GenCon 2007 - Experience of a newbie Con goer

[mmu1]

I was one of the players in Erithtotl's group, and while I also, on the whole, had a really good time, I thought the 2nd round setup was rather idiotic.

At the very least, rather than saying "well, you need to play in the open so that you'll know what to expect next year" the organizers should take it upon themselves to let the players know just how drastically the gameplay in the open differs from actual D&D. (I can understand trying to kill the PCs, since it makes for stiffer competition, but not running a game in which trying to use good D&D tactics - like, don't try to climb down a tiny hole while a dozen gnolls and an invisible spellcaster are trying to get you, especially when you have no clue what's in the hole - actually gets you killed.) That, and they need to brief the judges better on how to run these things. Some of them are so tight-lipped, you don't get any information - even the most obvious kind - without wasting a ton of time asking questions, then asking for clarification, then more questions... it's ridiculous.

To be honest, I had little interest in playing in the Open - somewhat ironic, since I'm our group's powergamer / rules guy - and even though I ended up getting into it enough to do my best, I was still doing it because my friends wanted to, so I wasn't especially disappointed. On the other hand, had I been really into it, looked forward to it for months, and it was one of my primary reasons for coming to the con, I'd have been furious. (and it'd have been one hell of an expensive learning experience)

Still, like I said, I had a good time - things like playing D&D at 3AM in the Hyatt and spotting ENWorld posters, nearly getting run over by cigar-smoking Gary Gygax on a scooter, running into people I knew but wasn't expecting would make it or having the chance to talk CRPGs/D&D with some of the exhibitors and developers (I spent hours, all told, at the Witcher booth - it was nice to meet a Polish game designer, and the fact I speak the language resulted in some cool swag that wasn't generally available. Remember, buy the game! ) all added up to a lot of fun.

Though if I go again, I do think I will try to schedule "side" games in advance, to make it even better, and I doubt I'll give the Open another shot.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Like I said, I don't want to go nuts defending the Open format or the specific adventure. And I know that the first rounds are different for each heat (at least I think they are) so later groups don't get the benefit of other's experience. So there may have been differences in some of our experiences.

I also wish the judging could be more consistent, but those are all volunteers, and I don't think it's truly possible to do much more than they do to regulate the volunteer GMs. We found it very important, for example, to be able to immediately defend our understanding of the game rules for things like adjudicating cover and line of effect. So we had a list of important page numbers ready, and tried to have book references appropriate to our actions on hand when we took actions. It would be great if that were no necessary, if everyone had the same understanding and interpretation of the rules, but in practice it's just not possible with a group of volunteers.

And, you're dead right, climbing down a ladder with an army of gnolls behind you in a regular D&D game would be suicide. But, by that point in the open, we had been through several rooms where the winning strategy was to get out, not to fight to the bitter end -- actually, the number of encounters where we needed to actually stand and fight were the vast minority of the encounters we had in the open -- and even those were encounters where doing something correctly before or during the encounter would mitigate the force opposing us. For me, it was easy to accept that the trap door was the target of the encounter in the context of the others we had faced. I didn't think too hard about how suicidal that might be in a regular game.

Erith and MMu, I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy the Open experience -- it's certainly not typical D&D, and it's not for everyone. I find it enjoyable, though -- I like the tension, and the challenge of the nearly impossible encounters, and the puzzle that each new encounter presents. We made some pretty big mistakes, ourselves, going through, and were lucky to be able to recover from them before they turned into character deaths.

For us the challenge of doing well in the open starts with getting the characters and doing what we could to work with what we were given. The first thing to do is to examine the magic items the party has and redistribute them to whomever you think will best be able to use them effectively. That depends a lot on the item and how you want to play the characters, and tactics that you sort out ahead of time.

Here's a glaring example: Soris, the duskblade in the open, was given a wand of magic missiles, but magic missile is not on the duskblade spell list, so Soris actually can't use it.

You might argue that the organizers putting the party together did a bad job making those characters, and the wand is a mistake. In my opinion, though, the open starts when you download the characters and start to figure out how to work with the material you've been given, not when you sit down at the table -- and moving equipment around is a big part of that prep.

Again, that's not traditional D&D. In a real campaign, the players all gather up their own equipment and the only reason Soris would have that wand is to sell it. Is that a flaw in the open format then, since it's not like "traditional" D&D? I don't think so. For me, that's a way for the organizers to give every team the same raw materials but create new differentiation among the teams based on which teams make the best use of that equipment -- those that figure out that there may be better ways to use what they've been given. In our experience, it was important to our success that we had given the one potion of fly to the character we had given it to, and not another -- it was very small decisions that made big differences down the line.

Anyway, again, I'm sorry you didn't have a good time. And I don't think anything you're saying is really wrong . . . but I still enjoy the format, the challenge, and the adrenaline rush of the Open, and I'm going to keep doing it.

-rg

 

[mmu1]

And, you're dead right, climbing down a ladder with an army of gnolls behind you in a regular D&D game would be suicide. But, by that point in the open, we had been through several rooms where the winning strategy was to get out, not to fight to the bitter end -- actually, the number of encounters where we needed to actually stand and fight were the vast minority of the encounters we had in the open -- and even those were encounters where doing something correctly before or during the encounter would mitigate the force opposing us. For me, it was easy to accept that the trap door was the target of the encounter in the context of the others we had faced. I didn't think too hard about how suicidal that might be in a regular game.

Really? We killed everything during the first round, and I don't recall any encounters during which simply running past the monsters would have been a good idea. I mean, what reason is there to think that they won't follow you and trap you between two groups of enemies? What in the information the players have - barring prior Open experience - suggests that running through is a viable strategy?

As a matter of fact, during the first round our experiences would have led us to believe the opposite was true - for example, the way the DM had a couple of rat swarms go out of their way and ignore more obvious targets in order to persistently go after the sorceress. It felt like these monsters would chase us to the bitter end.

For us the challenge of doing well in the open starts with getting the characters and doing what we could to work with what we were given. The first thing to do is to examine the magic items the party has and redistribute them to whomever you think will best be able to use them effectively. That depends a lot on the item and how you want to play the characters, and tactics that you sort out ahead of time.

Here's a glaring example: Soris, the duskblade in the open, was given a wand of magic missiles, but magic missile is not on the duskblade spell list, so Soris actually can't use it.

Believe it or not, those ideas occurred to us as well. We went over all the abilities, swapped a lot of magical items around, and had a strategy. Our mistake was expecting encounters that would all follow the rules and D&D's internal logic.

 

[Erithtotl]

Really? We killed everything during the first round, and I don't recall any encounters during which simply running past the monsters would have been a good idea. I mean, what reason is there to think that they won't follow you and trap you between two groups of enemies? What in the information the players have - barring prior Open experience - suggests that running through is a viable strategy?

As a matter of fact, during the first round our experiences would have led us to believe the opposite was true - for example, the way the DM had a couple of rat swarms go out of their way and ignore more obvious targets in order to persistently go after the sorceress. It felt like these monsters would chase us to the bitter end.



Believe it or not, those ideas occurred to us as well. We went over all the abilities, swapped a lot of magical items around, and had a strategy. Our mistake was expecting encounters that would all follow the rules and D&D's internal logic.

As he said, the first round gets different adventures to keep cheating from taking place (I remember a guy blabbing about his experience and mentioning 'lots of trap' and getting 'turned to stone'. there wasn't a single trap nor stoning monster in our 1st round).

In our first round adventure every encounter was strictly a straight ahead combat. There were no puzzles, traps or anything else. So it in no way prepared us for a 'trick' encounter in the first encounter in the second.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

As he said, the first round gets different adventures to keep cheating from taking place (I remember a guy blabbing about his experience and mentioning 'lots of trap' and getting 'turned to stone'. there wasn't a single trap nor stoning monster in our 1st round).

In our first round adventure every encounter was strictly a straight ahead combat. There were no puzzles, traps or anything else. So it in no way prepared us for a 'trick' encounter in the first encounter in the second.

The first round adventures are all quite different, I think. In ours we had a fight with yuan-ti purebloods in a tree (that could have been mitigated with good spot checks and tactics to keep them from raising an alarm), a fight with an apparently endless supply of bugbear barbarians (where the goal was to escape into a lake after touching a gate that would grant you underwater breathing. We quickly figured that there would always be about 6 bugbears on the map -- ones we killed were replaced with new ones appearing, so we hit the ones on the map with us with the wand of slow and avoided them, touched the gate, and left the scene), a trap room (we ran around the traps and avoided most of the damage), a room with a standup fight against bullywugs that would help mitigate the challenge of the final fight with a gorgon (we were told later that if we had allowed any of the bullywugs to escape into the next scene they would have released the gorgon, and it would have been able to attack us right away. Since we kept them from releasing the gorgon, the gorgon had to batter down the door itself, giving us several rounds to explore the rest of the encounter area, figure out that we were facing something that would petrify us, and prepare an ambush for it when it emerged from it's pen.

So, in each case there was something going on that was a little more than a stand-up fight. My instinct is that the same was probably true for every fight in other first round adventures, too. There were certainly some fights that you couldn't avoid, but even in those there would probably be ways to make the fight easier. We didn't manage to make every fight we faced easier, but we did on enough of them.

The whole thing is a test of resource management. If you can avoid a fight, you spend less time and fewer resources on that encounter, and move on to the next. You may be able to totally mash up a particular encounter, stomp them into the ground, but if you spend too much time doing it -- use too many spells and charges doing it -- and use up too much healing recovering from it, you make it far less likely that you'll get through the whole sequence.

I imagine that the two semi-final round heats also had different adventures, too. Our heat, on saturday afternoon, also had very very simple stand-up fights. And that one was hard enough that I don't think anyone in our heat finished it -- we were one of only a handful of tables to make it past a particular battle (a fire elemental and four bronze guardians that ambushed us). Only four of our characters made it out of that room, and we made it to the finals, so I'm quite sure that most groups got bogged down in the fight, if not TPK'ed. That room was NASTY. But, even there, it was possible to avoid fighting with the fire elemental entirely, and we only bothered to kill two of the four bronze guardians -- one we killed as we were figuring out what we had to do in the room, and the other died as our tanks tried to keep the guardians occupied while other party members tried to deal with the room's tricks (to open the exit so we could escape).

So, I suspect that there were ways to mitigate the challenge of most, if not all, of the fights you faced in your heat's adventures, too. That may not have been true, admittedly, and you're only ever competing against the other teams in your heat, so it's not unfair if it was not true. But in my experience, very few of the fights in the open are really just straight-up smash & bash fights. They can be that if you don't find the gimmick, but if you don't find the gimmick you spend too much of everything on the fight.

-rg

 

[mmu1]

So, I suspect that there were ways to mitigate the challenge of most, if not all, of the fights you faced in your heat's adventures, too. That may not have been true, admittedly, and you're only ever competing against the other teams in your heat, so it's not unfair if it was not true. But in my experience, very few of the fights in the open are really just straight-up smash & bash fights. They can be that if you don't find the gimmick, but if you don't find the gimmick you spend too much of everything on the fight.

We played every encounter in the first round in a pretty straightforward way - very nearly the way we'd have handled it in our home game, aside from being a lot more liberal with single-use items and wands - and we got to the final encounter with everyone at or near full health and some of the resources still remaining. We were holding our own against the last "boss", but ran out of time. There was certainly nothing comparable to the Bugbear fight and the lake.

While I'm willing to accept that some of our encounters might have had "gimmicks" we missed, I really don't see what learning to spot them has to do with being a good D&D player. (as opposed to a good Open player) If that's what it takes to succeed in the Open, then I certainly won't be wasting my time on it ever again.

(No need to say you're sorry I didn't have a good time, mind you - I appreciate getting the information, even if belatedly, and being able to make an informed decision about whether it's worth bothering with the Open in the future.)

 

[Radiating Gnome]

While I'm willing to accept that some of our encounters might have had "gimmicks" we missed, I really don't see what learning to spot them has to do with being a good D&D player. (as opposed to a good Open player) If that's what it takes to succeed in the Open, then I certainly won't be wasting my time on it ever again.

I suspect that the presence of gimmicks of some sort in the encounters becomes a necessary part of the Open because of the need to make distinctions between teams. If the open were more about "typical" D&D play, with non-gimmicked, balanced encounters that were reasonable for the party to get through, it would be hard to tell groups apart, and you'd end up having to use some very arcane tiebreakers. But, if you make it very unreasonable, gimmicky, tricksy, and tough, the groups that manage to rise to the occasion through luck, good resource management, and good tactics will stand out, and the groups that will be harder to tell apart will be the ones that fail.

It sounds like, if you were fighting the last battle and just ran out of time, that you were performing pretty well -- if anything, you probably just would have needed to shave some time off some encounters to get through. If you were going to try again next year, I'd probably just encourage you to look for ways to speed up your session -- either by moving through your turns faster or shaving time off the encounters by looking for the way out.

But, really, the Open is not a whole like like regular D&D at all. There's practically no role playing, for one thing. And it's a format where it's not really frowned on to tell other players how to play their characters (tactical decisions are just far too important). There are lots of things that just aren't like your home game, or even other RPGA games.

-rg

 

[Joachim]

In the final round, the team that won (Aqua Team Hunger Force, the Dallas Cowboys of the D&D Open, having won now three years in a row. Clearly it's time for those clowns to retire -- hear me, Jollydoc? ) was the ONLY team (I think) that actually finished the entire adventure in the time alloted.

Along with Jollydoc, I am one of the guys from the Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and I found this year's Open to be a major adrenaline rush with some very, very hairy moments. I can honestly say that we were very, very lucky to advance to the final round this year, and we were are very happy with how we did in the final chapter. What can I say, other than it's sometimes better to be lucky than good...

I have to say that we are flattered by being referred to as the 'Dallas Cowboys of the D&D Open'...but I am not certain that we 'clowns' are ready to 'retire' just yet.

To the OP, I hate that you didn't have fun, but I wouldn't give up playing the Open...just know what to expect next year. In most regards, I totally agree with everything RG has been saying.

 

[JollyDoc]

As another member of the winning team this year, and a rabid, veteran Open player (it IS the main thing I look forward to every year at GenCon. Everything else there is secondary, but to each his own), I would heartily agree that the Open style of play is definately not for everyone. It's not role-playing, and it's not your home game in any real sense. It's more like a mini's game with an overarching theme. This year, each round had the same "gimmick" of the never-ending monster generator. In round one, it was bugbear/yuan-ti repelling out of the trees non-stop until you ran for the lake. In round two, it was the aforementioned gnolls, and in round three, it was the ghouls/bloodhulks that kept coming until you shot out the eyes of a statue on the far side of the chamber.
It's hard for me to say what this experience would have been like for a first time Open player, since I've been at this for awhile, and have learned to anticipate certain givens about the Open. What makes it fun for me is exactly what makes it the opposite for others. It's a test of your teams ability to think tactically...how to take the limited resources and suboptimal characters you're provided with and make them viable for the four to five encounters you're going to have per round. Being able to do this effectively is an art form, and very challenging, but it's not traditional D&D by any stretch of the imagination. Of course there's no way of knowing this without experiencing it first hand. Of those who do, some get the bug, like me and my team mates, and it becomes an addiction. Others like their RPG's to go with the status quo, and that's fine too. If you're truly looking for a role-playing experience, try NASCRAG next year. Personally, I despise it and found it an edeavor in slow torture, but I'm sure for people who enjoy that sort of gaming, it's a dream-come-true. Me, if I don't get to roll my dice at least once every ten minutes or so, I get twitchy.
So, in summary, consider giving the Open another chance, as long as you go into it fully aware of what it is, and what it is not. Who knows? With 4th ed coming out, Aqua Teen Hunger Force may decide to rest on our laurels and retire in dignity...but then again...there's still room on my bookcase for another 1st place trophy!!

PS: The prizes in the Open are pretty cool too. Last year, each of us won a 60 G video ipod, in addition to tons of books and swag. This year each of us will receive every new 4th ed product for 2008 free of charge by mail, and we get to be play testers for 4th ed!! How cool is that??

Anyway, if any of you are looking for a good story hour, come visit us at over at JollyDoc's Savage Tide.

 

[mmu1]

What makes it fun for me is exactly what makes it the opposite for others. It's a test of your teams ability to think tactically...how to take the limited resources and suboptimal characters you're provided with and make them viable for the four to five encounters you're going to have per round.

Please excuse me if I sound irritated, but as far as I'm concerned, the fact we were thinking tactically - instead of relying on prior Open experience and being on the lookout for a gimmick - is precisely what got us wiped out. The idea that we needed to run for the trapdoor was actually floated by one of our players, but most of us didn't think a suicidal idea like climbing down into the unknown with a ton of monsters and an invisible caster at our backs could possibly be rewarded as the right thing to do, especially in a setting in which you get hugely penalized for character deaths.

(And yes - we went over the severely sub-optimal characters and figured out what we could do with them, which of our players would be best suited to running which characters, identified tactics we wanted to use, swapped magic items, etc. It's pretty much a no-brainer that you'd want to do that.)

In addition, in the first round dungeon crawl we played through, there was no encounter with endless enemies. As I said before, we actually fought straight through all the first round encounters we completed, and made it to the last one of the round with full HP and some resources remaining - so I feel comfortable with claiming we did know what we were doing, tactically.