TOPIC: Improving the Party Card

Ro-gan, your idea about having a different party card for nightmare (and hardcore?) is rather intriguing.

DMs, how do you feel about that notion?

Zoe was pregers, started as a comment gt the actress, then really took off as a plotline in the comics.

Regular *and* Nightmare card, hm... Intriguing.

I would query what that "means" (if you don't mind me getting philosophical).

Does it mean that we're redefining Nightmare as a heavily rules-based game? Not just "tougher monsters, less lenient DMs" but as a game where we track little details like energy types, and special resistances?

Does it mean that "Normal" mode gets freebies (like Rangers/Monks getting their primary weapon bonus on both weapons?, or not marking down damage/energy types so DMs don't need to subtract, say poison damage, on a monster which is poison immune) which basically makes their game a little bit easier?

Does it mean that we use the Honor system for Normal/Hardcore Mode, but we want to see all the tokens and have the coaches meticulously record Sets, presence of items like Druegar's Die,figurines, etc, for the Nightmare players?

I'm not against a Nightmare specific party card... but I think the underlying reasoning of why they need one should be given some consideration.

Raven wrote: Regular *and* Nightmare card, hm... Intriguing.

I would query what that "means" (if you don't mind me getting philosophical).

Does it mean that we're redefining Nightmare as a heavily rules-based game? Not just "tougher monsters, less lenient DMs" but as a game where we track little details like energy types, and special resistances?

Does it mean that "Normal" mode gets freebies (like Rangers/Monks getting their primary weapon bonus on both weapons?, or not marking down damage/energy types so DMs don't need to subtract, say poison damage, on a monster which is poison immune) which basically makes their game a little bit easier?

Does it mean that we use the Honor system for Normal/Hardcore Mode, but we want to see all the tokens and have the coaches meticulously record Sets, presence of items like Druegar's Die,figurines, etc, for the Nightmare players?

I'm not against a Nightmare specific party card... but I think the underlying reasoning of why they need one should be given some consideration.

I think Normal and Hardcore/Nightmare attract different demographics.

Newbies and casual players are more likely to do Normal (and maybe Hardcore).

Tokenholics and experienced players are more likely to do Hardcore and definitely Nightmare (except for the fubar issue of Nightmare-dedicated slots full of newbies who didn't read the description).

So it makes sense if Normal gets a dumbed-down, simplified version which is more friendly to newer players.

And that Nightmare and Hardcore can deal with more complication and advanced rules.

Raven wrote: Does it mean that we use the Honor system for Normal/Hardcore Mode, but we want to see all the tokens and have the coaches meticulously record Sets, presence of items like Druegar's Die,figurines, etc, for the Nightmare players?

I'm hoping that asking to see each and every token that's used doesn't become the norm, especially in regular runs. It slows things down beyond belief--and there's so little time as there is. This has actually made me less likely to use tokens (or, in some cases, buy tokens that aren't represented on the party card) just so things don't get bogged down.

Honestly as much as I like the idea of tracking everything I think we may already be close to the limits of what can be done in the time aloted both from a coaching and GM perspective. That said if extra info really is needed we should have it for all runs if not then it makes me wonder if its truly needed detail.

On the other hand seperate party cards might also have unexpected social consiquences. ie How many people are going to want to play normal if its dumed down and the real game is in nightmare. Or might be intimidated from making the jump to nightmare further insulating the token rich from the general population. Anyway just some things to consider.

Is there a way we can shift some responsibility from the GMs to the players? We already handle our own health, so why can't we handle damage reduction? Put a section in the Player's Guide about what types of damage the tokens can prevent, make it into a chart, and make the players responsible for remembering it in the heat of battle.

I'm already going to make "cheat sheets" for builds of all of my characters (I outfit all 10 people in a few runs every year) so the players will know if they can be surprised, can walk on sand, etc.

Sorry for the long post, but a few quotes add up quick. And its an important subject that needs to be explored fully.

Corinth, we as players, already should have that responsibility. I know that's how I work it when I play, just confirming a damage type and reducing appropriately based on my tokens (although I do mention to the DM "taking 5 due to RoSEC" or whatever.)

Raven wrote: Regular *and* Nightmare card, hm... Intriguing.

Does it mean that we're redefining Nightmare as a heavily rules-based game? Not just "tougher monsters, less lenient DMs" but as a game where we track little details like energy types, and special resistances?

SageSTL wrote: I'm hoping that asking to see each and every token that's used doesn't become the norm, especially in regular runs. It slows things down beyond belief--and there's so little time as there is. This has actually made me less likely to use tokens (or, in some cases, buy tokens that aren't represented on the party card) just so things don't get bogged down.

It has always been the case that used tokens need to be seen by the DM. The only exceptions are what is recorded on the Party Card.

As for redefining Nightmare, yes, a different party card would mean exactly that. Looking at the Player’s Guide, the Dungeon Master’s Guide, and the Coach’s Guide, I have found that most ‘rules’ we assume are either 1) not rules, or 2) hidden from the public.

I was specifically looking for the Ranger’s To Hit Bonus Rule (which AFAICT doesn’t exist), but what I noticed actually surprised me. Here’s what the Coach’s Guide ( truedungeon.com/newsletter/Coachs_Guide.pdf )says about filling out the Party Card:

Coach’s_Guide_pg_8 wrote: Go to each player and write down (or verify) their To Hit & Damage bonuses for melee & ranged attacks, AC with & without shield, AC bonus when monsters attack with a missile
(this field is only affected by six tokens), saving throws, treasure-enhancing
tokens (CHARM OF GOOD FORTUNE*, HORN OF PLENTY, RING OF RICHES), and anything else listed on the party card. If the players are missing a useable weapon and/or armor token for their class, Common tokens will be available to give to the players. We don’t want characters going into the dungeon naked and unarmed!

Now, this is 2013’s version (if 2014’s is available, I don’t see it). But, there is a reason why it was chosen to be this way. Simplicity. KISS needs to be the rule for True Dungeon in general, and I think moving away from that spells disaster.

Raven wrote: Does it mean that "Normal" mode gets freebies (like Rangers/Monks getting their primary weapon bonus on both weapons?, or not marking down damage/energy types so DMs don't need to subtract, say poison damage, on a monster which is poison immune) which basically makes their game a little bit easier?

I think a decision has to be made and stuck to. Imagine someone who plays for a run this year for the very first time, and loves it on Normal. They go buy a PYP and get into a Hardcore run, feeling sufficiently equipped. Then they are told the rules they just learned are now different. How are they going to feel and react?

Raven wrote: Does it mean that we use the Honor system for Normal/Hardcore Mode, but we want to see all the tokens and have the coaches meticulously record Sets, presence of items like Druegar's Die,figurines, etc, for the Nightmare players?

Hmmm, so you new guys, we’ll trust you to have what you say you have. But those of you we know and have been playing for years, well you need to prove that you have what you say you have. . .

Incognito wrote: I think Normal and Hardcore/Nightmare attract different demographics.

True, but I as a HC/NM player am not pleased with the idea of a lot more bookwork to be able to play.

Incognito wrote: Newbies and casual players are more likely to do Normal (and maybe Hardcore).

Tokenholics and experienced players are more likely to do Hardcore and definitely Nightmare . . .

So it makes sense if Normal gets a dumbed-down, simplified version which is more friendly to newer players.

And that Nightmare and Hardcore can deal with more complication and advanced rules.

I disagree. We talked about (and shelved) the idea of Advanced True Dungeon years ago. I think a more advanced party card, and more advanced rules will eat time in the dungeon. I think rules should be uniform, so that players may seamlessly transition from Normal to Hardcore to Nightmare. Putting artificial barriers in place will just fracture the haves and have-nots more.

Grind is a different entity than the dungeon though.

As a GM, I'm not opposed to different cards for different levels. I'm ok with things like damage reduction, Templar bonuses and anything else being on the card, but it has to be the players responsibility to remember and apply them.


But let's first agree on what a coach's job is. I'd submit it's to help new players get organized and ready for their first or second adventure. If their main job was to fil out party cards for all and sundry, they'd be called "scribes." We experienced players have the tools to make up our own party cards, and we should. We've dumped that chore on the coaches, and the result is that they're so busy doing what should be our jobs they can't really fulfill their primary function. Shame on us for taking more than our fair share of the coaches' time when we need the least help, compared to the newbies.

You don't have to agree with that opinion, but it colors some of the rest of this post so thought I'd toss it out there.

I don't see it as different rules but different complexity. I mean, a normal or softball group will have a minimum of tokens, powers and effects. It makes sense to me to use a simplified card for them to help them avoid confusion. What this Hop/ RoR column? Why are there so many numbers? It's like the two-sided mat we have. Both apply, but if you only have 10 tokens use the simple side.

Hardcore and Nightmare groups have dozens of tokens each and might need a more complex card to summarize things. But if you're one of these, you really should preprint your own card. Ideally you should print 12, one per class, if you're in any pickup groups.

And, I confess, I haven't done that as much as I should have. But, this year I've resolved to do better.

darkangel866 wrote: I was specifically looking for the Ranger’s To Hit Bonus Rule (which AFAICT doesn’t exist)

Please elaborate. What are you referring to when you say "Ranger's To Hit Bonus Rule"?

Specifically, I was looking to see if there was a rule in place that said the highest bonus applies for both sliders. I admit I scanned more than fully in depth read, but in all three documents, I did not see anything that applied for Rangers and Monks to apply a singular value to both sliders or two values to different sliders.

I had always assumed the higher value applied to both. However, this discussion had me wondering what the actual rule is.

I think (and my be wrong) that we as DMs and players have always done the same thing, without it ever being put into print as a 'hard rule.'

Waaay back when Party Cards were first introduced, we used to put a slash through the Ranger's to-hit score, saying "+1/0" or sometimes "+2/+1" to show that they had a better weapon in their main hand than the offhand. I can't remember when we stopped doing that, but it feels like we only did it a couple years before everyone agreed that it was just easier (and less time consuming for Coaches, and easier for Dungeon DMs to read or understand) if we just used the higher bonus, and ignored the slashed box.

Many of the decisions made on "How to Fill Out Party Cards" has come from the DMs. Some (new-ish) DMs were really thrown for a loop by that slash through the Ranger's to-hit, and some couldn't even read it in the low light of the dungeon.

In other words, I don't think there was ever a rule that it was supposed to be done one way of the other, it was just easier to make a decision that made our Combat DM's life simpler (and coincidentally, made the Coaches' life easier, and the players a tiny bit happier).