misery punt

Jeff is going through some self-flagellation over at his blog over the 2004 Mystery Hunt, and I have to agree with him — our hunt sucked a lot. On the other hand, since I was responsible for a decent chunk of the suckage, I feel the need to find the silver lining in his dark cloud.

Firstly, many people did have fun. It was not that we wrote a completely awful hunt with no redeeming characteristics. I heard a lot of compliments about the creativity of the arrival skits, the detail in the maps, and the transformation rules (although ORIGAMI PIRATE HAT threw people for a loop). Our innovations in approach were novel and helped expand the idea of what the hunt could be like. It was a far cry from my first hunt, which was Engimatology — paper copies of puzzles, many quite standard, and a theme pasted onto the puzzles like faux veneer on particleboard.

In that same vein, our structure (here I toot my own horn a bit) was pretty cool, albeit totally ridiculous in it complexities. I don’t think people had really considered the idea of double-use metas on the scale that we did. Similarly, the “choose your own adventure” nature of the gameplay was new. We really pushed the envelope in terms of structure, and I think it was our inexperience and lack of foresight that caused the failure rather than problems inherent in the ideas.

Jeff’s main beef is with the testing process, which I agree was terrible. I think the root reason is that we had 50+ people wanting to be a part of the organizing team, but not wanting to do any real work for it. So we wrote 100+ puzzle, nominally assigning 2 to each person. Then testing began, and nobody wanted to sit down and actually test puzzles, so this Wiki thing was set up for people to bandy about solution approaches. This had the benefit of letting authors get inside the heads of the solvers a bit, but then we had people test-solving puzzles over the course of weeks. Test solving groups were small, so people allocated extra time to compensate for size and lack of 133tn355. A far better system would be to have the team divided in half or thirds at most and have them all sit down and toil on a set of puzzles for 5 hours, with a ten minute debriefing with the authors afterwords. Too much accomodation was made for 5 remote test solvers. We had phones — we could have called to get feedback on our puzzles.

To sum up, we had a lot of great ideas with terrible execution. That is not to say that OPS screwed up, or that PUZZ was not on top of things or QA was too slack. We just lacked the experience to make rational judgments about puzzle difficulty, hunt difficulty, and so on. I showed up in Cambridge a week before the hunt and lived in Building 4 the entire time until we moved to the Bush Room, and then I slept in there. I hardly saw any of my friends who were not involved with the Hunt. Of course I couldn’t make rational decisions — I was popping multivitamins all day long and living on coffee and CSS. But then again, the bulk of our team of 50 people was not around, and we were too slow to come to decisions like “this puzzle sucks too much and we’re replacing it with a word find.”

Next time (and there will be a next time) we will do better.

3 thoughts on “misery punt

  1. I already posted a novel on Jeff’s blog, but then I had another thought, so I’ll spread out my Mystery Hunt postings. (Maybe in my unemployed state, I’ll write a book about the hunt. Seriously… I could interview Brad Schaffer and other people who were involved Back In The Day, I’d write about recent hunts and interview other teams, from large to small, and the second half could be sample puzzles… damn, that’s a good idea. Does anyone know a publisher?)

    I think part of our problem was that we had just solved the (thanks to us) second worst hunt on record, as far as brokenness and time. We had more puzzles than Acme, and we thought that was okay because we solved the Acme hunt. (For what it’s worth, when you include metas, arrivals, and my-least-favorite booty metas, our ratio was three puzzles person, not two.) We had convoluted steps and clue phrases that no one in their right mind would see, and that was okay because so did Acme. We also stole their “hidden theme” concept and tried to steal the “hidden round” idea (training puzzles vs. Booty Metas), but didn’t execute nearly as well. Not to say that I didn’t like the Matrix hunt, but it had the same problems ours did, on a smaller scale. Instead of looking at that hunt and trying to avoid their pitfalls, we just copied them. Which is why we went and talked to Lance so much.

    But this is the silver lining blog, so I should be more positive. We got the hunt ASA recognition, a two page spread in the yearbook, and SLP’s “Undergraduate Program of the Year” award. Plus, we had awesome costumes. And even if we did suck, I had a heckuva good time (now that I’ve forgotten about all the stress and sleep deprivation). Hurray for multi-vitamins, ass-and-titties, and plaster skulls!

  2. anand, you’re dumb. this year’s hunt was awesome. sure it had flaws, but that’s to be expected — you guys had never run a hunt before and even folks who have run multiple hunts (*cough,cough* acme) fuck it up sometimes. (i’m sorry, is cussing allowed on your site?)

    the main thing that matters is that people are having fun to the end, that the puzzles don’t feel tedious, and that somebody finds the coin by tuesday. okay, that’s three things. i never said consistency or grammar mattered. anyway, the puzzles were pretty much all fun, (i’m not a big fan of the hidden level motif, in general. it reminds me of cross country — you think you’re at the end but no! there’s another half-mile to go. very frustrating.), the theme and style were creative and intriguing. things went a little long, but you guys saw it happening and dealt with it pretty well.

    i hate those damn MIT kids anyway. fucking perfectionists.

Leave a Reply to surreal Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.