TOPIC: Thoughts on XP

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Matthew, I agree with you that I don't want to debate XP at this point.


But I did want to comment on something else you said:

"b. I believe it is hypocritical to advocate for a set of XP rules that would deny others XP in situations where you yourself have been awarded XP. I'm not sure if I'd take that all the way to "morally reprehensible" - but certainly I don't think hypocrisy is a virtue."

So, you are basically invalidating the argument for limiting XP in any way for anyone that got XP at True Heroes, or True Realm, etc, because in your opinion they are being hypocritical, and unvirtuous.

How is that? What players set the rules allowing XP from True Heroes, or advocated for that to be the case? Just because someone got XP from True Heroes doesn't necessarily mean that is what that player would have done if they were setting the rules. That decision was clearly made by Jeff, and I think at that time it was thought that True Heroes would be an ongoing event just like True Dungeon is. And both were available at GENCON.

You're right that in the abstract someone may have participated in a system that they did not approve of for many reasons, and such people may escape a charge of hypocrisy in advocating against such a system.


Since entering in XP at TD is a completely voluntary action, entering in XP for an event amounts to strong evidence that one approves of being awarded that XP.


Did you not approve of XP being granted at True Realm at the time?

Do you now, in retrospect, not approve of XP being awarded at True Realm?

Matthew, I see that you've either missed the point of my earlier post regarding focusing on issues instead of personal attacks or assumed motives, or just disagree with that post. Either way, this really isn't a conversation I have any interest in continuing. And I'll try to avoid future conversations that go down similar paths.

Your refusal to answer simple questions about your stance is extremely telling.

It is my refusal to continue a discussion with a very unpleasant forum member. Life is too short for that.

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Matthew, I agree with you that I don't want to debate XP at this point.


But I did want to comment on something else you said:

"b. I believe it is hypocritical to advocate for a set of XP rules that would deny others XP in situations where you yourself have been awarded XP. I'm not sure if I'd take that all the way to "morally reprehensible" - but certainly I don't think hypocrisy is a virtue."

So, you are basically invalidating the argument for limiting XP in any way for anyone that got XP at True Heroes, or True Realm, etc, because in your opinion they are being hypocritical, and unvirtuous.

How is that? What players set the rules allowing XP from True Heroes, or advocated for that to be the case? Just because someone got XP from True Heroes doesn't necessarily mean that is what that player would have done if they were setting the rules. That decision was clearly made by Jeff, and I think at that time it was thought that True Heroes would be an ongoing event just like True Dungeon is. And both were available at GENCON.

You're right that in the abstract someone may have participated in a system that they did not approve of for many reasons, and such people may escape a charge of hypocrisy in advocating against such a system.


Since entering in XP at TD is a completely voluntary action, entering in XP for an event amounts to strong evidence that one approves of being awarded that XP.


Did you not approve of XP being granted at True Realm at the time?

Do you now, in retrospect, not approve of XP being awarded at True Realm?

Matthew, I see that you've either missed the point of my earlier post regarding focusing on issues instead of personal attacks or assumed motives, or just disagree with that post. Either way, this really isn't a conversation I have any interest in continuing. And I'll try to avoid future conversations that go down similar paths.

Your refusal to answer simple questions about your stance is extremely telling.

It is my refusal to continue a discussion with a very unpleasant forum member. Life is too short for that.

Tell me Mike, is hurling personal invective at someone you are having a disagreement with the behavior of a "pleasant forum member," or an unpleasant one?

Mike Steele wrote: Matthew, you said

"I think that keeping the leaderboard static is the primary result desired by people who advocate for not granting XP for new adventures presented outside of Gen Con, or who advocate for more restrictive XP rules than they themselves have benifitted from.

I don't think it's the only reason, but it's the only one that I think has any persuasive or rhetorical force."

I just have to mention - one reason that was mentioned in the thread was that the vast majority of True Dungeon players only play True Dungeon at one convention, and it's a minority of players that do multiple conventions. It certainly seems reasonable to advocate for having XP rules that benefit the majority of players instead of the minority. Being able to get max XP at a single convention, especially the largest (GENCON), benefits the most people. It is tailoring the rules to the majority of players.

You may disagree with that position (and I do think there were multiple valid positions), but it's a stretch to say that it doesn't have any persuasive or rhetorical force. It seems that you are only acknowledging what you portray as a "selfish" position in order to undercut other positions.

Even the argument that people want to keep the XP list "static" is not valid, because the XP list isn't static. There are a lot of changes year to year.

I don't want to argue the XP issue again, since Jeff has (for this year at least) resolved it. But, I do agree with Brad that you are assigning motives to people as a way to undercut their positions (and you certainly weren't alone). I hope that there is a lot less of that in general going forward.

This has been an interesting thread for sure. And somewhat amusing.

Mike's point of : "the vast majority of True Dungeon players only play True Dungeon at one convention, and it's a minority of players that do multiple conventions. It certainly seems reasonable to advocate for having XP rules that benefit the majority of players instead of the minority. Being able to get max XP at a single convention, especially the largest (GENCON), benefits the most people. It is tailoring the rules to the majority of players." doesn't sit well with me. In truth, being able to get XP anytime you play TD benefits the most people because it's the least restrictive policy.

I'd love to see United tell folks that since the vast majority of their customers fly out of or into the major cities that only customers flying out of or into them will be awarded flight Miles. I think a fair number of folks would tell United to go screw themselves.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Raven wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Regardless of what the top players may actually want, proposals such as this have the effect of keeping the leader-board static, and so it is a reasonable inference that those who promote these approaches do so for the purpose of keeping the leaderboard static.

That really hurts. Especially the presumption between "what the top players actually want" and "proposals such as this." It's a huge presumption. The presumption is that the Top Players are the ones making such proposals. Then it follows into your "reasonable inference" that those same Top Players are promoting those approaches, in order to keep the Leaderboard static, and maintain their place at the top.

What I'm trying to say here is that, while some of those proposals are being made, it's NOT the Top Players who are making them. Nor has it been my experience that they were made with the intent of keeping the Leaderboard static.

To be clear, I don't believe it's "what top players want" either.

I think there are a few players who argue for policies that entail keeping the leader board static, for the primary purpose of ensuring they can obtain max XP by attending Gen Con only.

I do not endorse the idea that all or even many of the people on the top players fall into that category.

I think that the motivation is reversed, but the outcome would be the same.

Some top players want max XP for the year to be available by attending only one Con, and they want GenCon to be that con.

This policy would of course have the top of the leaderboard stay the same, provided all the leaders attended GenCon.

If other cons such as GHC had all 3 adventures, then everyone could attend either that con or GenCon and get max yearly XP. Regardless, the leaderboard would not change unless someone stopped playing above them.

What was not desired was having XP available at a con that is not Gen Con.
The reasons for that desire should not be speculated upon.

I do have to agree that answering simple questions doesn't seem to be too tough of a thing to do.

Personal attacks do seem a bit much.

Rob F wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Matthew, you said

"I think that keeping the leaderboard static is the primary result desired by people who advocate for not granting XP for new adventures presented outside of Gen Con, or who advocate for more restrictive XP rules than they themselves have benifitted from.

I don't think it's the only reason, but it's the only one that I think has any persuasive or rhetorical force."

I just have to mention - one reason that was mentioned in the thread was that the vast majority of True Dungeon players only play True Dungeon at one convention, and it's a minority of players that do multiple conventions. It certainly seems reasonable to advocate for having XP rules that benefit the majority of players instead of the minority. Being able to get max XP at a single convention, especially the largest (GENCON), benefits the most people. It is tailoring the rules to the majority of players.

You may disagree with that position (and I do think there were multiple valid positions), but it's a stretch to say that it doesn't have any persuasive or rhetorical force. It seems that you are only acknowledging what you portray as a "selfish" position in order to undercut other positions.

Even the argument that people want to keep the XP list "static" is not valid, because the XP list isn't static. There are a lot of changes year to year.

I don't want to argue the XP issue again, since Jeff has (for this year at least) resolved it. But, I do agree with Brad that you are assigning motives to people as a way to undercut their positions (and you certainly weren't alone). I hope that there is a lot less of that in general going forward.

This has been an interesting thread for sure. And somewhat amusing.

Mike's point of : "the vast majority of True Dungeon players only play True Dungeon at one convention, and it's a minority of players that do multiple conventions. It certainly seems reasonable to advocate for having XP rules that benefit the majority of players instead of the minority. Being able to get max XP at a single convention, especially the largest (GENCON), benefits the most people. It is tailoring the rules to the majority of players." doesn't sit well with me. In truth, being able to get XP anytime you play TD benefits the most people because it's the least restrictive policy.

I'd love to see United tell folks that since the vast majority of their customers fly out of or into the major cities that only customers flying out of or into them will be awarded flight Miles. I think a fair number of folks would tell United to go screw themselves.

I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps there should be 2 systems. One with XP where you get once per adventure, max based on difficulty.
Another where you get a different loyalty reward based on every single run (miles). Although we could argue that's what loot is for.

I would agree with Mike that if we are going to cap XP, and his other premises are true (mostly only play at me con per year, that con is usually GenCon), then making sure max XP is available at GenCon seems like a reasonable idea.

That said, I think it would be in TDs best interests to grow presence at non-GC events, and if offerring XP at other cons that can not be earned at GC would entice even a few TD completionists to go to these other cons as ambassadors for the game, that would be a good thing. I should note that I don't know how I would feel if I didn't think I could make it to 3 out of 4 yearly events on average. I hope not, because I think what I am describing seems the most fair to me.

Also, I think a LOT of people are ready to tell United that Rob....

I think everyone should go to their corners and let this discussion rest for a good long while.


10 or 20 years would do nicely.

Harlax wrote: I think everyone should go to their corners and let this discussion rest for a good long while.


10 or 20 years would do nicely.

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

See you in the next thread...

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Matthew, you said

"I think that keeping the leaderboard static is the primary result desired by people who advocate for not granting XP for new adventures presented outside of Gen Con, or who advocate for more restrictive XP rules than they themselves have benifitted from.

I don't think it's the only reason, but it's the only one that I think has any persuasive or rhetorical force."

I just have to mention - one reason that was mentioned in the thread was that the vast majority of True Dungeon players only play True Dungeon at one convention, and it's a minority of players that do multiple conventions. It certainly seems reasonable to advocate for having XP rules that benefit the majority of players instead of the minority. Being able to get max XP at a single convention, especially the largest (GENCON), benefits the most people. It is tailoring the rules to the majority of players.

You may disagree with that position (and I do think there were multiple valid positions), but it's a stretch to say that it doesn't have any persuasive or rhetorical force. It seems that you are only acknowledging what you portray as a "selfish" position in order to undercut other positions.

Even the argument that people want to keep the XP list "static" is not valid, because the XP list isn't static. There are a lot of changes year to year.

I don't want to argue the XP issue again, since Jeff has (for this year at least) resolved it. But, I do agree with Brad that you are assigning motives to people as a way to undercut their positions (and you certainly weren't alone). I hope that there is a lot less of that in general going forward.

This has been an interesting thread for sure. And somewhat amusing.

Mike's point of : "the vast majority of True Dungeon players only play True Dungeon at one convention, and it's a minority of players that do multiple conventions. It certainly seems reasonable to advocate for having XP rules that benefit the majority of players instead of the minority. Being able to get max XP at a single convention, especially the largest (GENCON), benefits the most people. It is tailoring the rules to the majority of players." doesn't sit well with me. In truth, being able to get XP anytime you play TD benefits the most people because it's the least restrictive policy.

I'd love to see United tell folks that since the vast majority of their customers fly out of or into the major cities that only customers flying out of or into them will be awarded flight Miles. I think a fair number of folks would tell United to go screw themselves.

I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps there should be 2 systems. One with XP where you get once per adventure, max based on difficulty.
Another where you get a different loyalty reward based on every single run (miles). Although we could argue that's what loot is for.

I would agree with Mike that if we are going to cap XP, and his other premises are true (mostly only play at me con per year, that con is usually GenCon), then making sure max XP is available at GenCon seems like a reasonable idea.

That said, I think it would be in TDs best interests to grow presence at non-GC events, and if offerring XP at other cons that can not be earned at GC would entice even a few TD completionists to go to these other cons as ambassadors for the game, that would be a good thing. I should note that I don't know how I would feel if I didn't think I could make it to 3 out of 4 yearly events on average. I hope not, because I think what I am describing seems the most fair to me.

Also, I think a LOT of people are ready to tell United that Rob....

True. And I think I've told United that a few times myself yet I'll be stepping on to one of their planes again in the next few days. They've got some sweet flights into and out of the Keys

Matthew Hayward wrote: Again, I might be wrong, but if we're talking about the same event then perhaps I'll go re-read that thread.


If you're talking about an earlier discussion that occurred in 2009 around True Realm, then I have no idea.

Ah - you may be correct, there.

It's entirely possible that I'm remembering the conversation around True Dungeon Retro and True Dungeon Director's Cut, from the True Realm days.

It's also possible that I'm conflating it with discussions about the early "newbie" dungeon (back when TD was still in the Marriott) which was only worth XP to players who were under ?5th? level. Originally the idea was that "no vets would bother running this 4-room dungeon" and that they'd leave all the tickets available for newbies. But as soon as someone suggested awarding XP for the dungeon, as a way to help new players get a leg up, there were worries that the vets would also want to run it just for that extra XP. So XP was only awarded to players under X level.

It was the first time I recall there being a system in place to limit who could receive XP... and that push was definitely coming from newer players, with the intent to make it easier to scale the leaderboard, rather than harder.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Raven wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Regardless of what the top players may actually want, proposals such as this have the effect of keeping the leader-board static, and so it is a reasonable inference that those who promote these approaches do so for the purpose of keeping the leaderboard static.

That really hurts. Especially the presumption between "what the top players actually want" and "proposals such as this." It's a huge presumption. The presumption is that the Top Players are the ones making such proposals. Then it follows into your "reasonable inference" that those same Top Players are promoting those approaches, in order to keep the Leaderboard static, and maintain their place at the top.

What I'm trying to say here is that, while some of those proposals are being made, it's NOT the Top Players who are making them. Nor has it been my experience that they were made with the intent of keeping the Leaderboard static.

To be clear, I don't believe it's "what top players want" either.

I think there are a few players who argue for policies that entail keeping the leader board static, for the primary purpose of ensuring they can obtain max XP by attending Gen Con only.

I do not endorse the idea that all or even many of the people on the top players fall into that category.

I think that the motivation is reversed, but the outcome would be the same.

Some top players want max XP for the year to be available by attending only one Con, and they want GenCon to be that con.

This policy would of course have the top of the leaderboard stay the same, provided all the leaders attended GenCon.

If other cons such as GHC had all 3 adventures, then everyone could attend either that con or GenCon and get max yearly XP. Regardless, the leaderboard would not change unless someone stopped playing above them.

What was not desired was having XP available at a con that is not Gen Con.
The reasons for that desire should not be speculated upon.

I do have to agree that answering simple questions doesn't seem to be too tough of a thing to do.

Personal attacks do seem a bit much.

I wasn't referring to the questions, but Matthew's entire approach approach of "I accuse you of being a hypocrite, prove me wrong". Which i view as a personal attack. I have no desire to engage in discussioens of that nature, especially on a topic that is settled for this year.

Rob F wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Matthew, you said

"I think that keeping the leaderboard static is the primary result desired by people who advocate for not granting XP for new adventures presented outside of Gen Con, or who advocate for more restrictive XP rules than they themselves have benifitted from.

I don't think it's the only reason, but it's the only one that I think has any persuasive or rhetorical force."

I just have to mention - one reason that was mentioned in the thread was that the vast majority of True Dungeon players only play True Dungeon at one convention, and it's a minority of players that do multiple conventions. It certainly seems reasonable to advocate for having XP rules that benefit the majority of players instead of the minority. Being able to get max XP at a single convention, especially the largest (GENCON), benefits the most people. It is tailoring the rules to the majority of players.

You may disagree with that position (and I do think there were multiple valid positions), but it's a stretch to say that it doesn't have any persuasive or rhetorical force. It seems that you are only acknowledging what you portray as a "selfish" position in order to undercut other positions.

Even the argument that people want to keep the XP list "static" is not valid, because the XP list isn't static. There are a lot of changes year to year.

I don't want to argue the XP issue again, since Jeff has (for this year at least) resolved it. But, I do agree with Brad that you are assigning motives to people as a way to undercut their positions (and you certainly weren't alone). I hope that there is a lot less of that in general going forward.

This has been an interesting thread for sure. And somewhat amusing.

Mike's point of : "the vast majority of True Dungeon players only play True Dungeon at one convention, and it's a minority of players that do multiple conventions. It certainly seems reasonable to advocate for having XP rules that benefit the majority of players instead of the minority. Being able to get max XP at a single convention, especially the largest (GENCON), benefits the most people. It is tailoring the rules to the majority of players." doesn't sit well with me. In truth, being able to get XP anytime you play TD benefits the most people because it's the least restrictive policy.

I'd love to see United tell folks that since the vast majority of their customers fly out of or into the major cities that only customers flying out of or into them will be awarded flight Miles. I think a fair number of folks would tell United to go screw themselves.

I don't have exact numbers, but let's say that 20% of players do multiple TD conventions and the rest do one. Requiring multiple conventions to get max HP gives 20% of players access to max HP. Having max HP at a single convention gives 100% of players access to max HP. I prefer the solution that gives all players access to max HP instead of just 20% of players.

Rob F wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Matthew, you said

"I think that keeping the leaderboard static is the primary result desired by people who advocate for not granting XP for new adventures presented outside of Gen Con, or who advocate for more restrictive XP rules than they themselves have benifitted from.

I don't think it's the only reason, but it's the only one that I think has any persuasive or rhetorical force."

I just have to mention - one reason that was mentioned in the thread was that the vast majority of True Dungeon players only play True Dungeon at one convention, and it's a minority of players that do multiple conventions. It certainly seems reasonable to advocate for having XP rules that benefit the majority of players instead of the minority. Being able to get max XP at a single convention, especially the largest (GENCON), benefits the most people. It is tailoring the rules to the majority of players.

You may disagree with that position (and I do think there were multiple valid positions), but it's a stretch to say that it doesn't have any persuasive or rhetorical force. It seems that you are only acknowledging what you portray as a "selfish" position in order to undercut other positions.

Even the argument that people want to keep the XP list "static" is not valid, because the XP list isn't static. There are a lot of changes year to year.

I don't want to argue the XP issue again, since Jeff has (for this year at least) resolved it. But, I do agree with Brad that you are assigning motives to people as a way to undercut their positions (and you certainly weren't alone). I hope that there is a lot less of that in general going forward.

This has been an interesting thread for sure. And somewhat amusing.

Mike's point of : "the vast majority of True Dungeon players only play True Dungeon at one convention, and it's a minority of players that do multiple conventions. It certainly seems reasonable to advocate for having XP rules that benefit the majority of players instead of the minority. Being able to get max XP at a single convention, especially the largest (GENCON), benefits the most people. It is tailoring the rules to the majority of players." doesn't sit well with me. In truth, being able to get XP anytime you play TD benefits the most people because it's the least restrictive policy.

I'd love to see United tell folks that since the vast majority of their customers fly out of or into the major cities that only customers flying out of or into them will be awarded flight Miles. I think a fair number of folks would tell United to go screw themselves.

I don't think the TD XP system is very comparable to an airline or hotel awards program.

Awards programs don't add up points over many years to gradually increase levels like TD XP does. They typically only set award levels on an annual basis, resetting to zero each year, except for rare situations like American Airlines Million Miler program or Hilton lifetime Diamond level. If you're Diamond one year, you are back to zero the next year if you don't earn enough points to qualify for an award level.

TD XP gradually builds up levels like D&D does, and you can't cash points in for things. Award program point levels are constantly in flux, going up when you earn points and going down when you cash them in.

Awards programs don't have any sort of ranking list where you compare your overall level with others.

If TD XP were more like an Awards Program, where you earn points for each usage, can cash the points in for some benefit, earn annual Award levels based on points earned in the previous year, then I could see getting points for each run you do.

Maybe it would be fun to have an awards program like that for True Dungeon in addition to XP. You could have a list of which players earned Diamond, Gold, or Silver levels each year. Everyone would be on an even playing field each year, whether you were a veteran or new player. Maybe it would list your level under your forum name on posts.