TOPIC: my experience... not good

CrowOfPyke wrote:

Garrison wrote:

Ro-gan wrote: Years ago I would have agreed with the complaint that why are Tokens being made to offer resistance this and resistance that if they can never be used because Jeff neutered them in the Dungeon. But, sadly, this is nothing new and has been going on for years. When I saw the Lava Walking Boots I never once thought of equipping them. I knew they wouldn't be useful for one reason or another.

This is a major reason why my token purchases went from over $1,000 two years ago, to only $100 this year, to zilch from here on out.

Doesn't surprise me. And I agree with Ro-gan, I don't bother with "clever" items anymore because they are all negated and worthless anyway. And it's this kind of thing that can leave a VERY bad taste in people's mouths about TD and why some people just walk away never to return.

Stop punishing players for being clever and using the tokens you print!!

So... I'm reading through and only on page 10 of (currently) 14... but I have to agree here. The year that we had an earcuff that eliminated damage from falling rocks? Yeah - the one room that seemed tailor made for that particular damage avoidance... You guessed it. Nah - that token will be of no use here... and it has been of absolute zero use since. There are rings and other items with identical seeming uselessness. I must agree - if people wish to be clever with the token as printed, heck that should be rewarded. "Good job!" "You take no damage." Then after everyone that has the token has gotten some actual use out of it, fine, make its functionality be useless for ten years... But if I had been a new player this year - and seen some of the irritating nerfing-out of tokens... even the earcuff-of-no-rocks-on-the-head year... I'd be rethinking coming back. That said - I'm pretty much an addict at this point, but I know that in the aggregate these comments go into the pot and things change. Heck I'd even like to see an occasion that a scroll of knock would work every once in a while - even though I think Jeff despises ever having printed them...

Raven wrote:

bpsymington wrote: Plus, you could take a round to soak in the pool, and you would then be immune to the heat aura damage.

I was wondering what the pool was for!!

I tried to investigate the pool, but the DM just said "It's what it looks like: a pool of water."
Then I spent a round & trying to splash some on the creature, and the DM said it evaporated/did nothing. So I ignored it as decoration and continued attacking with melee.

Kinda wish there had been some indication that it "felt cooling on the skin" or "your blisters seem to diminish after dipping your hands in the water."

If I may ask, Did many groups figure out the trick with the pool? Was there some sort of Bardic Lore clue?

Some DMs did a much better job than yours...

MasterED wrote:

bpsymington wrote: The poison barrel room with the MoG is an example why there is a problem with brute-forcing a solution.

I also disagree. Brute-forcing WITH a MoG = multiple TD runs by year and likely token sales. This is exactly what TD wants. If an expensive token contributes to solving a puzzle or combat, that rewards sales. It should be encouraged.

Ed

I tend to agree here as well - if every time that a token could possibly be cleverly used to:
a) serve its stated purpose, and
b) help you through a difficult puzzle
were simply eliminated out of hand, you start to destroy the novelty of people even hoping or trying to get clever. At that point - it's not a matter of your wits against the dungeon, it is simply a matter of "there only is one or two (maybe three) cannon ways to solve the room", clever uses of tokens are effectively discouraged. It's not to say that every exploitable easy way around puzzle or challenge should be encouraged, but rather that if you've got a token that either:
a) makes logical sense to use and work in a situation, it should be considered fair (or at a minimum very carefully thought through why it won't - i.e. acid mushrooms not poison...) or
b) is a clever not-thought-of solution to the challenge, not explicitly accounted for in the module, and again, it makes sense, it should be considered fair...
Just my opinion, for what its worth...

Aaron Hydrick wrote: The year that we had an earcuff that eliminated damage from falling rocks? Yeah - the one room that seemed tailor made for that particular damage avoidance... You guessed it. Nah - that token will be of no use here... and it has been of absolute zero use since.

Heh - I actually equipped earcuff of abjuration this year! I think it might have done something in the room with the Carrion crawler if you hit the rocks with your slide - but I never hit the rocks so I'm not sure.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Aaron Hydrick wrote: The year that we had an earcuff that eliminated damage from falling rocks? Yeah - the one room that seemed tailor made for that particular damage avoidance... You guessed it. Nah - that token will be of no use here... and it has been of absolute zero use since.

Heh - I actually equipped earcuff of abjuration this year! I think it might have done something in the room with the Carrion crawler if you hit the rocks with your slide - but I never hit the rocks so I'm not sure.

This! Yes, the earmuff of abjuration would have protected you from the falling stalactite damage if you had hit the stalactite.

All this stuff with some Dm's allowing things and some not allowing it is most likely the main reason I would not wanna volunteer to DM a room. I am great with math and remembering rules. But I am too much about people having fun. If a party did something wonky or used some crazy item combo to do something to bypass a room. I would be more interested in letting them do it so they had fun then telling them no they are wasting their time. But I sadly can't really do that cause other groups who tried later if they heard about it would be told no etc, and then other groups would try etc etc etc. I really wish DM's were given the general outline of the room and then given the power of a DM to do what they wanted as long as they did not cross certain rules or something along those lines. Just post up a big sign at each dungeon telling people their run experience might change from run to run.

I know there are probably a ton of reasons were people will be like. Nooooooo that would cause problems etc etc. But that's what the big sign is for. Ever run might be different in various aspects.

eldrad12000 wrote: All this stuff with some Dm's allowing things and some not allowing it is most likely the main reason I would not wanna volunteer to DM a room. I am great with math and remembering rules. But I am too much about people having fun. If a party did something wonky or used some crazy item combo to do something to bypass a room. I would be more interested in letting them do it so they had fun then telling them no they are wasting their time. But I sadly can't really do that cause other groups who tried later if they heard about it would be told no etc, and then other groups would try etc etc etc. I really wish DM's were given the general outline of the room and then given the power of a DM to do what they wanted as long as they did not cross certain rules or something along those lines. Just post up a big sign at each dungeon telling people their run experience might change from run to run.

I know there are probably a ton of reasons were people will be like. Nooooooo that would cause problems etc etc. But that's what the big sign is for. Ever run might be different in various aspects.

+1

eldrad12000 wrote: I really wish DM's were given the general outline of the room and then given the power of a DM to do what they wanted as long as they did not cross certain rules or something along those lines. Just post up a big sign at each dungeon telling people their run experience might change from run to run.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Unfortunately, even if you put up a sign, I fear there would still be a lot of complaints. The average True Dungeon player isn't really that tuned-in to how a well-run RPG is run, how a good DM runs things, or how RPGs are highly variable depending on the referee.

Heck, even frequent roleplayers these days seem to think RPGs are some sort of strict tournament with precise rules that must always be followed, and will shriek "foul" if the DM makes a ruling that isn't consistent with the rulebook. Sad.

Here's a thought; what if more tokens were considered consumable?

Obviously we have potions and scrolls that get punched when they are used, but what if some 'creative solutions' led to the destruction of those items? To give more gradiation than currently exists.

I'm sure people are tired of the example, but lets look at the Lava Walking Boots; what if their 'basic' ability (prevent damage) was a 'free' usage, but they could be 'spent' to get across entirely (to save time or simply as a brute forcing effort, but doing so caused them to be destroyed (the magic that makes them work simply wears out after enough usage)?

This seems like a win all around.

Players get to put those items to use and move past things that are holding them up (either because they're running behind or are struggling for some reason), another outlet is found for tokens (reducing the number in circulation drives up demand/value) and also makes trading tokens in for trade goods a bit more of a calculation.

Creative problem solving but at a price.

Obviously we don't want to load the tokens down with extra text, or back themselves into further corners, so I'm not saying it'd be easy or perfect to implement, but a greater degree of creative freedom mixed with paying a cost to utilize it seems reasonable. "Sure you can use your rope and grappling hook to try to snag that item, but both will likely be destroyed in the attempt due to *insert reason here*, do you wish to proceed?"

Make those 'rarely used tokens' not only a bit more likely to be useful with creative thinking, but also naturally eaten up in the process.

Obviously all tokens have value, so one would need to be very clear with the community (like, include it as a possible CHOICE within coaching preparation, and always give the player a "this is the outcome and this is the cost, are you CERTAIN you wish to proceed?" verification), but the more I think of it, the more I like this as a possible compromise. Especially when dealing with Rares and beyond (perhaps not even allow it for tokens beyond Rare under any circumstances? Too much risk of remorse after the fact?).

eldrad12000 wrote: All this stuff with some Dm's allowing things and some not allowing it is most likely the main reason I would not wanna volunteer to DM a room. I am great with math and remembering rules. But I am too much about people having fun. If a party did something wonky or used some crazy item combo to do something to bypass a room. I would be more interested in letting them do it so they had fun then telling them no they are wasting their time. But I sadly can't really do that cause other groups who tried later if they heard about it would be told no etc, and then other groups would try etc etc etc. I really wish DM's were given the general outline of the room and then given the power of a DM to do what they wanted as long as they did not cross certain rules or something along those lines. Just post up a big sign at each dungeon telling people their run experience might change from run to run.

I know there are probably a ton of reasons were people will be like. Nooooooo that would cause problems etc etc. But that's what the big sign is for. Ever run might be different in various aspects.

One of the most common complaints we hear after GC is about DMs being inconsistent. We try to reduce that with the training the DMs get and with the modules describing the rooms. A big sign indicating people might have different experiences would be a problem for many players.

bpsymington wrote:

eldrad12000 wrote: All this stuff with some Dm's allowing things and some not allowing it is most likely the main reason I would not wanna volunteer to DM a room. I am great with math and remembering rules. But I am too much about people having fun. If a party did something wonky or used some crazy item combo to do something to bypass a room. I would be more interested in letting them do it so they had fun then telling them no they are wasting their time. But I sadly can't really do that cause other groups who tried later if they heard about it would be told no etc, and then other groups would try etc etc etc. I really wish DM's were given the general outline of the room and then given the power of a DM to do what they wanted as long as they did not cross certain rules or something along those lines. Just post up a big sign at each dungeon telling people their run experience might change from run to run.

I know there are probably a ton of reasons were people will be like. Nooooooo that would cause problems etc etc. But that's what the big sign is for. Ever run might be different in various aspects.

One of the most common complaints we hear after GC is about DMs being inconsistent. We try to reduce that with the training the DMs get and with the modules describing the rooms. A big sign indicating people might have different experiences would be a problem for many players.

I know this is easier said than done, and I missed some training because I was on the GT run, but I would have liked more interaction and brainstorming with my peer DMs before GenCon. For example, the first time somebody wanted to use their item that made them immune to arachnids I hadn't realized that the spider wasn't a natural one. Or the first time the Druid wanted to talk to the spider I didn't realize they couldn't, and if they could I didn't know what to say.

Obviously we can't think of everything, but we could have thought of a lot more than we did on the forums. Perhaps just getting the DMs together for an hour before training started so we could brainstorm.

bpsymington wrote: And how is my bias any different from your bias? I am apparently biased towards solving the puzzles, you are apparently biased towards breaking them. I don't agree that your way is fun or involves any "immersion."

"Okay, the druid with the MoG drinks from all the barrels and finds the right one. Now we'll just stand here for eleven and a half minutes."

Now in that room there would have been ways to avoid breaking the puzzle - allow only one drink per person, have the different drinks do different things (poison, acid, disease, etc.). If I were DMing the room, it would depend on if the solution were drinking the right beer or identifying the correct beer. If the second, I would say, "The Druid tastes all of them but b/c s/he is immune to poison s/he can't identify the correct one."

DMs are just doing what they are asked to do by the directors, coordinators, and the modules. Psychic poison was not in my dungeon, but the lava room was. Over time, DMs gave more clues to help groups solve the puzzle - "You see a footprint on the T, the elf was the FIRST to cross the lava river, etc." With the number of people who have been upset about this, we clearly could have done something differently to address their concerns.

As I've said before, TPTB are listening to these concerns and are considering what to do about them.

Part of the blame goes to the token design process. And part of the blame goes to the dungeon/room design.

Regarding the token design process, Jeff often gets caught up in the moment and/or does not realize that some tokens have the potential to really mess up puzzles and combats. Anecdotally, there have been numerous occasions when we have caught those in the token design stage:

- Gnomish Fizzy Lifting Device nerfed so it does not allow flight in puzzle rooms
- Lenses of Clear Sight nerfed so it does not work on illusions
- Earcuff of Understanding nerfed so it does not work with written languages
- Spectre's Spectacles nerfed to provide a large save bonus instead of complete immunity to gaze attacks
- Charm of Spell Swapping nerfed to it only works on Cure and Damage spells (mainly due to Restore Power/Spell)

I am proud to have caught those issues and successfully lobbied to have them changed. (Now my main concern is the new Cleric's proposed Unbind spell which would affect the whole party!).



The second issue is regarding the dungeon/room design. I do understand the Jeff has his hands full and that a single person can only think of so many possibilities.

I will say that I am disappointed by the limited participation of the DM's. (Some DM's are really great! But the majority seem to provide limited input on the room).

Every year, after GenCon, I finally browse through each of the Room subforums in the volunteer section. A few end up with good and lively discussions about the room and potential token interactions. But a surprising amount have no activity what-so-ever. The DM's are given their room specs in advance and have plenty of opportunities to anticipate problems, think of token interactions, and discuss this before GenCon. But my feeling is that this is a massive failure on the part of most DM's. (Some DM's are diligent but most are not).