What makes a con game good?
I regularly attend Gen Con, otherwise known as The Best Four Days in Gaming, and it always gets me thinking about what makes a con game really successful. There are a lot of different metrics folks use to determine if a con game was good, but in my opinion they tend to be related to eliciting a strong, positive, emotional response. In the context of gaming in general, typically the point of any RPG is a strong emotional response. In some cases the focus is on a peaceful, joyous experience, while in others it’s the adrenaline fueled final battle, but regardless of how things go for the characters, the players leave the table having experienced emotions.
The Purpose of a Con Game
Perhaps I should pause to explain what I think the purpose of a con game is, especially for indie TTRPGs. The purpose is to get more folks to play that game. Generally, folks don’t like to admit it, but a lot of indie game companies are helping GMs with free badges and lodging because running con games will help the indie game get in front of more people, which will hopefully generate buzz that turns into sales. Even if the game is being run by someone who is not officially with the game producers, they likely want to share a favorite system with others. As such, in my opinion, the purpose of a con game is to get people to like the system/setting. That means in 4 hours or less you need to convey how the system works, what makes it special, the plot hooks of the world, what makes the world special, and also tell a compelling narrative with a beginning, middle, and end, where players feel they have not only accomplished something, but are left with questions about what would come next if this was a campaign.
What elicits strong positive emotions?
So, given my argument that good con games elicit strong positive emotional responses, what are the recurring circumstances I’ve seen that lead to those strong positive emotional responses? I believe this comes down to two primary categories of design; narrative and mechanical elements.
-
Narrative Elements
-
Thematic Theatrics
-
Stakes within Scope
-
An Earned Ending
-
-
Mechanical Elements
-
Showcase the System
-
Calibrate Challenges
-
Reward Retention
-
In general, I think people at cons want to have a slightly more exaggerated version of gameplay than they are used to in their standard campaigns. There is something liberating about playing a one-shot character. I think especially for more veteran players, it is exciting to have the chance to play a character where you can use every consumable, you can take every risk, and you can go out in a blaze of glory. These are things that typically don’t happen in a campaign which is why con games invite a higher level of theatrics. In order to achieve those less common experiences a good con game needs to very quickly set up stakes which are achievable within the confines of the time slot. For example, a con game where I start in the Shire and have to bring The One Ring to Mount Doom probably isn’t going to be very satisfying. In 4 hours, how much could we really accomplish given that scope? Heck, we might not even make it out of the Shire in one session.
However, if the con game drops the players into characters on a big mission who need to navigate through some spooky mines sounds like a much more reasonable scope. The environment of the mines can be very theatrical. There are immediate, tangible stakes, like goblins and cave trolls. And in the end when the characters escape, either dying alongside the NPC wizard, or fleeing as he commands, the players will undoubtedly feel they fought for their ending.
What's the Recipe?
What I’ve found is that well written modules and well run one shots incorporate these narrative into the structure of the session. In general, and certainly not in every case, I’ve seen some variation/combination of the following structural elements:
-
“Getting to know each other” RP session (30 mins or so)
-
Small fight to familiarize players with the system (30-60 mins)
-
Journey segment to allow for additional RP or exposition if desired (15-30 mins)
-
Large fight to wrap up the session (1-2 hours)
By no means is this universal, but I’ve seen this structure often enough that I feel comfortable posting it on the internet as a general observation. But the reason this format works is that is allows a GM to showcase just about every mechanic in the game. Some have character creation at the con, if the system is simple enough, and if not, there is generally a written background provided, or the players collaboratively create backstories at the table. This allows players to get a taste of the world, and contribute to the worldbuilding for that session, which increases buy in. Then the players need to have some time to talk to each other in character to get settled in the setting, before a small encounter provides them a chance to randomize some numbers and learn how the system works for encounters. This usually brings the table to the halfway point for a pee break, then we resume with the journey component. Many systems these days have things that happen while on a journey. Back in ye-olde days the small fight and journey were typically combined in the form of an encounter on the journey that replicates the experience of a “random encounter” from ye olde D&D. But I digress. If there are not journey mechanics, then the journey segment is used for some exposition/flavor-text to help with immersion into the world before diving into the final fight. The final fight rewards players who paid attention to previous segments – rewarding them for learning the rules, listening to exposition, and developing their character and relationships.
If all is executed well, then this should elicit a strong, positive emotion = victory or a badass defeat.
So… what makes this different from a weekly session?
A valid question. But that’s like asking what makes a movie different from a TV show – scope and scale. Ever watch a TV miniseries and think, “This should have been a movie” because there was so much filler? Ever watch a movie and think, “This should have been a TV Miniseries” because there was so much more you wanted to know? Striking the right balance between session to session stakes and campaign long narrative arcs is a challenge, to be sure. With Con Games we’re trying to get the balance juuuuuust right. We want folks to enjoy it as a stand alone event, but also be interested in what comes next, maybe go home and read more about the lore, or swing by the dealer hall to check out the rule books for sale a the booth. In a campaign, the impetus is different. In a campaign we can have cliffhangers because we know they’ll be picked up next session. In a con game, cliffhangers are unsatisfying endings. In a campaign we can have a session where players/characters deal with the consequences of their actions and maybe don’t feel great about that – but that would be a pretty challenging con game to run, since none of the players did things to cause those consequences. Con games are different from sessions in a campaign because their purpose is different. A campaign seeks to collaboratively tell a long running story. A con game is there to get folks excited about the long running stories they could tell with that system/setting.