle-variant too:

In 2006 (Greyhawk Above/Below) one party would adventure to find an important clue which would help the other party solve their complex puzzle... but the parties who didn't get the clue-assist felt ripped off, and upset that their chance of a win was based on something they couldn't control.

Basically, although it sounds like a cool idea, it boils down to a nightmare of timing, coordination, and teams performing as well as the least common denominator. Everyone loves the idea of winning a big boss fight with a little help from some friends. No one likes the idea of losing a boss fight and blaming it on friends (or being blamed for it by friends.)

I think the big downside to combining groups in an epic end battle is that one group will blame the other group for causing them to fail. You might get one beginner group and one expert group, which can cause frustrations on both sides.

I would like to see a change towards choice that has some sort of later effect on the dungeon. Yet, I do feel a sting of sadness with the possible loss of 2 to 4 rooms of the dungeon being removed due to size limitations. While I don't always play both dungeons each year, some times it is nice to see all the rooms (when schedule permits).

Jeff, what is the likelihood of this being a temporary move due to D&D's 40th and the release of fifth? Any chance that TD will get moved back to the previous hall (or a larger space in 2015) and the removal of puzzle/combat variations is only a limited occurrence for this year rather than the new norm?

If this is the new norm I can foresee a loss of token sales by some of the mid-range buyers due to a lack of variety in the runs. Which causes numerous adverse effects on TD game play as a whole for the future. Less runs per year per player means a token purchase has much less return.

Mike Steele wrote:

cdsmith wrote: The problem with expanding the Spring Event beyond AGs if it is held at Who's Yer Con is that WYC is a free con. Nobody is supposed to charge for games at WYC.

I would like to see that policy changed at WYC when it comes to larger attractions like True Dungeon. I'll talk to the people on the board of WYC when it comes to this. Maybe a hybrid approach would work for them.

One way around it would be to say that you could buy 6 packs of tokens at the store for $100 and it comes with a free Dungeon run. Technically that way they aren't paying to do the run

Exactly the hybrid approach I was thinking about. Great minds think, sometimes alike.