TOPIC: True Horde at Origins 2019

Matthew Hayward wrote: Probably lots of work to prepare for "story mode" if it ends up not getting run at the event.

My impression, which I'm more than willing to admit could be wrong, was that the plan is for both modes will be created.

Matthew Hayward wrote: Aren't Horde signups and attendees a pretty unique group?

I wouldn't use the word "unique", but it's certainly a smaller population than all of Gen Con. Regardless, I'd put good money on at least someone choosing not to read the relevant information provided.

Next time you see me in person (the story works best face to face), ask me to tell you the story about reading.

Druegar wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Probably lots of work to prepare for "story mode" if it ends up not getting run at the event.

My impression, which I'm more than willing to admit could be wrong, was that the plan is for both modes will be created.

This is an example of the “sunk cost fallacy.” If the plan is to create two versions, it’s the same amount of work whether anyone actually uses them both or not. And if no one uses story mode, don’t bother next time.

My guess is that the completists who always ran puzzle and combat versions would want to do the same with Grind.

But I could see it being adjusted on the fly, not just by party but by encounter. Maybe the party is slicing and dicing its way through critters when a Rust Monster shows up. Rather than risk their hammers they decide to try to avoid that one combat.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Druegar wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Probably lots of work to prepare for "story mode" if it ends up not getting run at the event.

My impression, which I'm more than willing to admit could be wrong, was that the plan is for both modes will be created.

This is an example of the “sunk cost fallacy.” If the plan is to create two versions, it’s the same amount of work whether anyone actually uses them both or not. And if no one uses story mode, don’t bother next time.

My guess is that the completists who always ran puzzle and combat versions would want to do the same with Grind.

But I could see it being adjusted on the fly, not just by party but by encounter. Maybe the party is slicing and dicing its way through critters when a Rust Monster shows up. Rather than risk their hammers they decide to try to avoid that one combat.

The other benefit of having predetermined types is that a player can choose... whereas, if I want to play both versions and the party votes down the version I haven't played on my second run, I don't get to play both types.

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Druegar wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Probably lots of work to prepare for "story mode" if it ends up not getting run at the event.

My impression, which I'm more than willing to admit could be wrong, was that the plan is for both modes will be created.

This is an example of the “sunk cost fallacy.” If the plan is to create two versions, it’s the same amount of work whether anyone actually uses them both or not. And if no one uses story mode, don’t bother next time.

My guess is that the completists who always ran puzzle and combat versions would want to do the same with Grind.

But I could see it being adjusted on the fly, not just by party but by encounter. Maybe the party is slicing and dicing its way through critters when a Rust Monster shows up. Rather than risk their hammers they decide to try to avoid that one combat.

The other benefit of having predetermined types is that a player can choose... whereas, if I want to play both versions and the party votes down the version I haven't played on my second run, I don't get to play both types.

Pre-determined or voted is irrelevant to me, the direction of this discussion illustrates why i dont think there should be multiple versions. Grind/horde is difficult enough to get tickets for, we dont need to encourage people to play it extra times by offering more variants.

Wade Schwendemann wrote: So, I LOVE that grind allows for creative solutions and problem solving.

I think it is hilarious that when one gets mazed, they might have to fill out an actual maze.

I think Grind should have both paths.

I think the chaos of True Horde or True Raid might be too much for more than hack and slash.

I really hated that maze book - couldn’t see it well enough to solve it

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote: The other benefit of having predetermined types is that a player can choose... whereas, if I want to play both versions and the party votes down the version I haven't played on my second run, I don't get to play both types.

Benefits are irrelevant, in the sense that people ignore the descriptions, so the idea of having a choice is an illusion.

Many “Hardcore” and Nightmare” runs became “Normal” back in the day, because the six people who showed up geared for it were joined by four people who had their free 10-pack and no idea how to play. To this day we have a couple dozen people who show up at Grind with no experience or tokens because they didn’t read the description. I can’t imagine they read any better when it comes to story vs combat.

The only way to ensure anything is to buy all ten tickets and sell the extra to people who agree to play your way.

And Kurtreznor has a point. Two distinct modes will potentially as much as double the demand for Grind tix, but the supply is inelastic.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Druegar wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Probably lots of work to prepare for "story mode" if it ends up not getting run at the event.

My impression, which I'm more than willing to admit could be wrong, was that the plan is for both modes will be created.

This is an example of the “sunk cost fallacy.” If the plan is to create two versions, it’s the same amount of work whether anyone actually uses them both or not. And if no one uses story mode, don’t bother next time.

My quote was taken out of context. The context was:

... Is there a reason why the Horde/Grind modes can't be adjusted on a per party bases? I'm imagining a poll during the coaching session. Make a note on the party card indicating their choice and fit that play style accordingly. In the module, you could have tags indicating that suchandsuch mechanic should only be employed if the party is playing on Story Mode.

Probably lots of work to prepare for "story mode" if it ends up not getting run at the event.

Druegar's question presupposes two scenarios will be, or have been developed, and asks why it would be necessary to pre-assign people to a scenario at registration time instead of doing it on the fly at the event.

I was offering a possible explanation that it may be lots of work to produce a second scenario, and that there is a decent chance that the second scenario wouldn't get used at all. Therefore the GM may wish to know in advance, whether the second scenario will be required in order to prevent wasted effort.

Eric can speak for himself but that is what I interpreted this discussion to be about: reaching a decision of whether there will be two modes presented before actually developing the modules.

Druegar wrote: We've learned from past experience that designating runs in advance is... a distinction not always observed by players. (#understatement) Is there a reason why the Horde/Grind modes can't be adjusted on a per party bases? I'm imagining a poll during the coaching session. Make a note on the party card indicating their choice and fit that play style accordingly. In the module, you could have tags indicating that suchandsuch mechanic should only be employed if the party is playing on Story Mode.

The problem is if the group can't fully agree. It can be challenging with a 10 person run but with True Horde, you have 20 people. At last year's Hordes, it felt like most events had a mix of people who wanted to just slide and people who had never played Grind before and were kind of lost because they didn't know what to expect (and didn't want to die early).

There was one Horde where essentially half the players (10) were highly experienced and the other half (10) were new and I tried to adjust things so that the newer players had an easier time (and were taking less damage) but that is a bit unwieldy with 20 players.

The hope is that designating slots as one or the other will steer players in that direction. It might not work out perfectly (for those with scheduling constraints) but it might still result in greater alignment of preferences.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote: The other benefit of having predetermined types is that a player can choose... whereas, if I want to play both versions and the party votes down the version I haven't played on my second run, I don't get to play both types.

Benefits are irrelevant, in the sense that people ignore the descriptions, so the idea of having a choice is an illusion.

I say this with the utmost respect, Brad, but that's their problem for not reading the description. I'm not going to agree to change the type of run because they weren't paying attention. There's no arguing that. And agreeing on the difficulty level is a completely different type of situation. In any case, if Eric is offering to do two different types of grind, I'll gladly take him up on it.

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote: The other benefit of having predetermined types is that a player can choose... whereas, if I want to play both versions and the party votes down the version I haven't played on my second run, I don't get to play both types.

Benefits are irrelevant, in the sense that people ignore the descriptions, so the idea of having a choice is an illusion.

I say this with the utmost respect, Brad, but that's their problem for not reading the description. I'm not going to agree to change the type of run because they weren't paying attention. There's no arguing that. And agreeing on the difficulty level is a completely different type of situation. In any case, if Eric is offering to do two different types of grind, I'll gladly take him up on it.

I feel the same way. The problem is that TD has to make sure they are also friendly to newer players, and don't leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth. This is probably why the 'scheduled' NM runs went away, as well as the treasure stamps.

Ultimately I would prefer the role play options. I like killing things of course, but I also like making sure that we have an outlet for our more creative options. I'm not sure a 20 man event is the best place for it, but if we're going to try, I'm game.

I think we'd see a lot better selection at maybe a TDC type event.

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote: The other benefit of having predetermined types is that a player can choose... whereas, if I want to play both versions and the party votes down the version I haven't played on my second run, I don't get to play both types.

Benefits are irrelevant, in the sense that people ignore the descriptions, so the idea of having a choice is an illusion.

I say this with the utmost respect, Brad, but that's their problem for not reading the description. I'm not going to agree to change the type of run because they weren't paying attention. There's no arguing that. And agreeing on the difficulty level is a completely different type of situation. In any case, if Eric is offering to do two different types of grind, I'll gladly take him up on it.

+1. If people are dumb enough to sign up for an event without actually reading a description of the event well....too bad for them. Zero sympathy coming from my direction.

My first year playing I signed up for nightmare because the description said it was harder. I didnt have a clue what I was doing but I've always liked a challange. It worked out for us, but I grant my experience may not be typical.