LoC RPG

Examples

To examine my argument, I’d like to present different scenarios of games I played at Gen Con this year, 2024.

Game 1
We were a “scooby gang” of sorts trying to chase down an ooze that was rampaging through town. Many, many townsfolk died as we tried to figure out how to destroy it. We finally did, but found out from the creators of the ooze that this was a test, we failed, and they are going to destroy the world now.

Was it fun? Yeah! Sure. I got to do problem solving, explore the system, did some RP with the other folks at the table, we ultimately defeated the monster, and it had a cliff hanger ending to try and draw us into the larger narrative of the setting so that we’d buy the rules book.
I don’t remember the name of the module, the name of the rule system or setting, the names of any players or characters, or any of the places in the game. I had a pretty good time. I would not seek that system out again, and, honestly, I wouldn’t recognize it if I saw it.
Was it a successful game session? Technically, yes. Was it a good con game? Not really. It’s not memorable, I didn’t feel we particularly accomplished anything, there weren’t any stand out RP moments…. It was… fine. I feel about that game the same way I felt about the flavor of a gumball from a gumball machine outside a Kmart when I was a kid: it was good while it lasted and forgotten once it was gone.

 

Game 2
We were survivors in a post-apocalyptic zombie setting who needed to get through a horde of zombies to get to a treasure. We failed almost every single roll. Like. I’m not exaggerating. The whole session, I think between the 5 players, we had, perhaps, 7 successful rolls. The system was so brutal that by the time we got to the last encounter, I determined we were more statistically likely to succeed if my character did not attempt to help the others, because the worse our failures were, the worse the outcomes were.

I don’t remember the name of the system. I remember the name of the game because it had clever wordplay in the title. The GM did a great job setting the tone and rolling with the punches as the party desperately tried and failed to do anything to progress the plot. I would play again with that GM and that system if they fell into a time slot conveniently, but I would not seek them out.
I had a strong emotional response to the game – helplessness, frustration, and despair. And in a hardcore zombie survival game, those are great emotions to elicit. But was it a fun con game? I would not say yes. Did I get some enjoyment out of it? Sure. But mostly that was down to all of the players collectively realizing we were not going to be successful and finding humor in that. When we started running away, the GM tossed us a bone so that we could mostly survive, and that was nice. But it definitely felt nice and not earned.

In these two scenarios, we have a session that did not elicit strong emotions, and a session that elicited strong negative emotions. And I would argue that neither was a good con game, because I would not recommend them to others. I don’t have strong regrets about the time and money I spent on them, but that mostly comes down to there being nothing else I was more interested in during those time slots anyway. If I’d made a choice between one of those and something else, I would wish I’d gone to that something else in hopes that it would have been better.
I can already hear the argument, “That’s just like, your opinion, man.” And, sure, it is. But my counter to that is: would you enjoy paying for the privilege of spending 4 hours failing? If that’s your kink, no shame, no shade – you do you, boo. But for the general population of gamers who are spending hundreds to thousands of dollars, taking time off work, and traveling to the Midwest United States, failing for 4 hours doesn’t sound like a great ROI.

 

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.

So, let me tell you about a great con game I played at Gen Con 2024.

We were soldiers in a historical urban fantasy where there was war between humans and the supernatural was weighing in on both sides for unknown reasons. We went to defend dying soldiers who could not be evacuated from a field hospital and were likely going to die anyway. But we were defending them from a monster who wanted to steal their souls. So, if those injured soldiers were going to die, we needed to make sure it was from their injuries, or by our hand, because that would be preferable to getting their souls stolen away into eternal torment. We managed to survive the first wave, but by the second wave we were low on supplies and the monsters were powerful. The spell caster got picked up by flying baddies, and my brute character, who happened to be on a roof at the time, did a flying leap to grab the spell caster and cushion their fall. It cost half my HP, but DAMN was it cool! And then the spell caster fell in a heroic explosion of death and destruction to take out one of the monsters. Next our medic fell, then our sniper. It was down to the machine gunner who was nearly out of ammo, the comms officer who was commanding two NPCs, and me, against the last remaining giant. As the giant approached, I dashed into the hospital tent with my grenade, ready to pull the pin and end it all if we couldn’t take the monster out that round. All the players whose characters died were standing over, looking at the map as the three survivors strategized how to maximize our chances. We executed the plan, and BOOM. Took out the bad guy with our last shot.

Man! It was amazing! We whooped and cheered! Half of us died, and the soldiers we were defending were probably going to die in a day or two anyway, but all that didn’t matter. We had a victory that we earned. We did it. We succeeded.
That was an intensely positive emotional response.
Despite the desperate nature of our situation, or perhaps because of it, the victory was sweet. And had we missed that final shot, and I’d pulled the pin on the grenade, I still would have felt satisfied that we accomplished our goal. Even in a TPK, we would have gone out fighting for what’s right, defending the very souls of our brothers in arms. Despite the futility, or perhaps because of it, either ending would have been satisfying. And bad ass.

From a non-narrative perspective, we got to learn basic character creation, mechanics for out of character RP, mechanics for in character RP, and how to work together the leverage the system in our favor. The GM was great – he rewarded us for being clever, encouraged roleplay, supported us when we missed an opportunity because we forgot a mechanic, and did a great job setting the scene.
I now own the core rulebooks and plan to run a short campaign in the system next year, and probably run a session or two of it at Gen Con.
It was a very good con game.
It elicited very strong, positive, emotional responses.

​

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.