Tips and Tricks to Running a Con Game

[Koloth]

That's definitely a take I've not heard before regarding the X Card. I'm confused by your meaning:

In your example, is that person who plays the X Card not also a paying player? Who decides what's important to the plot?

Have you had an experience like this? I'm having a hard time imagining a player X Carding a topic so vital to the story being told at the table that it can't be pivoted or modified slightly to make everyone comfortable.

X-card for audience members, no. IMO, audience members that are bothered by content at a table they are watching should just move on.
If I as GM can't ask the x-card playing player what the problem is, how am I supposed to modify things in an acceptable direction, in a noisy room, under time pressure, with a scenario that was play tested with this content, while other not bothered players who paid good money wait?

 

[Koloth]

All the players alter the game experience for the other players. That's sort of the point of roleplaying games! All the X-card does is make it low-friction to signify that altering the experience will be really important for one person's enjoyment.

The usual use of the X-card is without discussion. When it is used, the GM modifies the scene immediately and with no discussion. It is very, very fast.

Actually no, the X-card player has done all they need to. It's up to the GM from that point on. And I'll be really blunt here -- if a GM cannot replace any element of their game, and did not identify that element in your game description, they are not a good GM and need to learn that skill. Not just for X-card issues -- they should be able to swap out any element for any reason.

Most of the time the GM action is really simple. You close the scene and fade up on the next scene. Or stop describing a scene in detail.

But the onus is on the GM alone. Not on the user of the card.

Sorry, disagree. Not all GMs are telepathic. Or good enough to magically change the scene that will somehow fix it for the bothered player without knowing what the problem is. In a hypothetical bar scene, the barmaid has just delivered a platter of steaming meat and sides to the table with our party. Fred the Fighter starts flirting with the barmaid. A fight breaks out two tables over. Player A drops an X-card. Am I as GM supposed to mystically figure out if Player A is bothered by the meat(player is a vegan), Fred flirting with the barmaid(sexual content), or the fight two tables over(player is a pacifist)? How? And all of this in the middle of a convention game room with noise, random people moving around and time pressure? Now assume the bar scene is vital to the scenario. Can't just fade to black and assume the party succeeded, especially if the bar scene has several paths out, each resulting in a different scenario play.

Maybe you are super-GM and can seamlessly pivot a game to accommodate an x-card for an unknown to you problem, but in my experience, most GMs at cons are running at the ragged edge of their abilities just to get through the scenario as written and play tested(if they even play tested it). Expecting such a GM to change course to accommodate an mystery problem is expecting too much.

 

[billd91]

Sorry, disagree. Not all GMs are telepathic. Or good enough to magically change the scene that will somehow fix it for the bothered player without knowing what the problem is. In a hypothetical bar scene, the barmaid has just delivered a platter of steaming meat and sides to the table with our party. Fred the Fighter starts flirting with the barmaid. A fight breaks out two tables over. Player A drops an X-card. Am I as GM supposed to mystically figure out if Player A is bothered by the meat(player is a vegan), Fred flirting with the barmaid(sexual content), or the fight two tables over(player is a pacifist)? How? And all of this in the middle of a convention game room with noise, random people moving around and time pressure? Now assume the bar scene is vital to the scenario. Can't just fade to black and assume the party succeeded, especially if the bar scene has several paths out, each resulting in a different scenario play.

Maybe you are super-GM and can seamlessly pivot a game to accommodate an x-card for an unknown to you problem, but in my experience, most GMs at cons are running at the ragged edge of their abilities just to get through the scenario as written and play tested(if they even play tested it). Expecting such a GM to change course to accommodate an mystery problem is expecting too much.

Seriously, it's not that hard. Just call a 5 minute bio-break so other players can leave the table and ask the X-card invoking player what triggered it. You CAN and may need to ask that since it may not be obvious. You don't need to ask why they feel that way, just what needs to be changed. And then you change it.
It's not likely to be that one player is a pacifist in a game that typically involves combat like D&D. That's a straw man. Other things, as unlikely they are to be a problem (particularly in a con game - who builds in time for a lot of flirting in a con game slot?), you fade to black or elide over specifics. Rather than steaming plates of meat - it's the entrée. Same thing, less specific.

 

[The Firebird]

And I'll be really blunt here -- if a GM cannot replace any element of their game, and did not identify that element in your game description, they are not a good GM and need to learn that skill. Not just for X-card issues -- they should be able to swap out any element for any reason.

This seems overly harsh imo. The GM is the one putting in extra time and effort to prepare an adventure for the players--time they could have spent playing in games. Usually at a con they are a volunteer. Approaching a table and then saying "you need to change X for me or you are a bad GM" strikes me as problematic player territory.

Other things, as unlikely they are to be a problem (particularly in a con game - who builds in time for a lot of flirting in a con game slot?), you fade to black or elide over specifics.

On the other hand, I doubt the GM built in time for flirting. But that may not stop player Z from turning a bar scene into a flirtation...and that is exactly where you may want the X card.

 

[billd91]

This seems overly harsh imo. The GM is the one putting in extra time and effort to prepare an adventure for the players--time they could have spent playing in games. Usually at a con they are a volunteer. Approaching a table and then saying "you need to change X for me or you are a bad GM" strikes me as problematic player territory.

It would be... if someone were to actually do it. But I suspect it's not really a thing - particularly with playing the X-card. If someone approaches the table saying "Change this game!", presumably they're basing it on the description blurb in the event listing. And if you want a game changed based on that, the appropriate action is to pick a different event, not approach the table with demands.

No, the X-card is when you encounter something in play, that squicks you out for some reason. So the GM can then troubleshoot and the game can proceed with the player unsquicked-out (or at least now with that squickiness being continually exacerbated). If, for example, someone put a realistic looking giant spider figure out in a game in front of my arachnophobic daughter and she freaked out a bit, I would want her to be able to hit that X-card, let the GM know it was the spider that did it, and expect them to take it off the damn table and maybe play down its spidery freakiness in their descriptions of combat from there out. Nobody should be forced to have a bad game because something squicks them out when a remedy can be had.

 

[The Firebird]

It would be... if someone were to actually do it. But I suspect it's not really a thing - particularly with playing the X-card. If someone approaches the table saying "Change this game!", presumably they're basing it on the description blurb in the event listing. And if you want a game changed based on that, the appropriate action is to pick a different event, not approach the table with demands.

No, the X-card is when you encounter something in play, that squicks you out for some reason. So the GM can then troubleshoot and the game can proceed with the player unsquicked-out (or at least now with that squickiness being continually exacerbated). If, for example, someone put a realistic looking giant spider figure out in a game in front of my arachnophobic daughter and she freaked out a bit, I would want her to be able to hit that X-card, let the GM know it was the spider that did it, and expect them to take it off the damn table and maybe play down its spidery freakiness in their descriptions of combat from there out. Nobody should be forced to have a bad game because something squicks them out when a remedy can be had.

Yeah I think most of the examples, the spider included, are eminently reasonable. I'm just responding to the absolute nature of the comment above.

 

[RealAlHazred]

In an AL scenario I ran last fall, the PCs actually tried to shake their patron down - I mean a real "burn their bridges" shakedown.... It really was one of the weirdest things I have encountered at a convention.

In a situation like that, you just have to do your best to keep cool and potentially lift the veil on the organized play program a little to let them know there are limits to what you can (and will) do to play this out.

I had an AL table, where one of the player characters literally one-shotted the patron as soon as he showed up. No preamble, using his best ability. I ejected him from the table (the one and only time I've ever had to do it.) When he complained, I explained, "You're probably played the module before, and there's nothing stopping you from doing that in the AL. But I am not here to run for you; I'm here to run for the table, many of whom will not have played the module before. And you obviously don't care if anyone else enjoys it or not, you just want to amuse yourself. And I don't need that at this table." He said he'd complain to the AL Coordinator; I explained that I was the AL Coordinator for the con. He said he'd complain to the RPG Director; I explained that I was the RPG Director for the con. He left without another word.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I had an AL table, where one of the player characters literally one-shotted the patron as soon as he showed up. No preamble, using his best ability. I ejected him from the table (the one and only time I've ever had to do it.) When he complained, I explained, "You're probably played the module before, and there's nothing stopping you from doing that in the AL. But I am not here to run for you; I'm here to run for the table, many of whom will not have played the module before. And you obviously don't care if anyone enjoys it or not, you just want to amuse yourself. And I don't need that at this table." He said he'd complain to the AL Coordinator; I explained that I was the AL Coordinator for the con. He said he'd complain to the RPG Director; I explained that I was the RPG Director for the con. He left without another word.

Wow, I cannot imagine someone trying that at an AL table. And then trying a "Speak to the Manager" move!

I knew a player that would do stuff, not quite that bad, but purposefully disruptive to the session and campaign goals. His thinking was that if you were a good GM, you would be able to roll with it. I don't know if I'm a good GM or not, but I do know I booted him from the group eventually.

 

[RealAlHazred]

Wow, I cannot imagine someone trying that at an AL table. And then trying a "Speak to the Manager" move!

That only happened the one time. I did have players who were disruptive enough that I had to bring out my RPG Director badge. Some of them were just idiots, who, for example, hadn't read the AL guidelines and so created illegal characters -- one dude created a 5th level aarakocra ranger from scratch for a particular scenario. He was somewhat disruptive, because he believed the ability to fly should trump my DM ability to edit the adventure on the fly in logical, plausible ways. At a bridge ambush he flew up in the air to get out of reach of a bunch of bandits; so, naturally, the bandits all pulled out bows and targeted him, since his character was not under cover (what kind of cover can you have in the air in the open, over a gorge?) He complained bitterly that their stat block didn't have bows; I reminded him this was a bandit gang in the Forgotten Realms; if they had absolutely no ranged capability, they would soon have been ex-bandits. He ended up fleeing a number of encounters for similar reasons.

At the end of the module, he wanted to vote on the distribution of certificates. So I asked him to provide me the paperwork for his character, since I had "suspicions" it wasn't a legal character, and couldn't just sign over certs to players who didn't play by the rules. That would have included log sheets showing the adventures he'd played, along with campaign documentation showing he could play an aarakocra (at that time, not a legal character). Of course, he'd just made the character just before the slot, so he couldn't. He was steamed, but I guess he realized those were the breaks. I still tried to run an entertaining adventure for everyone -- including him.

 

[MGibster]

I hate that behavior. Like, I don't mind a little haggling, especially when there's some good role-playing going on. But when it pushes into tanking the whole adventure because there's no way any NPC wouldn't just tell the PCs "well, good luck with your future endeavors, I'm off to talk to the next band of adventurers that do want to help out," I positively hate it. And as you said, in organized play, there's only so much you are allowed to hand out.

I had stupid behavior ruin a GURPS Fantasy con game I was playing in a few years ago. On two separate occasions some players, and not the same ones both times, went of on pointless tangents that obviously had nothing to do with the scenario. As a result, we didn't finish the scenario within the allotted time. It didn't cost me anything to play, but it was a colossal waste of my time. As a GM, you might need to reign some players in when they go on a tangent and time becomes an issue. Use your best judgment.

At the start of the scenario I like to introduce myself and tell them what kind of games I run.

1. I like big crits and I cannot lie. I'm ecstatic when I roll a crit against a player character but I'm equally ecstatic when you roll one against a monster. Don't take it personally if I cheer, it's all in good fun.
2. I am not a "got'cha" GM. I will not punish your character for failing to inform me they're reloading after a fight and I will assume a certain level of competence on their part. i.e. Your horse won't be missing because you forgot to tell me you were hitching it to a post.
3. I will do my best to make sure you know what your character would know.
4. For conventions, I don't always use the rules fully as written. Sometimes I simplify things because some players are new to the game and we're probably not used to playing with the people here today.