# What Makes a Convention Game Great?



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Aug 14, 2006)

So - as I'm basking in the sweet, sweet glow of Gen Con, I'm wondering what y'all think makes a Con game great.  What gives an adventure that extra "umph" that makes it something remarkable?

Is it giving the players well written characters complete with backstory?  Is it simply getting the right group?  Is it the props?  A DM that really knows the rules?  A clever story?  What makes a one-shot something to write home (or at least your friends at ENW) about?


----------



## Crothian (Aug 14, 2006)

It's the people.  With a good group the DM just sits back and enjoys the show.  That's what I do and with the right players it can really make the DM look a lot better then he actually is.


----------



## kiznit (Aug 14, 2006)

That guy there? Standing up and leaning on the table?

That's what makes Con games great.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 14, 2006)

It takes everyone being on the same page.  It takes players who understand that the parameters for game-day games are different from their normal campaigns, and that they need to just go with it.  I almost had to strangle one guy in the T20 game because he would not let go of something that was completely erroneous to the story but that he though was 'in character'.  'In character' is fine, but you've got to understand that you can't just pack up at the end of the night and pick things up tomorrow.  Like Cinderella, everything goes *poof* at midnight and you don't get to keep the magic sword or the magic stagecoach.

It requires a DM comfortable enough with the game to keep things flowing.  Don't stop and check rules -- wing it and keep things going.  Don't worry about players skating by on things that they wouldn't get away with in an ongoing game.  Cinderella.

For prep, running the scenario beforehand helps, or if you can't, vet it with another DM.  The more or less fixed time limits of con games can help from a dramatic tension point of view, but it can be really frustrating if you get to the point where you have an hour to play and two hours of material.  If you can plot your adventure with enough flexibility to omit whole chunks and still keep the essence, you're golden.  

Get those right, and you've got a good game.  If you get players that have good chemistry, you're going to have a great game.  One of the advantages I think we have as ENWorlders is that even if we've never met, we all sort of know each other.  The common background helps, and the sense that even if the game ends at midnight, our on-line interactions will continue, gives a cameraderie that the 'official' games lack.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Aug 14, 2006)

Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
			
		

> So - as I'm basking in the sweet, sweet glow of Gen Con, I'm wondering what y'all think makes a Con game great.  What gives an adventure that extra "umph" that makes it something remarkable?




In my experience: *Piratecat at the helm*.

He's run my favorite con games of all time.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 15, 2006)

You guys are exceptionally kind! Thank you - I'm really glad you had as much fun as I did.

If I have one sneaky advantage, it's that I ran almost 200 one-shot games for the RPGA way before EN World was even started. That was back when the RPGA had judge rankings and feedback, so every time I ran a game I'd usually take away at least one piece of constructive criticism about what to do better. It helped immensely. (In fact, I stopped running RPGA games partially because they did away with this.)

So, let's see if I can distill any of that. I'd divide a great con game into three pieces (and I can give examples of any of these upon request): character builds, plots and DMing tricks. I'll just mention the most important bits. There's a lot of text, so i'll drop it into spoiler boxes to make things easier to read.

1. How the characters are described

[sblock]* - The more the players have to do, the easier the DM's job.* If I give the players a metaphorical sports car, I won't have to pull them everywhere on a creaky cart. And I'm lazy as a DM, so I prefer to spend a lot more time designing the characters than I do the plot.

This means that writing down the character descriptions and interactions (with the other PCs) is the first, and most important, step. For most games it's far more important than perfectly optimized combat stats. When planning your convention game, put the plot aside for a moment and think about how the PCs should interact. Create interconnections between each of them, so each hero has a connection of some sort (hate, unrequited love, jealousy, loyalty) with at least two other heroes -- and mix them around evenly. I usually position six circles on a sheet of paper, label each one with a hero name, and then draw "relationship" arrows with notes next to them towards the other circles.

Conflict is good. You certainly don't want a free-for-all, but seething tension (either love or hate) is your friend. A party that gets along perfectly is a boring party.

I'd say it takes me maybe an hour to do an average character; that's about 40 minutes to write character personality and motivations and interactions, and 20 minutes to note down stats. It _always_ takes me longer to do PCs than to write the actual plot. People who write a con game and leave the characters 'til last because "they're easy" sometimes get surprised.

* - History is not personality.* Some people accidentally confuse the two, and write three paragraphs under the personality section describing what the hero has done, where he has been, and what he knows. This should generally be tossed out the window (to be summarized briefly in game, since usually it doesn't matter) and replaced with two paragraphs on how he goes about life, what he thinks of people, and what interesting quirks or habits he has.

* - "And I described it... with adjectives."* Arrgh, you say, I have no time to do that! Never fear. I'd rather have 6 adjectives describing a PC than anything else. give me six adjectives, and I can play a PC with no problem. The best thing is, writing down that the wizard is "heroic, foolhardy, generous, lovestruck, wealthy and vain" takes maybe three minutes and paints a very clear picture of their personality. If you're strapped for time, do this same thing for each PC interaction, only using three adjectives.

* - Stuff and pictures.* Googling a photo or illustration of each character is cool, but not essential; it's pretty easy for a Modern game, though. I prefer to tell a story through a hero's gear. One of the heroes in one of my GenCon games had a small bag full of her opponent's teeth that she'd kicked out over the years; another had love letters from seven different girls. with stuff like that in your inventory, a canny player can gain hints that don't need to be spelled out in the personality section.

* - "Wait, what am I supposed to be like?"*  Make sure a hero's personality matches what the other heroes think of him. Nothin sucks more than if you find out everyone else thinks you're a cheapskate that mumbles, but your own character sheet never mentions it.[/sblock]


2. Plots

[sblock]* - Less is more.* I plan 3 notable encounters max, so long as I have a PCs that encourage roleplaying between them and a couple of interesting NPCs for me to to roleplay as well. I also plan one of those encounters to be a "throwaway" encounter that I can ditch if I'm running out of time. Con games invariably start late, so it's a good idea to control timing a bit and still let the players get to the adventure's climax.

* - Don't write, outline.* This is my personal preference when no one but me will be running the game. I never write exhaustively what happens; instead, I work off of a single page of outlined notes that flowcharts the adventure. i will rough out stats for major combat encounters, though, to save time.

* - Challenge the players.* Make them make tough decisions. Make them roleplay with NPCs to find out the good information. Make them think through tactics or strategies, and remember not to become attached to your clever NPCs and plots! They're only there to challenge the heroes anyways, so reward clever planning instead of punishing it.

*- Not all NPCs are antagonists.* Make sure you add nice, friendly NPCs into your game, too. your less paranoid players will thank you for it.

* - Loot is irrelevant.* It's a 4 hour game. Forget all cash, loot and xp unless it is essential to the game's plot. No one wants to spend time splitting up treasure that will never get used.

*Design narrow-wide=narrow.* I write my games to be linear at the beginning, moderately linear at the end (in that they usually lead to an anticipated big climax), and totally open to different strategies in the middle. It seems to work pretty well; it allows free choice for most of the game, and still delivers a cool finish.

* - Cinematic endings.* When I plan a game, I think of a cool possible ending first then plan backwards from there. Go for the showy and flashy set pieces, and those fights become a lot more fun and memorable.[/sblock]


3. DMing tricks

[sblock]* - Avoid boredom and rules.* Take care of any tedious character tasks (spell selection, gearing up) BEFORE the game -- just let the player change things they don't want. Likewise, looking up rules during the game can stop a dramatic encounter dead in its tracks. If you can't find a rule in 60 seconds, make something up and stay consistent for the rest of the game.

* - Spread around your attention.* Every con table has at least one quiet player. Make sure you pay them equal attention. Ask them what they're doing, involve them in conversations, have NPCs talk to them, and so on; quiet shouldn't mean ignored.

*Don't encourage the disruptive player.* If someone's play style is antithetical to your own or they're disrupting the table, don't feel bad about taking them aside *for a private conference* and ask them if they could stop that for the rest of the game. Most times it solves the problem, and everyone has more fun as a result. 

In the same vein, don't devote more attention than normal to players who are needy and attention-grabbing. Pay only a little bit of attention to them when they're being disruptive, pay lots of attention to them when they relent, and you'll soon have the problem solved as they figure out that NOT being disruptive gets them attention.

* - Playtest.* Playtest, playtest, playrtest - even once. I love to reuse adventures at different game days and cons, because they keep getting better! I think I've run the MnM game 11 times now since last December, and I originally conceived of it for use here at GenCon. Ask Maverick Weirdo; the first time I ran it, it was pretty shaky. Playtesting answers pacing questions and shakes out iffy plotting.

*- Pacing.* Don't hesitate to sacrifice encounters just so you can get to the good stuff. I'd much rather skip a minor combat encounter if it means I get to the end of the adventure!  Talking about pulp gangster novels, Raymond Chandler wrote, "When in doubt, have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand." It's great advice; before things get boring, introduce time pressure or some sort of conflict. that way the session never drags.

*- Painting images.* Use scent, and sound, and color when describing what people see. It really helps immerse people in the game.

* - Reward creativity.* Let clever plans succeed. If they out-think you, they damn well deserve an advantage! I think I might run games just to see how players will surprise me, and it's a constant delight. That's actually my favorite moment in gaming: when a player pulls something unique that I never saw coming, and it changes the whole course of the adventure in a direction I didn't expect. Don't try to railroad or redirect PCs before this happens. [/sblock]


Phew! That's everything I can think of. Comments, improvements?


----------



## SteveC (Aug 15, 2006)

Piratecat's advice is excellent. Let me add three more points, one of which is a totally super-secret point.

First, have more than one GM. Every game I have run at a Con has had two GMs at the table. In one game we ran four different games that were all happening at the same time, which required 8 GMs! One GM is the primary, and the other handles requests and plays key NPCs. The backup GM can also handle rules questions so that you can keep the story.

A second point. Props. I was part of a team that ran Call of C'thuhlu games for four years, and we had a consistent following that grew each and every year. The thing that the players told us that really made the game was that we had props. One year we had a game where all the characters were in a bunker planning for a Y2k "End of the World" scenario. We had a walki-talki that was used by the group to directly contact agents they deployed in the field. The players told us they LOVED it. Another year we had a sci-fi C'thuhlu, and one character had a SPACE GUN. We actually brought a cheezy blaster pistol with us and the group used it to symbolize who had the one and only real weapon, which became important at one point in the plot. Afterwards, the players said that it made the game much more tense.

Finally, the super-secret one: have a ringer player. Our games were always for six players, but we had a seventh one there every time. This player was a plant, who was usually working for the bad guys (but not always). In the Y2K game, for example, the plant was the White House Communications Director who would try and move the game along when it was slowed down, and also subtly redirect certain actions ("yes, we have polling numbers on nuking Ohio, and they're very low...maybe we could look at another option...")

Those are my ideas, but Pirate Cat has pretty much nailed it (as would be expected).

--Steve


----------



## Eosin the Red (Aug 15, 2006)

Being able to play in one!

Seriously, I had a heck of a time trying to find ANY game to play. In part, that was likely due to several commitments that I had and a generally introverted nature but the scheduling/finding of games was a nightmare. I got to play in one game at midnight on Sunday.

Next time, I'll know to look on the boards for the "Gencon Games" section but this year I spotted it 2 days before Gencon.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 15, 2006)

As an example, here's the character sheet for the super-villain Migraine, a disembodied brain, from the MnM game I ran at GenCon. It has a little too much plot stuck in there for my taste, but should get across what I was saying above.



> Migraine
> 
> Personality:  They call you mad. You! You, who have come so close to controlling the entire world, who once built a empire of loyal minions, who performed hideous experiments on unwilling victims in order to build a race of psychic zombies, who chose to shed her clumsy body in his race for glory. You, mad? Hah!
> 
> ...


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Aug 15, 2006)

This is all very interesting stuff, the kind of thing I was asking about over at Circus Maximus. What would help even more is to see an example of the kind of adventure that has been run at a con.


----------



## Clefton Twain (Aug 15, 2006)

Aw man, I'm jealous. Last year was the first time I was able to attend GenCon and I played in Piratecat's Eversink game. Had a *ton* of fun. One of my few goals for GenCon this year was to play in his game but, alas, I had to miss out on GenCon altogether. 

I think the DM has the overall say as to how memorable the game is but the players have the power to make it memorable in either a good way or a bad way.

--CT


----------



## CarlZog (Aug 15, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Design narrow-wide=narrow.* I write my games to be linear at the beginning, moderately linear at the end (in that they usually lead to an anticipated big climax), and totally open to different strategies in the middle. It seems to work pretty well; it allows free choice for most of the game, and still delivers a cool finish.




Kevin, I find this to be one of the most impressive aspects of your games and the element I have the toughest time with.

How do you keep the middle open, and still ensure that the PCs get roughly where you want them at endgame?

Carl


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 15, 2006)

Carl, let's run through the basic outline of that MnM game. 

*Beginning: narrow.*

I start with all seven PCs facing one another in a late night meeting at a restaurant. I don't care about how they got there, because I want to dive immediately into roleplaying. Unless they want to turn around and leave or immediately start a fight, they really don't have much choice but to start roleplaying - and I've written the character sheets so that they'll want to do so.

After 15-20 minutes of talking and roleplaying, just as the talk starts to slow down a tiny bit, I hit them with enemies smashing through the roof to arrest them. This is also narrow; by definition, it occurs either just before the group plans to leave the restaurant, or just before the game bogs down.

The fight is exciting, as there are a lot of hazards (falling off a 120 story building, for one), and NPCs in the fight supply them with crucial information to drive the plot. After the fight is over, I shunt them away by raising the threat of many more enemies arriving in less than a minute - time to escape and make their plans.

*Middle - wide.*

The PCs are superheroes, so they can go virtually anywhere to make their plans. Also, their plans may be remarkably varied. That's cool - I'll let them retreat to someone's secret lair and figure out tactics, or teleport to a peaceful desert island, or whatever they like. I'll feed them information that affects these tactics, and let them come up with a strategy that negates their opponent's big advantage. (Hopefully, this strategy involves super-science!)  This is also a time for role-playing, and more character secrets come to light.

In truth, the only things that are relevant here is exactly how their actions affect the final encounter. They may do things that make this final encounter easier or more difficult (probably involving an orbital space laser), but they know where their foe is. I introduce her secret plan and the serious time pressure that comes with it; during this stage the PCs discover that they only have a few hours to get ready. This stage ends when they attack the villain's complex, in whatever manner they think is most efficient. They can do whatever they want until that time runs out. 

*End - narrow*

My mental image of the villain's complex has only 3 or 4 known areas in it (with a few more that can be added on a whim), and they're all connected serendipitously. In other words, the areas are where they need to be physically at the encounter's start. If I want the PCs to see the biolab first, then they'll blunder into it whether or not they enter from the front entrance, the rear entrance, or through burrowing. I'll provide a flavor combat challenge between the biolab and the Hall of Ego, and the rest of the main fight takes place where I expect it to (unless the PCs do something clever to move it.)

It's important to note that there are definitely penalties for losing or not stopping the villain by the known deadline. The PCs can fail. But I've made it most likely that the final encounter will occur in a known cool location, and the middle part of the adventure just makes that final encounter (and the final outcome) easier or harder.

I'll also point out that "narrow-wide-narrow" is especially well suited to high level adventures, although that last "narrow" might get hijacked! That's because with high lvl D&D, you never know _how_ they're going to get someplace, you only can figure that they will.


----------



## Pramas (Aug 15, 2006)

I wrote an article about GMing at cons some years ago. You may find it of interest. The article is here:

http://www.chrispramas.com/TeenageGM.htm


----------



## Psion (Aug 15, 2006)

Thread Tools -> Subscribe

Tuck into Google Notebook.

Thanks guys for your input.

I second a few of those points first hand. I like replaying the same adventure; it made my T20 adventure a few years back go rather well. I can also verify by painful experience this year, you really want to have a default equipment list on hand (a prior experience led me astray on this point...)


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 15, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I can also verify by painful experience this year, you really want to have a default equipment list on hand (a prior experience led me astray on this point...)



Yup, every Spycraft game I've been in that required gearing up has been stalled for 2 hours of non-fun gameplay. It's my one beef with the system.


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 16, 2006)

Excellent advice! 

The only thing I can add is to be prepared for player-sponsored derails. For all your planning, they will do something that you are either completely unprepared for. To players, your "obviously insurmountable plot device" may appear to be the "obvious tool for victory," or a "frickin' awesome thing that they want to use," rather than flee from. Be prepared to let the game take a slightly different direction if you must, or, alternatively, have something on hand that can indicate to your players what type of encounter you really intend it to be. Also, since it's a one-time game, don't be afraid to be a little less subtle with hints than you normally would be - if it's unbeatable, its permissable to let the PCs know. 

Why am I posting this, when you're sitting literally 4 feet from me? 

I want to subscribe to this thread...


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 16, 2006)

I just thought of another one - "show off" the system you're using. Make sure, if you're running D&D, to include sword-fights, traps, and magic. If it's D20 Modern, make guns, cars, and other unique accoutrements a major part of the game. For Mutants and Masterminds, make sure there are interesting super powers, etc. 

In short - really play to the "stereotypes" of whatever system you're going use; there's no reason to play against the system when you only have 4-5 hours.


----------



## JoeBlank (Aug 16, 2006)

Some great stuff here, PC. Much of this advice is useful for running games in general, not just for con games.



But you forgot to mention the part about how to make little girls cry.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 16, 2006)

Excellent point about showing off the system; that's a great thing to do, and awfully important. Stress what makes the system fun. I'll never run a Feng Shui game that involves no combat.



			
				JoeBlank said:
			
		

> But you forgot to mention the part about how to make little girls cry.



Kill their characters with mind flayers! Bwah ha ha ha ha!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Aug 16, 2006)

PC, is there any way to see your actual notes for any given scenario you've run? I mean the outline and any stats you had there in front of you as you ran the game. I realize they might be handwritten or done in a personal shorthand, but if you could "clean up" and post an example, I'd find it invaluable.


----------



## Psion (Aug 16, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Yup, every Spycraft game I've been in that required gearing up has been stalled for 2 hours of non-fun gameplay. It's my one beef with the system.




Well, 2.0's better, and in the game I ran at DC game day, gearing up went really smooth.

The games I ran at GenCon... not so smooth. Especially the first one.


----------



## player 2 (Aug 16, 2006)

Piratecat, what great info.  I was just telling my SO that you needed to write a book on how to DM and then I find this post . . . Are you reading my mind?  

Thank you for the patience during your game. As a fairly new player I appreciate the help.  It was great to play a game that had so much "role" playing in it.  That is what made the game memorable, I was able to play outside my comfort zone with understanding and helpful players.  I think that is what a Con game should be about . . .stretching your limits while playing with friends.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Aug 16, 2006)

Piratecat, thanks so much for sharing these tips.  While I don't plan on running a game at a Con, some of it is really good for DMing in general or even for player character creation.  If you ever did publish a book on DMing advice, I'd be sure to buy it!


----------



## KidCthulhu (Aug 16, 2006)

I'll jump in here too.  Ditto to everything PC said, especially about characters.  He and I once wrote a con game with 6 clerics of widely varying faiths and personalities.  The game played itself!  Plot, schmot.

I'll put in a plug for having a ticking clock.  You don't need to shove players along, but you do need to know what is happening in the world and in the bad guy's plans. If they want to debate plans for hours, they can, but in the meantime the world is moving along.  Surf the web for clues, talk to the sage all day, but the embassy is still getting attacked at 2 am, the ritual is still taking place at midnight. Know this, and you have the lever that moves everything else.

I'll also plug the "guy with a gun" theory.  Always have a way to get the players back to the plot.  The best way is to bring the danger to them.  In a tournament game, the water should always be rising. They can debate strategy all they want, but if they don't start bailing, they'd better know how to swim.

I have a preference in Call of Cthulhu, at least, for hitting the party hard at first with something off-putting.  It doesn't have to be big, but it has to shock them.  A pool of blood where no blood should be.  A rough and unpleasant encounter with an NPC, just something to shake them up enough to know that bad &#$@ is indeed going on.  I like keeping my horror players just that little bit off balance.  If they can't find their footing, the can't get bogged down.

Finally, remember the 4 rules of Con games:
1) You don't have time for this (whatever it is)
2) Keep it fast and keep it moving
3) Reward creativity and role playing
4) Less is more


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 16, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> PC, is there any way to see your actual notes for any given scenario you've run? I mean the outline and any stats you had there in front of you as you ran the game. I realize they might be handwritten or done in a personal shorthand, but if you could "clean up" and post an example, I'd find it invaluable.



You think! But you really wouldn't, because I keep most of this stuff in my head. My notes serve mostly to just remind me.  I'm happy to scan them in, though. I'll see if I can do that tonight.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Aug 16, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Ask Maverick Weirdo; the first time I ran it, it was pretty shaky. Playtesting answers pacing questions and shakes out iffy plotting.




Actually Piratecat's real talent is finding great players who can take his sketchy pregens and make something cool out of them     

That whole "plan for a wide middle" just meant that our group, through clever strategy, managed to skip most of the combat & plot he had planned for the middle of the game. PC had to resort to feeding us info through television broadcasts. 

Oh and SteveC, PC has been known to use the "7th player" trick as well.

And since when does M&M have "sanity check" rules?   

(It was one of the best games I have ever been in.)


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Aug 16, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> You think! But you really wouldn't, because I keep most of this stuff in my head. My notes serve mostly to just remind me.  I'm happy to scan them in, though. I'll see if I can do that tonight.




It would be interesting. Basically, I'd like to see a good example of a con adventure. Since you have a lot of insight and people rave about how you run adventures at cons (I almost said "con games"  ), it would be cool to see one of your adventures. If you wrote everything down you keep in your head, it would be a good companion piece to your advice above. I think something like that would be a fantastic resource that could be posted as an article on EN World for those wanting to run games at cons.


----------



## Psion (Aug 16, 2006)

Piratecat Is My Master Now.

(That'd be funnier in the right font...)


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 16, 2006)

<yoda voice>Awesome this thread is .</yoda>

I've played in a couple of PCat's games and he pretty much has the one-shot mastered.

Couple of other things I think about with regards to the one-shot:

 - Depending on the game you are running, you may get some players that are playing in your game because they want to check out the rules and the system itself.  If you are running system that isn't as widely known, you may have to consider the mechanics of the system moreso than you would otherwise.  In this case, make the characters simple and iconic.  List any special rules or abilities on the character sheets so there is no need for rulebooks.  Also, allow for some time at the start of the session to go over the basics of the rules.

 - Design your one-shot around cool locations or events.  If you want to run something with pirates, think of some cool pirate encounters - maybe a ship-to-ship battle, an escape from a prison (complete with dungeon), or a race through the jungle to be the first to get to the buried treasure.  Bottom line - give the players what they want!

 - The illusion of choice.  Some rail-roading is inevitable in a one-shot.  Some may disagree with me but a one-shot isn't open-ended.  It can't be.  It has to have a fairly well-defined resolution.  How the players get there, however, can be open (as PCat described).  The players may end up at the final encounter no matter what they do but you should present the players with a few paths that can take to get there.  An even better method is to present choices that may conflict with some of the characters' beliefs or personalities.  This is a good way to encourage role-playing.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 17, 2006)

Orrrr... my scanner's not scanning properly. Hmm.

Glassjaw has some great points. Whenever I run a one-shot with new rules, I make a one-page rules summary sheet for the players. It speeds things up immensely. In the same way, DON'T explain the rules exhaustively at the start. Explain the bare minimum, and just handle things on the fly as you go along.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Aug 17, 2006)

Those are some great pointers PirateCat and I'd like to say that I've always been an advocate of jotting down some notes and running an adventure loose and adaptable.  However, this is why typically my own one-shot games run great but when I run a campaign I don't get the same rush and quickly get bored with it.  

Do you have any pointers regarding planning/running a campaign?


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 17, 2006)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> To players, your "obviously insurmountable plot device" may appear to be the "obvious tool for victory," or a "frickin' awesome thing that they want to use," rather than flee from.




Heh. Martian walkers: the best melee weapon in the game.


----------



## romp (Aug 17, 2006)

Its not the system, its what you do with it ...   

I have played in Piratecat's games before and he confirmed what I try to do as a GM. KidCthulhu also makes a point that I will reinforce since I use it often. Keep in mind what is going on "offscreen"; I always have several plots going on that might affect the players, or it might not. For instance in my infamous Hackmaster campaign I had three or four plots going that they players never saw, they were too wrapped up in their own little vengance quest. But every once in a while something would happen that would let them see the "wheels within wheels" (I think they are still wondering who the "Five" were ...)

In a con one-shot you do not need to be so grandiose. but you can use those off screen plots to keep things moving and jumpstart a bogged game.


----------



## arwink (Aug 17, 2006)

Think really carefully about your first scene. I'll often put three times as much effort into the openining thirty minutes of a one shot as I will the rest of the session, since that first scene is really the space I have to ease players into the tone and style of the game they're playing. 

At its core this is fairly obvious - in an action-adventure game you start with action, in an investigatory game you start with players searching for clues, in a character-driven game you start with interpersonal conflict. But sometimes you need to develop this in a little more detail - players used to tactically-oriented DnD action sometimes need to be shocked out of the mind-set if you're launching them on an over-the-top Feng Shui adventure. With that in mind, I'll go out of my way to set up a scene that would be near impossible to handle in DnD terms (such as starting the game in free-fall, which is an idea I borrowed from someone on Enworld and works a treat)..


----------



## Bubbalicious (Aug 17, 2006)

I've never GM'ed.  I think GM's playing in other people's games still tend to look at things from a GM's point of view.  I'm not saying they don't play well by any stretch, but they do tend to help the GM's keep a game on it's "intended" path sometimes.

From strictly a player only point of view, I think the most enjoyable one-shots are when GM's are in control enough to where the inmates don't run the asylum (there's always at least one person who thinks every game is a contest to see who can spew the most words and/or noise from their mouths), but is not so controlling that you feel like you're "riding a rail".  Some of the most fun I've had has been in games where things went completely off course, but the GM was slick enough (and familiar enough with the scenario) to keep play going without trying to "steer" too much.

Also having a table of players who don't take things too seriously and can go with the flow, as it were, is a huge advantage.  One-shots obviously aren't the time or place for rules-lawyering.  It's also helpful if players don't require much hand holding.  If you really get lost or confused, sure, ask a question or get clarification, but try not to slow things down much and go along for the ride.

I'm also a big fan (and frequent creator) of cheesy one-liners and extremely bad puns!!!


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 17, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Orrrr... my scanner's not scanning properly. Hmm.
> 
> Glassjaw has some great points. Whenever I run a one-shot with new rules, I make a one-page rules summary sheet for the players. It speeds things up immensely. In the same way, DON'T explain the rules exhaustively at the start. Explain the bare minimum, and just handle things on the fly as you go along.




Absolutely...  

Here's an example of a cheat sheet I used for a Skull & Bones adventure during a Chicago Gameday...


----------



## mcrow (Aug 17, 2006)

I ran a game @ Gencon this year and it was the first ever con game I ran (for people i didn't know). The bad part was that only two players showed up.  

I decided to run it anyway because it was a company sanctioned event and the two players that showed wanted to game anyway. 

Anyone had this happen before?

I had to water down the game a lot, and brought along a NPC (who I made sure did not over shadow the PCs). I found that I had to make up and cut out a lot more stuff on the fly than normal, just so the game would be playable with two PCs. 

Overall I think that the game went well and we all had fun, but I'm pretty sure they had to know that I was streching a bit to make it work. 

How do you hadle a short table when running con games?


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 17, 2006)

I don't know that there's much that I can add, since PC nailed it so succintly above, other than to emphasize the flexibility.  Most importantly, be willing to break any and all rules in service of the guidelines PC posted above.  If you want to play in a game that's all about strict adherence to the rules, stop by the wargaming room.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 17, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> The_Universe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, thems hurt.  Ow.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 18, 2006)

> - Pacing. Don't hesitate to sacrifice encounters just so you can get to the good stuff. I'd much rather skip a minor combat encounter if it means I get to the end of the adventure! Talking about pulp gangster novels, Raymond Chandler wrote, "When in doubt, have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand." It's great advice; before things get boring, introduce time pressure or some sort of conflict. that way the session never drags.




This reminded me of something I do for the adventures I build for the Chicago Gamedays.

PC talks about skipping minor combat encounters to get to the end of an adventure, but lately I've been looking at it from the other end of the rope...  That is to say, tossing in an extra minor encounter to fill in for time.

So, I'll take a similar tack to PC, and plan out no more than three major encounters that are essential to the plot, and nothing else.  Then I come up with a half dozen short encounters -- and not always combat encoutners -- that are fun and can tie in to the adventure setting and plot, but are not necessary to the completion of the adventure.

That way, if the players are blowing through the adventure or are sitting around looking bored, I've already got the proverbial man with a gun ready to come through the door.  If things are going smoothly, I just set them aside and don't include them.

The great thing, is that depending on which extra encounters I toss in, and depending on how the players handle them, the adventure is significantly different every time I run it.


----------



## Matchstick (Aug 18, 2006)

Great thread idea QueenD, I have been thinking about starting a thread like this since I got back.  I feel like I've been all take take take with no give, so I'm really going to try and run a game next year, and this will be very valuable info.  

Is rules lite better?  In other words, is D&D better than something like Iron Heroes with all its stunts?  Or would Iron Heroes Lite be OK?  Do the rules fall under the "less is more" theory?  I would think so.


----------



## froggie (Aug 18, 2006)

*Pirate Cat...a book?*

on how to DM?...interesting


----------



## Rystil Arden (Aug 18, 2006)

Matchstick said:
			
		

> Great thread idea QueenD, I have been thinking about starting a thread like this since I got back.  I feel like I've been all take take take with no give, so I'm really going to try and run a game next year, and this will be very valuable info.
> 
> Is rules lite better?  In other words, is D&D better than something like Iron Heroes with all its stunts?  Or would Iron Heroes Lite be OK?  Do the rules fall under the "less is more" theory?  I would think so.



 Based on our experience with my IH one-shot attempt, I would say that something that is not rules-lite and adds complexity for the players (like IH) is tricky unless everyone knows how to play already, based on how long we had to spend explaining.  Something of equal complexity that places the complexity in the GM's hands instead is probably a safer idea.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 18, 2006)

Well, this thread has inspired me. Next year at GenCon I'm going to run four games. 

Two will be Feng Shui, high calibre action movie blowing-the-crap-out-of-things for people who want glorious cinematic destruction. 

The other two will be run by KidCthulhu and I acting as co-DMs, and I think will be something I've never tried before: the whole D&D party as highly competent and experienced con-men who actually have a chance to put one over on the NPCs. Could be glorious, could be an unmitigated disaster, and with the right group we expect to be scrambling as they totally out-maneuver us... I can't wait!


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 18, 2006)

The other side of the coin: Gothmog's How to organize excellent rpg campaigns.


----------



## Matchstick (Aug 18, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Based on our experience with my IH one-shot attempt, I would say that something that is not rules-lite and adds complexity for the players (like IH) is tricky unless everyone knows how to play already, based on how long we had to spend explaining.  Something of equal complexity that places the complexity in the GM's hands instead is probably a safer idea.




That was what I was thinking about too.  IH is certainly more complicated than straight up D&D, but I think that an emphasis on the theatrical action might lend itself well to a con game.  I was thinking about the demo game that I had played last year, and how they had a sheet that listed all the offensive and defensive options an IH character has in combat.  

Perhaps emphasizing those options and de-emphasizing the use of feats/skills as much as possible (or just including them in figured stats, or summarizing them for the player) might lend itself more to a con type game.  It would be simplifying IH for sure.  It also might lower the learning curve, because in a lot of ways it would be D&D with the additional combat actions, and everyone could handle that.  

Skills could be written out in more D&D fashion ahead of time, obviating the need to learn about skill groups etc.  Feats could perhaps be super summarized on char sheets.  

Dunno, still thinking about this...


----------



## Henry (Aug 18, 2006)

Matchstick said:
			
		

> Skills could be written out in more D&D fashion ahead of time, obviating the need to learn about skill groups etc.  Feats could perhaps be super summarized on char sheets.




One thing I've found: The more complex the system, aim for lower-level characters. If you have lots of sub-systems to try, aim for a one-shot with, say, 1st to 4th level characters, rather than 6th to 12th. If the game is pretty familiar to people, then you can think about higher level.

In general, I try not to build a character with more than five or six abilities that are non-standard or complicated, and use that as my guide to what level they should be. If it were something like Grim Tales, anyone familiar with d20 modern is familiar with 75% of the rules there. For Mutants and Masterminds, my PL 10 pre-gens would have three or four powers, not an array of ten different ones necessarily.

On the other hand, my Spycraft demo had the characters at 5th level, just outside of the 6th level feats, for a total of about six or 8 things they could do, and one or two of those intentionally pretty straight-laced, like lightning reflexes or similar. A good game should ideally be attractive at any level of play, from 1st to whatever, from green characters to experienced ones, so lower level shouldn't be a burden.


----------



## sniffles (Aug 18, 2006)

This is a little tangential to the topic, so I hope you'll forgive me. But I've never been to a gaming con. I've always thought that playing a game with a bunch of total strangers would be, well, not much fun. I don't like the idea of having no control over who I'm playing with. But from the descriptions of most games at Gen Con, it sounds like my assumptions may be way off. Is it the element of surprise that makes these games so much fun?

I'm also wondering: does Gen Con offer 'adults only' games? I don't mean in the sense of sexuality or profanity allowed; I mean games during daytime hours that only allow adults to play, even if the game itself is perfectly innocuous. I'd be more comfortable sitting at a table full of tarantulas than a table full of kids, so the concern about having to share my time with children is a big deterrent to me in trying out con gaming experiences.  Do there tend to be a lot of kids at the game tables?


----------



## mcrow (Aug 18, 2006)

sniffles said:
			
		

> This is a little tangential to the topic, so I hope you'll forgive me. But I've never been to a gaming con. I've always thought that playing a game with a bunch of total strangers would be, well, not much fun. I don't like the idea of having no control over who I'm playing with. But from the descriptions of most games at Gen Con, it sounds like my assumptions may be way off. Is it the element of surprise that makes these games so much fun?
> 
> I'm also wondering: does Gen Con offer 'adults only' games? I don't mean in the sense of sexuality or profanity allowed; I mean games during daytime hours that only allow adults to play, even if the game itself is perfectly innocuous. I'd be more comfortable sitting at a table full of tarantulas than a table full of kids, so the concern about having to share my time with children is a big deterrent to me in trying out con gaming experiences.  Do there tend to be a lot of kids at the game tables?




Most of the Con games I have played in had fully adult player parties. Now, many of them were young adults 17-21 but still adults. Don't be put off by kids playing to much, some kids are really great RPers.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 18, 2006)

I think one thing that makes Con games great is adventures by guys named Chuck. At least I always thought so 

Chuck


----------



## Matchstick (Aug 18, 2006)

sniffles said:
			
		

> This is a little tangential to the topic, so I hope you'll forgive me. But I've never been to a gaming con. I've always thought that playing a game with a bunch of total strangers would be, well, not much fun. I don't like the idea of having no control over who I'm playing with. But from the descriptions of most games at Gen Con, it sounds like my assumptions may be way off. Is it the element of surprise that makes these games so much fun?
> 
> I'm also wondering: does Gen Con offer 'adults only' games? I don't mean in the sense of sexuality or profanity allowed; I mean games during daytime hours that only allow adults to play, even if the game itself is perfectly innocuous. I'd be more comfortable sitting at a table full of tarantulas than a table full of kids, so the concern about having to share my time with children is a big deterrent to me in trying out con gaming experiences.  Do there tend to be a lot of kids at the game tables?




For the most part I don't do any of the paid games.  They seem much more variable in quality than the EN games that I sign up for (and I think most of the really positive comments you read on this board about games are about EN games).  I'm also wary of gaming with strangers, but comfortable gaming with ENWorlders despite them being "strangers".  There's at least some connection there.  Someone like you might find ENWorld games as being a good alternative to the regular con games for similar reasons.

Another option might be to attend a "Game Day" like the one in NC.  You would be around a much more limited number of folks and in a much less harried atmosphere.  Getting to know those folks might in turn help out at something like GenCon, as you would know some people there already.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Matchstick (Aug 18, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> One thing I've found: The more complex the system, aim for lower-level characters. If you have lots of sub-systems to try, aim for a one-shot with, say, 1st to 4th level characters, rather than 6th to 12th. If the game is pretty familiar to people, then you can think about higher level.
> 
> In general, I try not to build a character with more than five or six abilities that are non-standard or complicated, and use that as my guide to what level they should be. If it were something like Grim Tales, anyone familiar with d20 modern is familiar with 75% of the rules there. For Mutants and Masterminds, my PL 10 pre-gens would have three or four powers, not an array of ten different ones necessarily.
> 
> On the other hand, my Spycraft demo had the characters at 5th level, just outside of the 6th level feats, for a total of about six or 8 things they could do, and one or two of those intentionally pretty straight-laced, like lightning reflexes or similar. A good game should ideally be attractive at any level of play, from 1st to whatever, from green characters to experienced ones, so lower level shouldn't be a burden.




That's a great extension of the "Less is More" parameter Henry, thanks!  I hadn't really thought about it in that light, but most likely this wouldn't effect the game in any huge way, but the players would have less to worry about.  Great points.


----------



## fett527 (Aug 18, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Well, this thread has inspired me. Next year at GenCon I'm going to run four games.
> 
> Two will be Feng Shui, high calibre action movie blowing-the-crap-out-of-things for people who want glorious cinematic destruction.
> 
> The other two will be run by KidCthulhu and I acting as co-DMs, and I think will be something I've never tried before: the whole D&D party as highly competent and experienced con-men who actually have a chance to put one over on the NPCs. Could be glorious, could be an unmitigated disaster, and with the right group we expect to be scrambling as they totally out-maneuver us... I can't wait!



Can I sign up now?  I'm not missing playing in a game you run next year damnit.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 18, 2006)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I've never been to a gaming con. I've always thought that playing a game with a bunch of total strangers would be, well, not much fun.



For me, it's definitely the opposite. New players bring new ways of playing and new jokes to the table, and it's rare that I don't walk away from a con table thinking "wow! I can;t believe that happened!" (For this year's easiest example, I point towards Xath et al in Crothian's Paranoia game. The game play was brilliant, and I learned that EN Worlders are sneakier and more treacherous than I am!) This is also the best chance to try new game systems that you'd never play in your home campaign.

Sure, there will be one or two players at any given table who are less active than the rest, but many of my best friends (both at EN world and without) are people I met over a gaming table at cons. I can't recommend it enough; just get contact info for folks who you really get along well with, so you can hang out with them again in the future. 



> I'm also wondering: does Gen Con offer 'adults only' games?



I've had a lot of fun in games with younger players (I've also had some disasters), but I've never been in an EN World game with a player of younger than college age. Most folks are in their 20's-40's.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Aug 18, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I think one thing that makes Con games great is adventures by guys named Chuck. At least I always thought so
> 
> Chuck




Charles, you were at Gencon?  And I didn't know?  Man, after all the props I sent out to Blood and Vigilance, I didn't even get a heads up.... *grumble*
hehehe

(I'm the guy that heckled for more B&V support and was hounding you on the RPGobjects board bout questions relating to B&V)

Did you run a B&V game?  Anything D20 Modern-ish?


----------



## Bubbalicious (Aug 18, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Well, this thread has inspired me. Next year at GenCon I'm going to run four games.
> 
> Two will be Feng Shui, high calibre action movie blowing-the-crap-out-of-things for people who want glorious cinematic destruction.
> 
> The other two will be run by KidCthulhu and I acting as co-DMs, and I think will be something I've never tried before: the whole D&D party as highly competent and experienced con-men who actually have a chance to put one over on the NPCs. Could be glorious, could be an unmitigated disaster, and with the right group we expect to be scrambling as they totally out-maneuver us... I can't wait!




I'm so there for the Con man game!!  Is it too early to sign up now???


----------



## sniffles (Aug 18, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> This is also the best chance to try new game systems that you'd never play in your home campaign.




That's a good point. There are a lot of things I want to try that my gaming group aren't interested in.   



> I've had a lot of fun in games with younger players (I've also had some disasters), but I've never been in an EN World game with a player of younger than college age. Most folks are in their 20's-40's.



It's almost a phobia thing with me - I am extremely uncomfortable around children. Well, children in the chronological sense. Most of the people I know are just big kids in 40-year-old bodies.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 1, 2007)

Bumped for great justice! And for Digital M@ and Nellisir. But mostly for great justice.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 1, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Well, this thread has inspired me. Next year at GenCon I'm going to run four games.  Two will be Feng Shui.  The other two will be run by KidCthulhu and I acting as co-DMs.




Harrumph.

-Hyp.


----------



## WSmith (Oct 1, 2007)

Piratecat, (and the other versed Con GMs/DMs); I wouldn't consider this with a "standard" gaming system, but if the CON game you were going to run were a demo of an ultra-simple and ultra-lite game, for example RISUS, Dungeon Squad!, or Prince Valiant, would you ever think having the con gamers go through character creation? I ask cause the expedient character creation is one of the draws to some of those systems. Or, should you just make the characters pre-gens in all situations? I get the impression that one should never, ever create characters at the table for a Con game.


----------



## The_Universe (Oct 1, 2007)

There are some games where character creation is an essential part of the session - Kobolds Ate My Baby, for example. It's a great con game, and character generation is easily half (if not more) of the game. If you take that out, you've got almost nothing left. 

Dread (the Jenga one) is another great example where you pretty much have to include character generation...albeit not at the table, since it's a somewhat laborious process. Still, if you take it out of the equation, you've removed one of the major features of the game. As a result, IME, most people take care of it online before the event...but still leave it in Player's hands.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 2, 2007)

WSmith said:
			
		

> Piratecat, (and the other versed Con GMs/DMs); I wouldn't consider this with a "standard" gaming system, but if the CON game you were going to run were a demo of an ultra-simple and ultra-lite game, for example RISUS, Dungeon Squad!, or Prince Valiant, would you ever think having the con gamers go through character creation?




I ran a Risus con game, and I used pregens - I found it really helpful, because it meant I could say to someone "Give me a Mad Scientist roll", rather than "Uh... what cliches did you have again?"

-Hyp.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 2, 2007)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> There are some games where character creation is an essential part of the session - Kobolds Ate My Baby, for example. It's a great con game, and character generation is easily half (if not more) of the game. If you take that out, you've got almost nothing left.



Well, there's abusive amounts of alcohol. That's something.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 2, 2007)

One other thing that I've found helps:

LOVE your game. Be incredibly happy to be running it, and say so. Enthusiasm is infectious. Have huge amounts of fun and the chances of your players doing likewise skyrocket. I've never seen a successful game yet where the DM isn't clearly having at least as much fun as the players.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 2, 2007)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> One other thing that I've found helps:
> 
> LOVE your game. Be incredibly happy to be running it, and say so. Enthusiasm is infectious. Have huge amounts of fun and the chances of your players doing likewise skyrocket. I've never seen a successful game yet where the DM isn't clearly having at least as much fun as the players.



He knows of what he speaks: Barsoomcore is one of the best five GMs I've run into within the last ten years. 

Interesting question about character generation, Bill. The only way I'd not use pre-gen characters is (a) I was demoing a game for a publisher, and character creation was a huge part of the fun (as in Kobolds Ate Me Baby), or (b) I was running a game like Dread that has to have player input, and I couldn't get it ahead of time. I think it's usually a disastrous way to start the type of games that I want to run.


----------



## Chaldfont (Oct 2, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Finally, the super-secret one: have a ringer player.




I've used this one to great effect before. It's great when you need a traitor. The first time I did this, I wanted a game with a high body count where the players would really worry about losing their PCs. So I brought a friend and ruthlessly killed his character in the first hour.

My hint: Make your own character sheets and only put on them the most important things or the most likely things to come up in a game. As the game system becomes more complicated, this becomes more and more important.

I learned this the hard way. When 3rd edition first came out, I ran a D&D game at a local con. I tried really hard to balance the encounters and to make an interesting plot. I was so worried about timing. When it came to getting the materials ready, I just picked some random character sheet off the web and used it.

The players wasted so much time trying to find the information they needed! Now I use big fonts and only put the most basic stuff on the sheet. If you need more information, put it on the back or on a separate sheet.

Some of the stuff I've been reading about 4th edition monster design could also apply to PC design for a con game. These PCs are only going to exist for several encounters. How many of those cool abilities are they really going to use? Keep it simple. It reduces analysis paralysis during encounters and lets the players concentrate on the awesome.


----------



## nerfherder (Oct 2, 2007)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Can I sign up now?  I'm not missing playing in a game you run next year damnit.



You beat me to it!

I didn't check out the ENW Gencon signup forum until quite late this year, but was still lucky enough to get into some fantastic games.  Next year, I'll be hammering at PirateCat and Barsoomcore's door


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 3, 2007)

nerfherder said:
			
		

> You beat me to it!




... by over a year.



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> The only way I'd not use pre-gen characters is (a) I was demoing a game for a publisher, and character creation was a huge part of the fun (as in Kobolds Ate Me Baby), or (b) I was running a game like Dread that has to have player input, and I couldn't get it ahead of time.




Out of curiosity... how badly do you think a game of Dread would suffer if you handed out pre-answered questionnaires at the start of the game?

The player input into the questionnaires is cool, but is it really _vital_... more so than in any other game?

-Hyp.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The player input into the questionnaires is cool, but is it really _vital_... more so than in any other game?



Yes. The reason is that there are no stats. The player needs to have a transparently clear knowledge of what the PC is capable of, and the best way to get that is to have the player create it.

The other reason is that it's much easier to become scared when you identify with, and are personally invested in, the character.

If I had to, I'd probably have a portion of the questions filled out already, and let the player fill out the rest -- but that's sort of half-assed. I'd probably just hand out 8 or 9 question questionnaires instead, asking that they be answered quickly. 

You could still play Dread with totally pre-gen characters, of course, but I'd estimate that it'd lose maybe 15-20% of its impact. It's hard to underestimate the power of that emotional buy-in.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Oct 3, 2007)

I concur with Piratecat.  I had a  better feel for Francis than any other gameday character I've ever played, and it made a big difference in how I played the character, and how much I enjoyed it.  Were it not for how I filled out the questionaire, *the* critical moment between Francis and the sniveling bootlick Corky would not have played out as it did.

At the moment, I'm struggling with the questionaire for the game I'm running at the end of the month.  For the scenario, I need to find the right balance between stipulating enough of the character background for their presence to make sense, and leave enough room for the players to make the character their own.  It's not as easy as it looks (or as Piratecat makes it seem)


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 3, 2007)

Jody, shoot me a copy via email. Maybe I can help.


----------



## Silver Moon (Oct 3, 2007)

KidCthulhu said:
			
		

> I'll jump in here too.  Ditto to everything PC said, especially about characters.  He and I once wrote a con game with 6 clerics of widely varying faiths and personalities.  The game played itself!



I remember that game - those characters were great!   Unfortunately we were stuck with a DM who discouraged role playing and insisted that we had to get through every encounter - I would have been happier if we never left the first encounter. 

PC's advice is great!  Over the years I have learned considerably from him and KidCthulhu on how to do things right.   The first Feng Shui game I ever ran (having only played it once before that) I did using primarily a short six-point 'How to Run Feng Shui' primer that PC gave me in advance and it was an overwhelming success - although PirateCat playing the Mr T "B.A. Baracas" character in it helped immensely (I still can't believe you shot the panda bear).


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 3, 2007)

I've run several games at GenCon (aside from games I've run officially, for the RPGA, the D&D Open, and the DCC Tournament), and the best ones had these three things in common:

(1) Every character had an immediate "hook" with at least two other characters.  This past GenCon, I explicitly set out to create a group such that each PC had a good relationship with two others, and a strained relationship with one other, but it obviously doesn't need to be that formulaic.  Two sub-points:

(a) At a convention game, "cliche" is not a bad word.  The quicker and easier players can grasp their characters and the other characters, the quicker you get to the role-playing.

(b) It's very easy to overdo character backstory.  In addition to the hooks mentioned above, all you really need to do is allude to one or two major events in the group's history, and let the players take it from there.

(2) Every PC had things in the adventure that only he or she can accomplish.  Every DM knows that in a home campaign, we need to rotate the spotlight, but it's even more important -- and needs to be done more rapidly -- in a convention game.

(3) I wasn't afraid to go over the top in my portrayal of monsters and NPCs.  In a home campaign, maintaining the kind of intensity I'm talking about here can, first, be very draining to the DM, and, second, eventually begins to border on the ridiculous.  But that's a function of time, and there's no time for it to happen in a convention game.  Shout, growl, snarl, hiss, thump the table ... any trick to make the experience more immediate and visceral.  (Do keep in mind any other groups playing in the same environs, though.)

A fourth, more minor, key to success has been accessories.  Miniatures for each pre-gen, a battlemat, pre-drawn encounter maps, and initiative tracker.  If it can be carried easily, and it contributes to the quicker running of your home game, take it to the convention game.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Oct 3, 2007)

I haven't run a Con Game but have played in some at Gencon and local cons.
Honestly, I think there's a lot of luck involved.  
I've played in NMC's games in 06 and 07 and he has it about perfect from the GM's perspective.  
Preparation: It's obvious he knows the material inside and out since he wrote the modules and it shows.  
Pacing:  He kept the game moving along but it didn't feel like he did, it all seemed to flow naturally.
Good mix of problem solving, combat, and roleplaying.

But luck plays a part I think.  NMC had some good players sit down at the table in my opinion.  That contributed a lot toward success.

I played in a table of the Buffy RPG at GenCon 2006 and though the GM was very very good, we got a total tool at the table.  It's Buffy..so a little levity is expected..sarcasm, jokes in the face of death, that kind of thing.  I made a snide in-character comment about witches/wiccans/whatever and this guy turns to me in person and informs me matter of factly that he is a whatever-the-heck thing he is and shows me some wierd ring on his finger.  I just shrugged and said no harm meant, we're all in good fun.  But he kept at it and did similar things to other players.  It was difficult for the GM to keep things moving while this chucklehead kept dragging everyone down.

My two cents..luck and a good GM who knows his material.


----------



## Silver Moon (Oct 3, 2007)

Kheti sa-Menik said:
			
		

> ..luck and a good GM who knows his material.



And even the 'knowing your material' part isn't essential - it helps, but a DM who can improvise can get by without it.   More than once I was handed a convention module by the coordinator ten minutes before game time when the DM who had signed up to run it was a no-show.   I would never let the players know that I was unprepared, instead stating that "I emphasize and encourage role playing" (which is very true) - and the role playing would then give me enough time to read at least one encounter ahead of where they were.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 3, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Were it not for how I filled out the questionaire, *the* critical moment between Francis and the sniveling bootlick charming romantic Corky would not have played out as it did.



Sorry, just fixing up that little typo there.

And I'm in agreement with PC on the player-created characters -- there's no way a player would have TIME to absorb all the critical details on the sheet if it were just handed to them at the start of the session. Even assuming that the "buy-in" factor was a non-issue.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 3, 2007)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And I'm in agreement with PC on the player-created characters -- there's no way a player would have TIME to absorb all the critical details on the sheet if it were just handed to them at the start of the session. Even assuming that the "buy-in" factor was a non-issue.




Well, I'm not contrasting "Pregen vs questionnaire filled out ahead of time" like we did - I'm looking at "Pregen vs questionnaire handed out at the table"... for when you haven't had a chance to send questionnaires out early.

With players filling them in at the table, they have to read the questions, think about the answers, write the answers, and then the GM needs to absorb them all and check for inconsistencies.  I figure that has to take _more_ time that the players absorbing the details of a pregen - which the GM already knows contains consistent interactions with the other PCs.

For example, the local university gaming club has a game day in January.  Based on how it worked this year, people get assigned to games ten minutes before a session starts... so if I wanted to run Dread, I'd have no opportunity for pre-session questionnaires.  It would either have to be questionnaires within the session, or pregens.

-Hyp.


----------



## nerfherder (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... by over a year.



Hmm... he was asking about 2007, whereas I was asking for 2008, so I'm first in line for next year.

Yeah, that's it


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 4, 2007)

In all honesty, until I went to Gen Con and gamed with EN Worlders, Convention games were something I hated/made fun of.

I was serious earlier when I said that *Piratecat at the helm* was what made a convention game good, but he only narrowly edges out *Psion*, *Rel*, *Kenson* and *Wil Upchurch*.

I hear absolutely astonishing things about *Barsoomcore*'s GM'ing skills, and I've seen nothing but praise for Crothian's ability to run _Paranoia_.

Seriously, with as much sheer _awfulness_ as I associate with Convention gaming, I've never really come across anything like that from EN Worlders.

Treat this place as a resource.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not contrasting "Pregen vs questionnaire filled out ahead of time" like we did - I'm looking at "Pregen vs questionnaire handed out at the table"... for when you haven't had a chance to send questionnaires out early..



Oh, I see. Well then. Er. 

Shut up.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Oct 29, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Jody, shoot me a copy via email. Maybe I can help.




Ack.  I missed that.  It would have helped tremendously.  Maybe before the next gameday I'll take you up on the offer, although I'd love to have you play this scenario someday, too.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 30, 2010)

I'll bump this thread now that GenCon is on the (distant!) horizon - the subject has come up recently.


----------



## Psion (Jan 31, 2010)

Definitely Not Piratecat said:
			
		

> I'll bump this thread now that **Long Island and DC Gamedays are** on the (**not so**distant!) horizon - the subject has come up recently.




Fixed.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 30, 2010)

Well fixed. I'm writing a Dread game for the NH Game Day, and with PAX East just finished this has come back up again. 

I'm not sure if I said it up-thread, but I'm leaning more and more that villains have _style_. What makes them cool? In any given fight, pick one foe who deserves a name, and go to town describing him. This falls in to the old Feng Shui theory of "nameless mooks vs. named villains", and it's a trick I like a lot. The foe you name is the one the players are going to remember after the game, and that's the one you build story hooks around.


----------



## amysrevenge (Mar 30, 2010)

In a related but slightly different direction, there are several bare minimums that must be there for a successful game.  The inclusion of these is certainly not enough to guarantee success, but the exclusion of these is probably enough to guarantee a fail.

1) Be ready to start on time.

2) Finish on time (or even a tiny bit early if you can mange it).

3) Keep the pace up.  A home game can afford to have slow periods, but a convention game has have a start, a middle, and an end all within the alloted slot.

4) Minimize (without necessarily eliminating) OT chat and OOC banter.  This is a very fine balance, different for every group, and is especially hard to find with strangers whose tastes you might not know that well.  Gets easier with practice.  Again, in a home game if you end up spending a whole night talking about Star Wars expanded universe characters during your D&D game, you can just pick up the game next week.  At a con, you have to get to the game.


----------



## JediSoth (Mar 31, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Well fixed. I'm writing a Dread game for the NH Game Day, and with PAX East just finished this has come back up again.
> 
> I'm not sure if I said it up-thread, but I'm leaning more and more that villains have _style_. What makes them cool? In any given fight, pick one foe who deserves a name, and go to town describing him. This falls in to the old Feng Shui theory of "nameless mooks vs. named villains", and it's a trick I like a lot. The foe you name is the one the players are going to remember after the game, and that's the one you build story hooks around.




And sometimes, villains (such as the Shafttrooper in my Star Wars game last Gen Con*) will become legendary through the ineptitude of the PCs.

*Shafttrooper was the name lovingly bestowed upon one lone Blizzard-Force Snowtrooper assault Echo Base. Of his entire squad, he survived longer than anyone else. And by survived, I mean the PCs fought for probably 45 real-time minutes to take him down (with grenades, blasters, and melee). Not because he was tough (he was just a cookie-cutter snowtrooper), but because every time they attacked this guy, they rolled poorly. By the time they finally "killed" him, they greatly respected his "survival skills." He was one bad mutha.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Mar 31, 2010)

JediSoth said:


> By the time they finally "killed" him, they greatly respected his "survival skills." He was one bad mutha.



You shoulda leveled him up in mid-combat.

Generally speaking (yes, there are memorable exceptions), a GM who cares enough to run his own convention game will have the tools to make it fun.  I've always found that the players are the big X-factor.  If you get a table where one player insists on hogging the GM's attention with irrelevant "wacky" "roleplaying," you're doomed.  On the other hand, if you get a table where players are capable of roleplaying -- in pairs or sub-groups -- without disrupting the thrust of the game otherwise, it's really something special.


----------



## Rel (Jan 20, 2011)

I missed this thread in the past.  I don't intend to miss any further updates for lack of being subscribed.


----------

