TOPIC: my experience... not good

I waitlisted into 3 additional runs than the 3 i had already planned this past con. All were morning runs though for note (pre 10am). I ended up giving away a grind ticket to a player from a pug i did who wondered what grind was. I just said follow me if you've got the time and we went direct to that grind.

I kinda like the idea of a mystery shopper maybe 2x a day depending on DM shift changes? A email/website for immediate feedback on the experience cards would be nice. Setup a address that can be mobile accessed and watched during con to make it more relevant to fix issues as they come up.

This was my fourth year playing and second year as a puzzle DM.

Something of a mystery shopper program already occurs when experienced players and volunteers run the dungeon. Standardizing and subsiding it is a great idea though

I run mostly PUG and enjoy helping new players have a good experience. I usually run 4 times in addition to my volunteer time.

The strict limit on puzzle solutions for treasure stamps was an attempt to add danger and value to the treasure stamp, but ended up punishing the newer players.

Brute force is a viable answer. If you want to pay for the answer in blood, you should get the reward.

We need to emphasize to the DMs that True Dungeon is not DM vs players, but the Dungeon VS Players with DMs as facilitators for the players enjoyment. Occasional player death adds some spice but being vindictive and rude while trying for a TPK should not be tolerated by anyone!

Actually, everyone who is reading this can be a mystery shopper.

If you're on a run, take responsibility. Report exceptional behavior, good or bad.
Coach DMs you see doing something you know is wrong. I've gone to several, after combat, to say "I've been a DM for awhile; mind if I tell you some things that make it easier for me?" I've also been the obnoxious guy who barged into a room 2 minutes after the horn has sounded and told the DM "this group is stealing our time, are they almost ready to move on?" And then apologized (usually) later.

Encourage and thank people doing their best. Don't accept bad performance from those who aren't. Don't stand by and do nothing. Act like you have some authority and you can make a difference. Just try not to violate Weaton's Law.

I'm not saying to over-rule the DM or rewrite the room, of course.

Havakavula wrote: Something of a mystery shopper program already occurs when experienced players and volunteers run the dungeon. Standardizing and subsiding it is a great idea though

Brad Mortensen wrote: Actually, everyone who is reading this can be a mystery shopper.

If you're on a run, take responsibility. Report exceptional behavior, good or bad.

Yeah.

I did my first Underdark run Thursday morning.

Brian (one of the Underdark AC's) was one of my roommates, so he certainly got an earful about all of the issues I saw during my Underdark runs!

(Most notably, there were a pair of newbie combat DM's in the Myconid room. They took so long calculating damage during the first round we weren't even able to complete a *second* round of combat!)

There are only two shifts per day for DMs so it would only take 8 mystery shoppers per day to cover every DM every shift and this could be done near the beginning of each shift.

I've also proposed an idea of unofficial newbie runs where one veteran takes 9 newbies on a run. Perhaps this could become semi-official and also be the mystery shopper runs.

I agree that all of us could report problems if we see them. I would if I saw serious issues, but personally the worst I have run into is slowish combat DMs which isn't enough for me to say anything. But a mystery shopper should give ratings for each DM, good or bad, and that could be useful. I'm not going to complain to an AC if a DM is a 6/10 on speed, but if that's my job then I'll report it.

Incognito wrote:

Havakavula wrote: Something of a mystery shopper program already occurs when experienced players and volunteers run the dungeon. Standardizing and subsiding it is a great idea though

Brad Mortensen wrote: Actually, everyone who is reading this can be a mystery shopper.

If you're on a run, take responsibility. Report exceptional behavior, good or bad.

Yeah.

I did my first Underdark run Thursday morning.

Brian (one of the Underdark AC's) was one of my roommates, so he certainly got an earful about all of the issues I saw during my Underdark runs!

(Most notably, there were a pair of newbie combat DM's in the Myconid room. They took so long calculating damage during the first round we weren't even able to complete a *second* round of combat!)

Too true. They did improve over their shift and during later shifts. I spoke with them to give them suggestions and observed them as they ran the room. One of them was able to run the room alone for a later shift. I know they also received feedback from players who were experienced DMs.

I don't think we need a mystery shopper program, between ACs checking in and observing DMs and experienced players and volunteers doing runs and reporting on issues they witnessed.

I know I often checked in with players in the epilogue room to ask about their experiences, and most feedback was positive, but there were occasionally problems that I could then address.

Providing an opportunity for feedback again would probably be a good idea. Comment cards would be good, or perhaps the XP cards could give a link to a forum thread for feedback, or an email address for providing feedback.

Cannot stress enough, if you have an issue say something as soon as possible if not for your own benefit then for the others that will be running after you.

This year we had a very miserable experience on Thursday early running Sable and immediately following our run we talked to a coordinator and they apologized and fixed the issue so that other groups didn't have the same thing happen later. Was very happy when we ran Sable Friday and Sunday and I realize that by us saying something we hopefully prevented others from having the same issue and potentially ruining the experience for them. We were mostly veterans bit we had a couple newbies that I fear may not try TD again as a result. And that in itself is a shame

Matthew Hayward wrote: One way for TD to get good feedback would be to use a "mystery shopper" system.

TD would ask for volunteers who are attending true dungeon. They would task those volunteers for running the dungeon, and making a report of their experience.

In exchange for the time spent providing the feedback, some small consideration would be given to them (store credit, small cash award, discounted run, treasure pulls, whatever).

I'm not sure what the DM rotation cycle is like, but this would probably be quite feasible, put through one "mystery shopper" through each hour, and have them verbally debrief with the AC at the end of their run.

It's definitely work and coordination, but it would ensure some greater quality and consistency.

An alternative would be to have an "orientation" staging room before the training room where the training room coach runs through some rules:

1. No photography or outside lights.
2. ???.
3. Customer service is important to us, if anything impairs your enjoyment of the game feel free to ask the room DM to summon an adventure coordinator, we are here to help.
4. If, after your run, you would like to provide us with feedback, you can do so by:
a. ...
b. ...
c. ...


I've been playing true dungeon since 2007 - this is the first year that it penetrated my consciousness that I could ask to see an AC / director.

Even with that knowledge, I was momentarily too flustered call an AC in the last room of Sable Gauntlet combat when the undead monster banished a party member in melee and I was trying to use a Mithral Coin of Luck to re-roll the save, and the DM shouted me down with "No! it doesn't work!" - and didn't ask for an AC. I'm almost certain that the DM wasn't actually listening to me and thought I was trying to redeem a Mystic Mushroom (which he had already explained to another player didn't work). Upon reflection I'm almost positive that Mithral Coin of Luck should have been redeemable in that situation.

I believe room 7 deaths are considered permanent, so the Mushroom may not have helped, but the coin should have been allowed for a re-roll. I have seen several people over the last few years 'die' in room seven and gotten the same response.

Our experience involved a DM who repeatedly targeted one player. He tried to justify by saying that the monster recognized the threat the player posed. Unfortunately for this 'theory,' the player hadn't slid against the monster at all.

After a particularly brutal series of 'hits' on the player, the DM asked 'how many hit points you got left?' That's when I intervened and asked the DM how he (as the monster) would know this? Sadly, two more players will not return since they feel they wasted their money.

I recognize that DMs should have full control over the reactions of the monster, within the bounds of the description. But shouldn't they consider rolling a die to determine who gets attacked if no character makes an 'impression' upon them?

balthasar wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Even with that knowledge, I was momentarily too flustered call an AC in the last room of Sable Gauntlet combat when the undead monster banished a party member in melee and I was trying to use a Mithral Coin of Luck to re-roll the save, and the DM shouted me down with "No! it doesn't work!" - and didn't ask for an AC. I'm almost certain that the DM wasn't actually listening to me and thought I was trying to redeem a Mystic Mushroom (which he had already explained to another player didn't work). Upon reflection I'm almost positive that Mithral Coin of Luck should have been redeemable in that situation.

I believe room 7 deaths are considered permanent, so the Mushroom may not have helped, but the coin should have been allowed for a re-roll. I have seen several people over the last few years 'die' in room seven and gotten the same response.

Yeah - I have no problem with mystic mushroom not working. But it was pretty clear that the player attempted a save, which they failed, and was banished to another dimension. This is pretty much exactly the situation Mithral Coin of Luck is supposed to be useful in.

TJRat wrote: I recognize that DMs should have full control over the reactions of the monster, within the bounds of the description. But shouldn't they consider rolling a die to determine who gets attacked if no character makes an 'impression' upon them?

DM's are giving monster's favorite targets. Naturally the monster has to be intelligent and the target should probably have taken an action (cast a spell, attacked, etc. to differentiate their class). Regardless, what it sounds like here is another case of a volunteer getting carried away.

Ed