TOPIC: Improving the Party Card

Most tokendb notes for all + weapons says the dm will add the appropriate to-hit modifier but will not add the plus as it is baked into the damage wheel.

This is the crux of the confusion. We as coaches need to agree to NOT include the to hit weapon bonus on the character card. We as DMs need to be able to just add the plus on the token. (and yes I do both coach and dm.)

This solves the monk / ranger issue ... but also allows player to pull out the correct weapon.

Lets talk rust monster ... your main is the +5Asher Fang. ... but you pull out a common wodden club.
Who adjusts the party card ? Does the DM even know things changed ? Silver weapons / immunity to blunt ... there are a bunch of reasons players need to switch weapons every combat and every reason why the party card should not include obvious stats that are printed on the token.

Nightshade dagger stuck to a mimic ? Attack a different monster in the room with a common weapon ? Who adjusts the bonus ?

Now as a player and guild organizer i can tell you Players take advantage of this because it has become standard. +5 Ascher Fang +Orb of might .... say hello to a +6 to hit orb of might for monk and ranger before anything else factors in.

Basic addition is a requiment for DM and Coach positions, so lets consider the health of the game and what will add to its fortitude.

I advocate neither position as either way this is decided in the end causes me personally little issue.
Advantage as Player or more intense DM attention check. Both work for me.

Anthony brown wrote: Most tokendb notes for all + weapons says the dm will add the appropriate to-hit modifier but will not add the plus as it is baked into the damage wheel.

This is the crux of the confusion. We as coaches need to agree to NOT include the to hit weapon bonus on the character card. We as DMs need to be able to just add the plus on the token. (and yes I do both coach and dm.)

For DMs like you, this is all well and good. But, I had a DM last year not know that a Dwarven Throwing Hammer could be used as a melee weapon. Those new DMs, if they are handling Nightmare, need a simple formula for a while.
That's where the real problem lies. There are DMs with enough experience and self confidence to handle what comes, and others who lack one or both. (I am not attacking or disparaging any DM. Thanks for what you do, but it is a concern.)

This solves the monk / ranger issue ... but also allows player to pull out the correct weapon.

It does, but it also sucks time. Currently, the DM looks at the board, then the Party Card and determines whether it hit. With this idea, they are going to look at the board, study the token, check the party card. . .
Say the Ranger, Fighter, Dwarf, Bard, and Paladin all swing. That's 6 pucks that the DM needs to study for the Too Hit Bonus on top of the slid number and the party card. That is time robbed from the players. Imagine that time gone in Smoak 1.0, where most teams only had 3 rounds to start with . . . That additional time would have dropped to 2 rounds in many cases.

Lets talk rust monster ... your main is the +5Asher Fang. ... but you pull out a common wodden club.
Who adjusts the party card ? Does the DM even know things changed ? Silver weapons / immunity to blunt ... there are a bunch of reasons players need to switch weapons every combat and every reason why the party card should not include obvious stats that are printed on the token.

Nightshade dagger stuck to a mimic ? Attack a different monster in the room with a common weapon ? Who adjusts the bonus ?

Great reasons to have the infonot recorded. But, my response is the players are the ones paying for the game, and should have advantage over time where possible.

Now as a player and guild organizer i can tell you Players take advantage of this because it has become standard. +5 Ascher Fang +Orb of might .... say hello to a +6 to hit orb of might for monk and ranger before anything else factors in.

Another solid reason for changing it. But, it doesn't change my position.

Basic addition is a requiment for DM and Coach positions, so lets consider the health of the game and what will add to its fortitude.

I advocate neither position as either way this is decided in the end causes me personally little issue.
Advantage as Player or more intense DM attention check. Both work for me.

That's the crux of the discussion. The health of the game is what is most important. If it can be proven 90% of returning DMs can handle the increased workload, and 70% of new ones, that would be enough to convince me of the 'healthy change.'

As a general rule, I subscribe to 2 things in discussions like this:

1. The player is putting out a lot of money for their ticket, and should have advantage when it is unclear how it will affect the outcome of a room.

2. KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid. We on the forums have a great understanding of the rules. Most people who play TD, do not. Keep them simple and consistent, whenever possible.

Again, True Grind is a different animal, and should be treated accordingly. Advanced teams are almost always set up early, and each person knows their role and stats on a Grind. If they don't they usually have a mentor along to help out. Take the kids gloves off here.

Nightmare should be consistent with whichever rules are being followed. They should not change based on difficulty. It is the same game. The monster's stats and clues available should be the difference.

darkangel866 wrote: I had a DM last year not know that a Dwarven Throwing Hammer could be used as a melee weapon.

While fighting Smoakalich, I had a long-time veteran DM tell me +2 Long Spear of Dragonslaying could only be used as a thrown weapon.

Ya know, I hear the "Basic Addition" argument a lot.
Leave it off the card and Add it in. That's what some folks are saying and they bring up some good but isolated reasons for it.

What ever happened to basic subtraction? You know the weapon got stuck so reduce the number for the new weapon.

If something is baked into the party card and your specific situation disrupts that, then just adjust for it. As the room DM you'll know what crazy things your monsters can do, just do some basic subtraction Rather than having every DM do basic addition.

What's more common, players with 1 weapon or folks with +5 daggers?
What's more common, monsters that steal your weapons or anything else?

The party card should be designed around what is most common and most likely. Bake in all the numbers and let the specific room DMs that have special monsters work out the subtraction needed for their specific rooms. Those things are less likely.

Since True Grind has a lot of specialty monsters its highly possible it needs a special party card but its the exception because all its monsters are special and weird.
In a normal run the monsters are FAR more straight forward.


If you want to continue down the "basic addition" argument slippery slope saying just add it in...why even have a party card? Let the DMs just add it all up right?, because you never know if a rust monster is going to dissolve your armor and your AC won't be valid any more and with the mimic pulling the weapons from your hands what's left to record?

Sure would make coaching easier...LOL

darkangel866 wrote:

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.

If someone is using a Torch, I'd agree. As an example--on some occasions DMs are asking to see Supreme Rings for damage reduction (i.e. not taking damage from puzzles), however. That seems new/different.

Druegar wrote: 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?

YAY!!

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.

Good questions, Raven.

What I see is a way to make the Coaches's jobs easier and smoother which results in making the DM's jobs also easier and smoother. And, all that results in one-time players and casual players of TD having a much more fulfilling time which will bring them back and let word-of-mouth work its magic.

The Basic Party Card will just have the basic info a DM will need to let the casual and 1st-timers enjoy the Rooms and have the maximum time for solving the Puzzles and battling the Monsters. The players don't have to get bogged down in the little nuances that some Tokens are bringing to the game now. They won't have to lose precious time waiting for a DM to calculate specific types of damage and what are the exact +/-'s for weapon changes, etc. We were all beginners and I can remember some of the best things about TD were the simplistic elements of the Adventure.

I'm suggesting we go back to that long ago time for the players that are just starting their journey into the Realm of TD. They aren't getting treated special or falling under a different set of rules. They will just run under the basic rules and not have to worry about all the nuances. I'm not saying take it all away, but just simplify it so the "newbies" can enjoy the Rooms and battles and have a chance to explore the Rooms instead of feeling so rushed that they think they wasted their money. Obviously, TD is a lot about the time passing quickly and adrenaline kicking in when the Horn Of Gondor sounds. But, there can be a fine line between adrenaline from time running out and adrenaline from pure disgust because the rules which are new to them ruined the fun.

As to a Nightmare Party Card...

It's just a card that has as much as possible on it for the hardcore Tokenholics and TD'ers that want to play using EVERYTHING. The players that have the Token, DM, Coach and Player Guides memorized.

Does that make sense?

Picc wrote: 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.

I think it will have the opposite effect, if at all.

I can use myself as an example. When a group of friends took me on my very first TD run in 2005 I had no idea what I was in for except that it would be like playing Dungeons & Dragons in an actual dungeon.

I loved it!! TD is actually one of the main reasons GenCon will always be a staple in my life from now until the day I die. Maybe I'll get cremated and have my wife give Jeff some of my ashes in a TD-type urn and I can be a permanent part of the Dungeon. LOL!!

Every year I immerse myself more and more into TD and try and do as many runs as I can. Throughout the past couple years I'm finding myself reading all the Guides over and over again and almost committing them to memory.

I think, like me, first-timers and casual players may start to want to immerse themselves more and feel like they are "graduating" from the Basic Player Card.

Oh! Let me clarify that when I brought up two Party Cards (Basic and Nightmare) that doesn't mean a Nightmare Party Card means the Party has to run in Nightmare mode. It just means they are experienced and know the rules a lot better than a newcomer.

I don't think the players will feel slighted or intimidated. It really would be no different than if they ran Non-Lethal/Normal/Hardcore/Nightmare.

We have come to a point where we actually have identified a core issue without calling it directly out.

TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION. Coaches and DMs have a certification program and must pass a series of exams in order to be considered "high end." Right now the program is voluntary. I have had a DM that asked the party to help with the combat math, and others that just ignored room mechanics ... i.e. auto wisp fight. I've also had amazing DMs that spin a tale and just make the whole experience top notch.

Unfortunately the 2 people i am not seeing in this discussion are the Coach and DM leads. These are the rule setters and the persons that can actually effect change in the program. I'm sure they are reading and waiting for us to come to a concensus.

Valetutto brings up a good point, but how does the dm know what token the stats on the card are based ?

Another key point is that this is truely a 1% problem. The vast majority of players do not have UR /Relic / Legendary equipment. But I would strongly caution against the 2-path rule set suggestion. Kepping it simple to one consistant rule set across all levels makes the coach and DMs life easier.

Sad as it is though I think we may be at or close to capacity on skilled vols. From the tone of recrutment over the last few seasons I get the feeling were not exactly turning folks away due to lack of experience so while ideal holding the folks who are interested to a grind level standard might not be feasible even if more training is offered

Anthony brown wrote: the 2 people i am not seeing in this discussion are the Coach and DM leads.

Oh really?

Druegar,

Didn't link the forum name to the person until your post.

valetutto wrote: Ya know, I hear the "Basic Addition" argument a lot.
Leave it off the card and Add it in. That's what some folks are saying and they bring up some good but isolated reasons for it.

What ever happened to basic subtraction? You know the weapon got stuck so reduce the number for the new weapon.

As Anthony pointed out there is no way for the DM to know what needs to be subtracted. If the players walk into a room with a giant and someone slides a +2 Hammer of Thunderbolts how do you know if the party card was filled out using the stats for that weapon or a +5 Slayer Sword.

In addition the DM would have to remember what needs to be subtracted from each stat for 10 players where in the addition suggestion the DM just needs to add the number printed on the token to the number written on the card.

Picc wrote: Sad as it is though I think we may be at or close to capacity on skilled vols. From the tone of recrutment over the last few seasons I get the feeling were not exactly turning folks away due to lack of experience so while ideal holding the folks who are interested to a grind level standard might not be feasible even if more training is offered

TD growing and expanding every year doesn't help with this and may be the big problem. Jeff keeps adding more and more and now that Sunday runs were added as of last GenCon it just makes it tougher to get enough Volunteers to run TD the entire 4 days.

Keep in mind I am **** NOT **** saying to take away from TD. I am a huge proponent of making it grow even bigger and more interactive.

The solution is a common one. Eventually the new crop of Volunteers will become skilled. And, as with any game system, you will see more and more people want to Volunteer. Some will come back every year, some will not. Me? I made the huge jump this year and wil be doing full-time instead of part-time.