TOPIC: my experience... not good

valetutto wrote:

Donald Rients wrote:

Raven wrote:

Aaron Hydrick wrote: Creativity, on the other hand may be seen as the antithesis of consistency. It is most certainly not something that DM training stresses. DM training and Coach training both stress consistency. However the players have through the years been repeatedly challenged to be creative.

Does the DM consistently let players try different ways to solve a puzzle? Does a DM consistently allow a cool approach to work, and then communicate to the AC and other DMs that he has allowed it, so they can also consistently allow it to work?

This is what I understood the process was, it had sounded like it had changed for 2015.

I am going to turn the "Consistency" argument on its head. Consistency is accomplished through following the effects of the tokens. To not allow tokens to do what they say they can do is inconsistency.

Errata aside, I tend to agree with you. Tokens should do what they say and should not be specifically overridden with some lame excuse. "oh sorry its "extra special" lightning damage.

Errata aside, I tend to agree with you. Tokens should do what they say and should not be specifically overridden with some lame excuse. "oh sorry its "extra special" lightning damage. This comment hit the nail on the head and direct to the issue.

Arthur wrote:

valetutto wrote:

Donald Rients wrote:

Raven wrote:

Aaron Hydrick wrote: Creativity, on the other hand may be seen as the antithesis of consistency. It is most certainly not something that DM training stresses. DM training and Coach training both stress consistency. However the players have through the years been repeatedly challenged to be creative.

Does the DM consistently let players try different ways to solve a puzzle? Does a DM consistently allow a cool approach to work, and then communicate to the AC and other DMs that he has allowed it, so they can also consistently allow it to work?

This is what I understood the process was, it had sounded like it had changed for 2015.

I am going to turn the "Consistency" argument on its head. Consistency is accomplished through following the effects of the tokens. To not allow tokens to do what they say they can do is inconsistency.

Errata aside, I tend to agree with you. Tokens should do what they say and should not be specifically overridden with some lame excuse. "oh sorry its "extra special" lightning damage.

Errata aside, I tend to agree with you. Tokens should do what they say and should not be specifically overridden with some lame excuse. "oh sorry its "extra special" lightning damage. This comment hit the nail on the head and direct to the issue.

This sums up the feeling and way to resolve part of it from the new players I ran with this year when I asked them afterwards for specific feed back (they review board/card/minis games and are used to critiquing after a play through). It was a thought i had no real response to. They opened what appeared to be useful tokens and couldn't 'use' them.

Also agree with the approached below that has been brought up.

Forar wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: Brute-force breaks the room for less fun. Nerfing tokens is less fun. Something in between might be more fun.

For example, the barrels. Instead of all poison but one, they could have been a mix of deadly poison, virulent diseases, nasty acids, and rot-grub-like parasites. MoG would protect from a fraction, detect poison would eliminate a few options, the Paladin's disease immunity would protect from some, but no one effect would break the room.

Add the warning that mixing any three potions in your belly will have dire consequences, and trying to "break" the room becomes almost as challenging as solving the original puzzle.

Plus, it would have given people a chance to use some abilities, spells, and tokens that normally don't do anything. More fun!

I like this suggestion. Adding damage variety means any particular damage type isn't too easy to stack against (if all the damage faced is fire, that's too easy to build up especially after the dungeons have been run a few dozen times), and simultaneously means that having a variety of damage resistances are all more likely to come into play, rewarding those who are either lucky enough to have them or well geared/prepared enough to set themselves up.

Instead of using unresistable damage, simply have enough damage types that it's not easy (or even possible) to negate (or neuter) many or all of them.

Granted, across seven rooms this might be a bit tough to weave thematically, but it has some potential.

valetutto wrote: Errata aside, I tend to agree with you. Tokens should do what they say and should not be specifically overridden with some lame excuse. "oh sorry its "extra special" lightning damage.

Eh. Players are going to complain no matter what.

For awhile they started using Eldritch damage as the push damage and you had people complain about it.

There have been occasions in the main dungeon and in Grind when acid damage was used, and players (so used to ignoring damage with the Supreme Ring) whine about it.

Players have been using force damage for years and years, yet some complain when the monsters start using force damage too.

Incognito wrote:

valetutto wrote: Errata aside, I tend to agree with you. Tokens should do what they say and should not be specifically overridden with some lame excuse. "oh sorry its "extra special" lightning damage.

Eh. Players are going to complain no matter what.

For awhile they started using Eldritch damage as the push damage and you had people complain about it.

There have been occasions in the main dungeon and in Grind when acid damage was used, and players (so used to ignoring damage with the Supreme Ring) whine about it.

Players have been using force damage for years and years, yet some complain when the monsters start using force damage too.

Your statement has some truth. I will whine about acid damage while wearing SRoEC but I will whine a whole lot more when the DM says I should take "special" fire damage while wearing it (hence violating tokens).

Ed

Incognito wrote:

valetutto wrote: Errata aside, I tend to agree with you. Tokens should do what they say and should not be specifically overridden with some lame excuse. "oh sorry its "extra special" lightning damage.

Eh. Players are going to complain no matter what.

For awhile they started using Eldritch damage as the push damage and you had people complain about it.

There have been occasions in the main dungeon and in Grind when acid damage was used, and players (so used to ignoring damage with the Supreme Ring) whine about it.

Players have been using force damage for years and years, yet some complain when the monsters start using force damage too.

+1

I am sure Jeff and Co. don't think up ways to get around tokens - when they design rooms, they make decisions based on the story and on the desire to keep the dungeons challenging.

That being said, even I can't explain "psychic poison."

bpsymington wrote:

Incognito wrote:

valetutto wrote: Errata aside, I tend to agree with you. Tokens should do what they say and should not be specifically overridden with some lame excuse. "oh sorry its "extra special" lightning damage.

Eh. Players are going to complain no matter what.

For awhile they started using Eldritch damage as the push damage and you had people complain about it.

There have been occasions in the main dungeon and in Grind when acid damage was used, and players (so used to ignoring damage with the Supreme Ring) whine about it.

Players have been using force damage for years and years, yet some complain when the monsters start using force damage too.

+1

I am sure Jeff and Co. don't think up ways to get around tokens - when they design rooms, they make decisions based on the story and on the desire to keep the dungeons challenging.

That being said, even I can't explain "psychic poison."

I am sure Jeff and Co. don't think up ways to get around tokens - when they design rooms, they make decisions based on the story and on the desire to keep the dungeons challenging.

How could they not? They have to! Otherwise the puzzles and combat would be a breeze... They have to make it a challenge and know what tokens will likely be used.. They have to have an idea about this. I bet they have it all figured out!

Well, I meant their goal is to maintain the story and the challenge, not to screw players.

bpsymington wrote: even I can't explain "psychic poison."

I can't explain why some people took it upon themselves to take the words "Psychic attack", which is what's written in the module, and then somehow twist that into "Psychic poison."

Druegar wrote:

bpsymington wrote: even I can't explain "psychic poison."

I can't explain why some people took it upon themselves to take the words "Psychic attack", which is what's written in the module, and then somehow twist that into "Psychic poison."

This is my concern - based upon 2015 we now have at least 2 new attack types: Psychic Blast (Mind Flayer and Ioun Stone Amethyst Ovoid ) and Psychic Attack. These two new options need to be documented so we know how to interpret token interaction. The following is only an example and should not be taken as gospel.

Psychic Blast - A specific type of mental attack that emanates in a wave from the source. Any creature with a mental capacity caught in the wave is effected. This is classified as an area of effect attack type.

Currently can only be mitigated by Ioun Stone Amethyst Ovoid

Psychic Attack - A ranged mental attack that bypasses armor class.

These types of clarification help us to ask questions like - does Dexterity impact Psychic Attacks? It also helps the designers prevent awkward encounters. When we don't do this we give monsters attacks that confuses the value of tokens.

Ed

Adventure design and token design go hand in hand.

Obviously to some degree that ship has sailed (tokens that are in the wild already), and I empathize with trying to design adventures across a variety of 'gear' levels, experience levels, difficulty levels, and the untold variations present therein.

It has been mentioned previously, but I think it bears repeating that this really needs to be kept in mind in regards to token creep, both in terms of token power and number of slots available. The wider the possible disparity between a brand new single pack player and a veteran decked out in Ultra Rares is massive, and while one would hope that many of those players would manage to arrange Hardcore or Nightmare runs (meaning normal need not necessarily be quite so tightly tuned), there remains a significant disparity, and increases in the quality of tokens and the number that can be used will only increase that.

Basically, token design can complicate dungeon design. I respect not wanting to tap dance around hundreds of different tokens, but it's something of a self made problem.

Now, sure, there are outlets present; crafting, collections that are lost for whatever reasons (natural disaster, whatever) so like Magic cards, the number of older tokens to worry about will dwindle with time, it just strikes me as something to keep in mind while designing the next year's set (and those in the future).

To follow on the Magic analogy, the Wizards of the Coast design team has a "Future Future League", which playtests cards in upcoming sets with currently existing cards (up to a year out, or 3-4+ releases). Now obviously TD doesn't have the resources of WOTC, but the point is that preparing both dungeons and tokens far in advance gives time to mull over how those will interact together. It may not be realistic to design dungeons for 2017 in 2015, and I know the community enjoys having a hand/say in token set design, but it's something to weigh out when making and accepting those suggestions.

And to bring it back around, while I respect that collectors and badass players with giant tokens want something to strive for, that need to be regularly creating X new tokens that are impressive enough to inspire desire, but not unbalanced against the rest, is only going to become more difficult over the years. That depth and complexity is both appealing and counterproductive (in terms of accounting for everything players can potentially do).

So I'm not saying it should change, but it's worth pondering at least. Making tokens hot and exciting can in turn complicate dungeon design, which in turn leads to issues with those tokens feeling valuable/useful if the dungeons are tweaked to not negatively influence the challenge of said dungeons.

Druegar wrote:

bpsymington wrote: even I can't explain "psychic poison."

I can't explain why some people took it upon themselves to take the words "Psychic attack", which is what's written in the module, and then somehow twist that into "Psychic poison."

Ah...I didn't read that module. Totally different. Maybe a DM used the word "posion" inadvertently.

Incognito wrote:

valetutto wrote: Errata aside, I tend to agree with you. Tokens should do what they say and should not be specifically overridden with some lame excuse. "oh sorry its "extra special" lightning damage.

Eh. Players are going to complain no matter what.

For awhile they started using Eldritch damage as the push damage and you had people complain about it.

There have been occasions in the main dungeon and in Grind when acid damage was used, and players (so used to ignoring damage with the Supreme Ring) whine about it.

Players have been using force damage for years and years, yet some complain when the monsters start using force damage too.

While all true, hater's gana hate.
We can give them less fodder for this hate if reasonable tokens should work, we should let them work or don't design the situation not to.

For example, if I could reasonably have lava walking boots then don't put lava in the dungeon if you won't want me to walk across it.

Expect people are going to reduce normal damage types.
Its not impossible to predict what kind of damage reduction would come on average with particular token levels and adjust accordingly.

Where you get people angry "for a good reason" is when you basically lie to them. You give them fire protection and then say "oh no sorry this is special fire". To repeat a phrase I once heard, its mystic hellfire, hotter than regular hellfire.
Just let the token work.