Gen Con Player Pack Posted

[goodmangames]

Just in case anyone missed it...

DCC Tournament Player Pack Posted

Think you’re tough enough to survive the Palace in the Wastes? Goodman Games has posted the player pack for the Third Annual Dungeon Crawl Classics Open Tournament at Gen Con. If you're enrolled in the tournament, please download the player pack now and familiarize yourself with the character options!

To download, go here:
http://www.goodmangames.com/downloads/P ... k-2006.pdf

[Jengenritz]

Hee-hee-hee!

(rubs hands together sinister-like)

[fathead]

Will points be deducted for use of charges from wands, or droughts from potions, and such?

[ynnen]

For consistency from previous years, the following items are considered "charges" and impact scoring:

- scrolls consumed
- potions consumed
- charges on wands
- consuming single-use magic items (such as a candle of truth)

The following are not considered "charges"

- ammunition/ranged weapons used
- memorized spell slots
- charges expended from magic items with "uses per day" (such as rounds used from boots of speed or using drums of panic)

Like in previous years, the specific impact on scoring is for DM's and the tournament judges only. Players should simply keep in mind that efficiency is important.

[Jengenritz]

Insofar as point deduction goes, there is only one significant difference this year than previous years: taking 20.

As was pointed out, the exact penalty for taking 20 is undisclosed prior to the actual tournament, but it is roughly equivalent to drinking a potion.

[fathead]

Insofar as point deduction goes, there is only one significant difference this year than previous years: taking 20.

As was pointed out, the exact penalty for taking 20 is undisclosed prior to the actual tournament, but it is roughly equivalent to drinking a potion.

Seriously?! Wow. Good to know.

Why the stiff penalty for taking 20 though?

[ynnen]

From my personal experience as a Tourney DM, some teams abused the Take 20 option by electing to Take 20 on each square of each room. For some rooms in Vault of the Dragon Kings, that was the equivalent of 6 or so hours of "game time" despite wanting to have the results immediately resolved in "real time" ...

Since the tournament needs to consistently arbitrate all rules interpretations and questions, some stiffer guidelines are required. Things that DMs may moderate or tailor to their groups' play styles in a home campaign need to be clearly spelled out so all groups and all DMs are truly playing by the same rules.

[fathead]

Sounds good! Looking forward to yet another great tournament!

[Jengenritz]

Seriously?! Wow. Good to know.

The Player Guidelines in the Player Pack are worth checking out. They spell out the take 20 penalty and talk about which items are and are not replenished between rounds. It's also worth noting the underlined part about how points are weighted.

Looking forward to yet another great tournament!

Same here...the writing team did a bang-up job on The Palace in the Wastes, and I can't wait to see it "come to life" at GenCon.

[fathead]

The Player Guidelines in the Player Pack are worth checking out. They spell out the take 20 penalty and talk about which items are and are not replenished between rounds. It's also worth noting the underlined part about how points are weighted.

Could you point me to where that is? I've printed off the players pack and have been browsing it, but in skimming it, I haven't found the section that you mentioned.

[Jengenritz]

Could you point me to where that is? I've printed off the players pack and have been browsing it, but in skimming it, I haven't found the section that you mentioned.

Why sure, it's just right...over...um...eh?

(smacks forehead)
Hmm...it turns out that a page of the Player's Pack was corrupted when the Word document was converted to the .pdf, and the Player's Guidelines are absent.

I've spoken to Joseph and we'll get it corrected. Sorry for the mix-up, but I'm glad this got caught so early!

[mmaenza]

From my personal experience as a Tourney DM, some teams abused the Take 20 option by electing to Take 20 on each square of each room. For some rooms in Vault of the Dragon Kings, that was the equivalent of 6 or so hours of "game time" despite wanting to have the results immediately resolved in "real time" ...

Searching a 5 ft. square takes one round (6 seconds), taking '20' on that square makes it 20 rounds (2 minutes). The mechanic itself is to keep a game moving, not bogging it down with 30 rolls for 30 5 ft. squares. Its no more immediate in terms of game time than players walking down a 300 ft. hallway with no traps, party not searching and seconds later in real time they arrive. Or the act of resting with no wandering encounter to interrupt. This usually involves 8 hours of game time, yet only takes a matter of minutes to resolve (spell changes, equipment adjustments, marching order, etc..). As many know real time and game time have little, if anything, in common.

So then it begs the question, is taking '10' also prohibited? Do skill checks that you would automatically succeed at still requiring rolling?

Michael Maenza

[ynnen]

It's taking the thread a wee bit off topic, but here's my (next) two cents.

It would be fairly easy to rule in a linear encounter -- going down a straight, narrow hallway, for instance. But to take an example from last year, while it would be easy to moderate in a home session, it's difficult to have each DM rule the same way when searching an incredibly large area with Take 20 Search results.

For the entrance, which was roughly 12 x 24 squares, you’re talking about 288 individual Take 20 Search results. At 2 minutes per square, that's 576 minutes or approximately 9.5 hours of searching in game time. This is something players and DMs would clearly want to speed up.

But how do you resolve this fairly and consistently? What order do you reveal the results in? Do the players have to declare square by square where they are conducting the search? Or just provide a rough action plan? How you choose to resolve this also impacts things like spell durations, fatigue (using the above example, searching just 3 rooms in that manner would take well in excess of 24 hours) and myriad other factors.

In my opinion, as far as Taking 20 in a tournament setting goes, there are too many variables subject to interpretation to consistently handle extreme situations like this -- so the ultimate balancing tool is to weight Take 20 results as a consumable resource and provide the DMs with as clear a set of guidelines as possible to rule by.

[mmaenza]

In my opinion, as far as Taking 20 in a tournament setting goes, there are too many variables subject to interpretation to consistently handle extreme situations like this -- so the ultimate balancing tool is to weight Take 20 results as a consumable resource and provide the DMs with as clear a set of guidelines as possible to rule by.

I think you have a solid arguement from the aspect that in game time is a consumable resource. That said, shouldn't there then be a penalty for continous resting. An example being that the party charges into Room 1 and defeats it taking heavy damage, they rest. They charge into Room 2 and once again take heavy damage, and once again rest.

As for taking '10', does that fall under the taking '20' ruling or is there no penalty for taking '10'?

Michael Maenza
Chicago, IL

[Jengenritz]

That said, shouldn't there then be a penalty for continous resting.

In the tournament setting, there has never been any resting between rooms. I believe in Devil-Lich the "evil-ness" of the crypt made it impossible to rest, and last year the Vault's high altitude kept anyone from resting. Ynnen, correct me if I'm wrong on that last point.

As for taking '10', does that fall under the taking '20' ruling or is there no penalty for taking '10'?

Taking 10, as described, is for routine measures and only an option when there are no distractions or threats. It takes no extra time to take 10, and there is no prohibition against it in this year's tournament.

By the way, a corrected Player's Pack is now online, containing the previously-omitted Player's Guidelines.

[ynnen]

Not resting has been a staple of the tournament setting for the reasons already pointed out -- easily abusable. If a group rested after each encounter in a home campaign, you could knock them silly with random encounters or miscellaneous effects that would quickly dissuade that. Since that's not an option in the tournament setting, we simply remove that from the equation.

The tournament structure -- ideally, anyway -- gives each team the same tools and provides as level a playing field as possible. That's one reason we take such efforts to ensure the guidelines and groundrules are clearly established and all the players know what to expect.

So it's up to each team to be as creative, clever and resourceful as possible with what they have on hand. Putting the success or failure of their team squarely in their hands. In this way, the role of the DM becomes a bit more transparent, with the goal being that a team going through the tournament will have the same experience (and score, etc) regardless of which DM they have for the round.

Hopefully as you've read over this, you can start to appreciate what a challenge this can be, and why Goodman Games has adopted the current structure. I think the success of the tournament so far is a testament to the fact that this system, despite a few oddities, really does work.

[fathead]

The tournament structure -- ideally, anyway -- gives each team the same tools and provides as level a playing field as possible. That's one reason we take such efforts to ensure the guidelines and groundrules are clearly established and all the players know what to expect.

So it's up to each team to be as creative, clever and resourceful as possible with what they have on hand. Putting the success or failure of their team squarely in their hands. In this way, the role of the DM becomes a bit more transparent, with the goal being that a team going through the tournament will have the same experience (and score, etc) regardless of which DM they have for the round.

Hopefully as you've read over this, you can start to appreciate what a challenge this can be, and why Goodman Games has adopted the current structure. I think the success of the tournament so far is a testament to the fact that this system, despite a few oddities, really does work.

I will say this - the DCC tournament is BY FAR the best D&D tournament out there...and we've played in quite a few. The attention to detail, guidelines, and GMs make a huge difference.

Since we're still discussing point deductions, it is acceptable to do a search check more than once? In some areas (particularly at doors and chests), I would be more comfortable doing 5 search checks as opposed to relying on just one.

[N'Haaz-aua]

Speaking as one of the playtesters, the taking 20 'penalty' is MUCH less harsh than what the playtesters suggested. So consider yourselves lucky.

Speaking as one of the GM's, we also try not to discuss what tactics teams who score highly use to win consistently and score points. Its not fair for a clever group to have its secrets given away. What i'm getting at is.. you should be careful not to share either.

This years scenario should be fun, and in playtesting it was a challenge. I expect I will be killing some of you, ...ahem, I mean seeing some of you at Gencon.

[Jengenritz]

Since we're still discussing point deductions, it is acceptable to do a search check more than once? In some areas (particularly at doors and chests), I would be more comfortable doing 5 search checks as opposed to relying on just one.

Search is normally rolled in secret by the GM, but in the tournament we have transparency of die-rolling, so there's no way to keep the die result secret from the PC team. That means there is potential to request a "re-Search" if you are aware the Judge rolled a "4".

Legal, but beardy.

I've always house-ruled that it is entirely possible to re-Search (or re-Open Lock), but imposed a cumulative +2 circumstance adjustment to the DC each time you re-check since you've already Searched once and didn't find anything.

All that being said, there is no points penalty for re-Searching. Technically, then, you COULD do it until you rolled a "20," barring any area-specific impediments to doing so. The "penalty" you take is blowing all that time re-rolling Search checks instead of checking out the next room.

[fathead]

Search is normally rolled in secret by the GM, but in the tournament we have transparency of die-rolling, so there's no way to keep the die result secret from the PC team. That means there is potential to request a "re-Search" if you are aware the Judge rolled a "4".

Legal, but beardy.

Hmm...yeah, that seems a little shady. I was talking about just having the GM roll 5 times, and take what I could.

I like the idea of adding difficulty each time a PC re-attempts the search.

[mmaenza]

I was just going over the character sheets in the player pack and found the following errors. If they are not corrected can we assume to use the highest value listed?

Pg. 6 "Ulfsek of the Purifying Flame" Character Sheet
*Under "Armor and Protection" entry - Shield bonus should be +3 due for +1 Heavy Steel Shield, instead of +4

Pg. 12 "Issele Filiatha" Character Sheet
*Under "Armor and Protection" entry - Armor bonus should be +4 for Mithral Chain Shirt, instead of +5

Pg. 13 "Issele Filiatha" back of Character Sheet
*Under "Magic Items and Spells" entry - The amount of healing the Wand of Cure Moderate Wounds does is 2d8+3, not 2d8+5

Also can divine casters switch out spells either before start or between rounds, as they are assumed to have access to all standard SRD spells.

[Jengenritz]

Thanks for noting the errors.
There are also a few with the armor check penalties, meaning they were not applied to certain skills.

Also can divine casters switch out spells either before start or between rounds, as they are assumed to have access to all standard SRD spells.

By that same token, druids normally have access to a far greater variety of wild shape forms.
As in previous tournaments, what gets put in the Player's Pack is what will be played at the table. If that ends up to benefit the PCs, consider it a bonus. If not, it's all part of the challenge.
Swapping equipment between PCs or as new gear is found is still perfectly acceptable, of course, and expected.