Shogi

Remember a few weeks back, when I wrote about The Duke, and talked how my enjoyment of the game at GenCon sprang (in part) from my fond memories of Shogi?

While in the garage last week, I found my copy of Shogi For Beginners, which is fortunate, given the current prices for the book.  And I realized that I want to play more of the game.

So I went to Amazon and ordered a cheap set.  This set, to be more precise.  I chose that one because of its nonstandard markings.  Unfortunately, the set was terrible, and so I returned it. It was low-quality yellow plastic with an extremely cheap yellow vinyl mat for a board.

No.  Really:

So, instead, I've ordered this set, which was recommended to me by a friend. It also uses nonstandard markings, and the way each piece moves is printed on the piece itself using a very clear (and concise) notation which reminds me a bit of the Navia Dratp notation.  The promotion zones are colorful and clear.  And I trust my friend's input.

So why do I crave more Shogi instead of the more common (and more conventional) Chess?

Let's start with "I'm not good at either of them."  I'm a decent Chess player.  Not exceptional.  Not tournament-level.  I understand the concept of the game, I know how the pieces move, and I am good at seeing my own doom coming.  I'm even pretty good at frustrating my opponents.  I'm just not good at getting the win.

So what's different enough about Shogi that I want to play more?

Most of the people I know are on a near-equal footing with me.  The game is similar enough to Chess that it's familiar, but it's different enough that strong players of one aren't going to necessarily be strong players of the other.

Captured pieces are captured and not eliminated.  When talking about Chess, we refer to pieces as having been captured. In reality, they have been destroyed. Eliminated.  They are no longer at all relevant to the game.  In Shogi, any piece I capture, I can put back on the board under my control. It means that sacrifice plays suddenly require a bit more thought.  Because that Lance that I sacrificed a few moves ago could be used against me at any point.

Multiple pieces in Shogi can promote.  In Chess, only the Pawn can promote, and only if it reaches the eighth rank.  In Shogi, pretty much any piece except for the Gold General is able to promote.  Each piece also has a specific promotion, too, so it's not like I can have a force of all Queens.  Most of them promote to Gold General, but not all of them.  And promotion doesn't require reaching the ninth rank - you only need to reach the seventh.

There is only one Rook and only one Bishop in Shogi.  Knights only move forward (not sideways or back). Pawns don't attack diagonally. There's nothing that moves like a Queen - instead, there are two types of Generals who move differently.  And there's a piece that moves like a pawn only with no "one space per turn" limitation.

It all leads to a game that has a great deal in common with Chess, but has enough significant differences that it has an entirely different feel.  The different knight, for example, cripples my usual Chess strategy.

And sometimes that's all you really need, right?

Now I need a Xianqi set and a book on that ...

Chicken Caesar

I have a weakness for puns and bad jokes.  I'm sure you all know this by now. I also spend waaaay too much time on Kickstarter, looking for games I might want to back (or things to snark about).

But somehow, I missed the Kickstarter for Chicken Caesar. Maybe the game description just didn't grab me.  Maybe the description clashed too much with the punny name.  I don't know.  Either way, I didn't back this one - and I regret that.  I picked it up a few months ago, and have been trying to get it to the table for a while.  When it finally hit the table, it did so with three players - and I didn't like it.  But I saw potential, so wanted to try it with more.  And I'm very glad I did.

Chicken Caesar is one of the purest political/negotiation games I've played in a while - and it doesn't have to be played that way, either.

Let me get this out of the way:  While the game is playable with three, I do not recommend it with three.  Looking at the poll at the top of the game's page on BGG, it looks like most of the folks there agree with me on that front.

The goal of the game is the acquisition of money.  You collect money via taxation, and, at the end of the game, by cashing in the rank insignia that your chickens have collected.

Each player has a family of six chickens to work through the political structure.  If someone loses all six chickens, the game is over.

The board represents the political structure of the chickens.  At the top is Caesar, followed by the Censor, three Consuls, three Praetorians, and three Aediles.  Beneath them are the Quaestors.

I've probably misspelled at least one of those roles.

The Caesar is chosen from amonth the Consuls.  The Consuls are selected from among the Praetorians. The Censor is elected from among the Aediles.

Each role also has an assigned task.  The Aediles set the tax rate, which determines how many of the guards are traitors.  The Praetorians get to assign the guards to the various offices, which will determine how many chickens will get eaten on a given turn.  The Consuls get to approve monument upgrades for dead chickens (they really don't do anything for the first two turns), and the Censor must exile one chicken per turn.  Caesar has a veto that he can use once per turn.

Each role also has an insignia - and every chicken gets their badge of office every turn. But each chicken can only wear one of each insignia, so extras go to a family pool, which can later be dedicated to dead chickens.

The game sets up a tricky balancing act - Caesar dies if any chickens die during his first term as Caesar.  He also dies automatically at the end of his second term as Caesar.  And the Caesar rank badges are worth a ton of points at the end. So Caesar wants a fairly low tax rate so that he can stay alive.  But a higher tax rate means more money in Caesar's pockets.  Aediles are more likely to get eaten than other roles, but they also get money based on the tax rate.

And you want a dead chicken or two - the extra insignia are not worth a ton of points, but if you can get those extra insignia onto your dead chickens, they are added to sets which are worth dramatically more points. But too many dead chickens and you won't get enough points.

The Praetorians get to decide where chickens are going to be eaten - and they often want some chickens eaten (unless they are allied with Caesar - or are from the same family as Caesar).

We've found that - with four players - the game is almost more of an economic game than a political game.  Almost. I hope to try it with six sometime soon.

It's not a perfect game - two allied players have the potential to slow the game to a halt if they are careful.  The only thing Consuls can do the first few turns is try to be elected Caesar.  If any player manages to get two chickens in one rank, they wield a disproportionate amount of power, regardless of the role.  And you can't let anyone

The game ends when there aren't enough Quaestors to fill the open roles, when one of the stacks of rank insignia runs out, or when one player is out of chickens.  At that point, "extra" insignia are turned into small amounts of money.  Insignia which are on chickens (living or dead) are assembled into sets, which are cashed in for money.  Most money wins.

Rules-wise, it's pretty simple.  There are a few rules which are easily overlooked, but the rulebook makes a point of highlighting many of these at several points.

There is no random element in this game.  None. The game is 100% about negotiating with other players for what you want. And knowing when and how much to offer as a bribe.

I like it better than Diplomacy, and it takes only a fraction of the time, making this game a clear winner in my book.

The Duke

Twenty years ago, I was a Japanophile. I ate a ton of teriyaki (with chopsticks), I watched a lot of anime, and I read a ton of manga.  At the time, I was much more a role-player than a boardgamer, but I still had a fascination with good board games.

In Seattle, there is a store called Uwajimaya.  It's a Japanese grocery with a couple of local branches.  The one in Seattle also includes a Kinokuniya Bookstore, and during one visit, I wandered out of the manga section and found a magnetic travel copy of Shogi. It was hidden in and amongst several much more expensive sets, but I still found it. I grabbed it and a copy of Shogi for Beginners, and called it good.

I puzzled over it for months, but didn't manage to get a game in for a while.  Not until my college fencing partner turned out to be a Shogi player, and spent some time going over the game and some of its strategies with me.  I was still never any good at it, but at least I started to figure out why I was losing so badly.

One of the distinctive features of the game is that the pieces are double-sided, and some pieces which reach a certain part of the board may promote themselves to a different piece which then moves differently.

Then, about ten years ago, I encountered Navia Dratp.  It was a collectible chess-like game, and each piece had a different movement pattern again.  And, in a clearly Shogi-influenced way, most pieces had the ability to promote themselves. And, if you could promote your King (called the "Navia" in this one), you won.  The game was good.  I bought a ton of the base game and its boosters.  Then it went idle for close to a year before the expansion came out.  I never bought any of the expansion boosters.

This year while at GenCon, I saw wooden pieces moving on a wooden board.  The pieces were square, but the movement reminded me a great deal of Shogi - in part because they kept flipping over.  I asked what the game was, and was told it was a new game from Catalyst Game Labs called The Duke.  It had apparently been Kickstarted, and I had missed it.

But I had to try it. So I did.  And I liked it.  A lot. Because it reminded me of both Shogi and Navia Dratp, two games that I very much loved.  But you don't have to just take my word for it, either - Catalyst has made it available for download as a print & play game on their website.

I've ordered it from my FLGS (I didn't buy as many games at GenCon this year, because I made a conscious decision to support my FLGS instead), but it hasn't arrived, yet.  When it gets here, I very much hope that Stephanie enjoys it as much as I do.

NPCs

I watch way too much TV, sometimes.  And too many movies.  And I probably read too many books, too.  Especially when every thought I have while reading or watching is game-related.

At times, it's led to some really entertaining conversations.  "Wow," I'll say to Stephanie, "That author relies too much on his NPCs."

I love conversations that you see here and there where players try to generate [character] from [media] in [system]. I don't tend to participate, but I love some of the discussion that springs up.

My favorite game these days is "spot the NPC."  There are characters who are obvious NPCs - assuming a traditional game structure.  Which you can't always do these days.

See, Smallville - the TV series, that is - was good, and in a traditional game, the party would have been Clark, Lana, and so on.  As the overall villain of the thing, Lex would have been the villain of the piece - and an NPC.  But when Smallville the RPG came out, it was structured in a very non-traditional way and Lex was one of the sample PCs.

But there are other - larger - media properties where the author(s) have wielded NPCs poorly.

And here I step into the role of heretic.

I think that it's hilarious every time someone writes up stats of Gandalf, because - to me - he's clearly an NPC.  Think about it.

Start with The Hobbit - who assembles the party and starts the adventure moving?  Gandalf.  Yes, the Dwarves were already known to one another, but Gandalf set the meeting point - and really, it's a party that ... um ... wasn't well-assembled.  Who is conveniently off-camera and/or completely ineffective every time something important is happening?  Gandalf.

Now look at the trilogy: Who recognizes the Ring?  Gandalf.  Who tells the hobbits where to go?  Gandalf.  Who generally only shows up to dispense wisdom or information before disappearing again?  Gandalf.

Yes, he fought the Balrog and saved the party - at the same time, that could have been the GM realizing that the party was relying too heavily on Gandalf's Navigation and trying to remove him from the picture.  Even though the entire Moria sequence is filled with Gandalf saying, essentially, "I think it's this way, but I'm not sure."  Honestly, it sounds to me like a GM who wants the party to do some exploring on their own.

Later, the party was split, and they weren't doing so well.  Who got most of the party back together?  Gandalf.  Honestly, if Tolkien was my GM, I'd have been pretty annoyed at this meddling wizard who was really only helpful under duress most of the time.

It's a common problem with NPCs.  You need them to fill your game world - and it can be nice to have one in the party to help keep them on track - but you need to balance that with the need to make sure the players are having fun.  Because the game is all about the players.

If the party is stumped because they've encountered a puzzle that they can't solve due to a run of bad die rolls, then find a way around the puzzle.  Don't have Bob the Torchbearer suddenly remember that his dad (the clockmaker) had constructed something similar.  You can drop hints.  Maybe Bob the Torchbearer has a similar pattern stitched onto his coinpurse, and you can allow the PCs to roll again.  Maybe Bob has an idea that doesn't sound like a good one - but it puts the party on the right track.

The NPC is there to keep the party on target, not to solve the party's puzzles and problems. NPCs can be part of the party's plans, but they shouldn't be the ones coming up with the plans.

Here are what NPCs should be used for:

• Setting flavor/Background
• Plot hooks
• Villains
• Knowledge Resources
• Carrying Things
• Clues (not solutions)
• Skill Gap-Fillers (though this should be rare -a party should never face an obstacle that they are incapable of overcoming)

Here are a few things NPCs should not be used for:

• Essential Skill Gap-fillers
• Problem solvers
• Party Salvation (unless the party cashed in a favor or called for help, in which case some of this is acceptable)
• Railroad Enforcers to keep the party from straying off the path

I'm a sandbox gamer.  I like creating worlds and then setting things in motion.  In my current Cthulhutech game (that I need to get back to running), for example, the PCs are all cops.  Their Captain is an NPC, as are the other authority figures.  In general, they are assigned a case (or cases), and are left on their own to solve them.  I have a chart in my head that lists each case and what is happening in what time frame on these cases.  If they focus on one issue, that won't stop the looming gang war.  It won't stop the Feds from transferring the cultists that they need to question to the Puyallup Valley Correctional Facility.  The Deep Ones won't stop their planning just because the party is chasing down an Occult Drug Dealer instead of following up on that unusual firearm that some kid fished out of the Sound.

I recently acquired an excellent tool for building NPCs.

See, most NPCs don't need full stats.  They often don't need any stats at all - they just need personalities.  In my Cthulhutech game, for example, the party doesn't have a Techie - they just turn to Askrob for help, and he tells them what they find out.  Now, I could roll for what he finds, but if I need them to have information, then I need them to have information. Leaving the disclosure of that information up to a die roll is silly.

So Askrob - despite being an important supporting character - doesn't need stats.  He needs a personality.

Left to my own devices, most of my NPCs would be almost the same - Sarcastic and argumentative or timid and jumpy.  In fact, too many of my NPCs are ... flat.  I'm willing to admit that. It's one of my (too many) weaknesses as a GM.

A few months back, I backed a project on Kickstarter called Short Order Heroes.  I've since received my copy, and it's now available for pre-order.  It's a deck of personality traits.  Need a quick NPC?  Pull a trait or two (or three).  Boom! Instant NPC.  You can even tell your players which personality traits your NPC has, so they know how to react to him (or her).

Of course, I may be a bit biased. One of the Kickstarter-exclusive promo cards was loosely based on me ...

Mazaki no Fantaji

Just over three years ago, I backed a little game called Early Dark on Kickstarter.  They had a decent pitch for an interesting-seeming game - and I had the cash to spare.

They delivered in a reasonable amount of time, too.  I was moving at the time it arrived, so I set the book aside and ... it vanished in the move.  So it's in a box somewhere in the garage.

Either way, the team behind Early Dark has a new project up on Kickstarter - I mentioned it last week.  It's called Mazaki no Fantaji.

Because Early Dark delivered, I decided to back Mazaki no Fantaji.  The best way to encourage the industry is to fund the industry, right?  And I'm all about supporting the "little guy."

As an added bonus, there is a preview up on DriveThru for Mazaki no Fantaji.

So I thought I'd take a look.

Putting these previews up is always risky for the publisher - there are people who will not back because they dislike the preview.

I'm rapidly reaching the point where I won't back without a preview and/or rulebook - even if I never look at it. Because that preview shows that you have finished something.  It shows that you're willing to take the risk of people disliking your product.

There are a few things in this preview I dislike.  Some of the language strikes me as odd - for example, they refer repeatedly to the "Nopo Continent" instead of "the continent of Nopo," once and then just "Nopo" throughout.  The resolution engine is described as "crazy versatile," which sets my teeth on edge.

But there are a number of things I like, too.  The layout is clean. The art is crisp. Yes, they did the "text over a background" thing, but the text isn't unreadable because of it.  And the rules are clear.

Character-wise, it reminded me - in parts - of FATE or Over the Edge.  There isn't a pre-set list of stats. No Strength, Intelligence, Charisma and the like - instead, your character is described by a series of descriptors, which the player chooses.  Each character also has a niche - it's their place in society.  I vaguely remember something similar in Early Dark, so this may be the "signature" of Anthropos games.

I also like that they didn't bother with a Mook rule - instead, low level foes are an Obstacle.  So a pack of wild dogs is (mechanically) treated almost exactly the same as a trap or a moat or a locked door.  I wish more games did this.  It suits my storygaming side, because it makes it clear to players how important a given encounter is.

Also of interest to me: You can overcome an obstacle by removing all of its Drama or by removing all of its Health.  In other words, "Once there is no fear of X, there is no need to continue dealing with X."

In addition to the quickstart, they apparently also have videos on their website. Theoretically.  I can't find them. But that could just be me fumbling my Search check.

So why am I not actually discussing the mechanics, here?  Because the Quickstart is free and you can decide for yourself.

You'd better hurry, though.  The project ends next week.

The Player of Games

I'm going to wander a short distance away from gaming for a moment.  Please bear with me.

If you follow my twitter feed at all, you'll have seen - in and around the "Gamethyme Played X" and the "NEW BLOG POST: BLAH" tweets - that I've started sharing occasional snippets from books that I'm reading (or have read). I enabled this on my Kindle several years ago when I got my DX, and have enabled it on my other Kindles, too.  It's just not a feature I've used much, because normally I'm not a social reader. I'll discuss books I've read with friends, and will make recommendations to a few of them, but that's not why I read. I read for me.

Twenty years ago, I read The Player Of Games. It was my first - and, until very recently, only - experience with Iain M. Banks' "Culture" series. It's a bunch of books that are only loosely connected - they take place in the same setting, but there is little or no crossover of characters from book to book.  Really, you can read them in any order and it won't hurt things at all.

And - until recently - it's been a significant gap in my SF reading history. It's one of those contemporary pieces that SF junkies discuss at conventions and that are written about by scholars.  In many ways, the series is a touchstone of modern SF.  It's often credited for reviving the Space Opera subgenre, in fact.

As I said: I read The Player Of Games more than twenty years ago.  Closer to 30 than 20, truth be told. And then I didn't read another Culture book until 2011, when I read Consider Phlebas (which my adult and more jaded tastes found ... mediocre).

I'm glad I decided to re-read The Player Of Games, however.  Because some of its unspoken assumptions about the Culture amuse and interest me.  The main character is famous because he is good at games.  Very good at a wide variety of them, in fact.  That is his sole claim to fame.

Not sports. Not politics. Not acting.  Games.  Board games. Card games.

There are a few people on the planet who are famous because of games.  Bobby Fischer. Garry Kasparov. Boris Spassky. Interestingly, these are all Chess players.  In Asia, Go players have similar levels of fame. But it's mostly limited to aficionados of the game in question.

It sounds like a form of Paradise to me.

If you read SF - specifically of the Space Opera variety - and are at all curious about this series, start with this one.  As I said: The series is only loosely tied together, and you can read it in any order without creating major problems for yourself.

Convention Photography

I mentioned to a friend a few weeks ago that I wanted to write an article about "how to photograph women at conventions without being a creeper."  And I started to write it, and I realized that there was more to it than the two or three paragraphs I'd thrown down.  Not only that, but at GenCon a few weeks back, I saw men getting the same treatment that has been a problem for women in the past.

I'm only going to talk about the basics - most of these are common-sense or basic manners.  A few of them are things that photo subjects should know, too.

And no, I'm not an expert.  I'm a hobbyist who takes his hobbies seriously (as anyone who has read this blog at any length should already know). I'm not a professional photographer, nor am I an attorney. Much like my strategy articles, it will not be hard to find people who disagree with my statements.

As a photography subject, you need to know that you've already given GenCon permission to take your picture (and use your likeness in their advertising).  It's in their Terms & Conditions:

EXPLOITATION OF NAME AND LIKENESS

In consideration of being allowed to participate in this Convention, I hereby agree that GEN CON may photograph and/or record my likeness and/or voice and my participation in the Convention and without any additional consideration, I hereby agree that GEN CON and its assigns and/or licensees may distribute, exhibit, broadcast, exploit, advertise, publicize and promote my name, biographical material, likeness, voice and performance in and in connection with the Convention or other GEN CON events. I further agree that GEN CON may edit my appearance therein and I waive any personal or proprietary rights with respect thereto. I represent and warrant to GEN CON that I have not made any contract or commitment in conflict with this grant of rights to GEN CON. Nothing herein contained shall obligate GEN CON to make or cause to be made any broadcast or other use of said appearance, or to exercise any of the rights granted to GEN CON herein.

In other words, just by attending, you have given the convention (and its licensees) the right to take your photo and to use that photo in their advertising.  What I don't know is if other attendees or exhibitors are considered licensees or not.  It's theoretically possible, however.  Either way, you have given up a portion of your Right to Publicity.

Most conventions have this paragraph (or something very similar) in their T&C.

Even if attendees aren't considered licensees, you should also be familiar with a term called a "reasonable expectation of privacy."  As far as Photography is concerned, in simple English, it boils down to, "If you're in public, you might be photographed." It's legal for photographers to take pictures of people who have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In a crowded convention hall, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.  There are exceptions here and there - for example, many grocery stores have "no photography" signs posted at the entrances.  In those places, you should be safe from cameras - but a good rule of thumb is that you can be photographed while in public.

It should go without saying, by the way, that restrooms and changing rooms are places where you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and photography there without your consent is illegal.

Now, as a photographer, here are a few things to keep in mind:

ASK.
Yes, really.  If the person whose photo you want to take is already posing for one or more photos, go ahead.  But otherwise, be polite.  The words you want to use are, "Excuse me, may I take your picture?"  Or some variant thereof.  Just because you can legally take a picture doesn't mean you should.

Try To Get Out Of Traffic
GenCon has terrible traffic, and it's far from the only convention in this state.  Getting from one point to another is difficult.  As a vendor, I often had a number of boxes in my hands as I tried to navigate.  A clump of people crowding a cosplayer who is posing for photos can lead to even worse traffic.

Some of this is unavoidable - there are areas where photography just can't be done without snarling traffic.  In these cases, try to take the photo and move on.

This is something that goes for subjects as well as photographers, too.  When you just stop, you create backups.

Try to get over to the side, where there is less traffic.  This allows for better photos, too, because it reduces the distracting background problem that you see in so many cosplay photographs.

Don't be That Guy 
I can't even count the number of times I saw cameras (and phones) which were aimed at chests instead of faces at the show.  Believe it or not, it is noticeable.  From both sides of the camera.  And it's really not cool.

Yes, women have breasts. Don't make them your focal point.  If you have manual control over your focus, make sure that her eyes are the focal point of your photo. If you're using a point-and-shoot or a phone, many of those have facial recognition these days, too.  And you should be able to get the face and the rest of her costume into the same photo. Unless you're doing something unusual - and, if you are, talk to the subject first.  "I want to get a shot of the embroidery detail on your sleeve," or "Can I get a better shot of your tattoo?" - this goes double and triple when your detail is on someone's chest or rear end (whether the subject is male or female).

Respect the "No."
If you ask to take a photo and your prospective subject turns you down, respect that.  Don't hound them or whine.  They may be on their way to an event, or just tired of being photographed so much.  Let it go.  Yes, you do have a legal right to take the picture (because they are in public), but that doesn't mean you should take that photo. It's one of those places where legal and right don't have the same meaning.

Don't Use Flashes At A Tournament or Other Event
Many people take their tournaments very seriously.  A flash can distract someone for that critical second, costing them the game.  If this means you need a tripod or other stabilizer to take the picture, then do it.  If it's a tabletop RPG session of some sort, the flash can throw the GM off and make the game less-fun for all.

Really, you should try to be as invisible as possible at these.

If you're using an SLR, you should have some aperture control. Just throw your camera into Aperture Priority mode and open that aperture as wide as you can.  Even indoors, you should be able to get decent-enough shutter speed that you won't need a tripod.  If you can't, then you brought the wrong lenses - I get decent shots at f2.8.  It means you need to play attention to your depth of field, as it'll be pretty shallow - but you should still be able to get good shots.

When Photographing a Tournament, Share the Love
If you're taking a picture of your son/daughter/boyfriend/girlfriend, that's one thing.  But if you're photographing strangers playing in a tournament, don't focus on one person.  Because that's really creepy and - if they notice - can make them uncomfortable which can effect the outcome of the tournament.  Remember: When photographing tournaments and other scheduled events, you want to be completely invisible.

Don't Forget Unusual Angles
My wife hates having her picture taken.  A lot. But she trusts me to take her picture, because over the years, I've shown her that you can take good pictures without highlighting what she thinks of as undesirable traits (my argument - that she has no undesirable traits - doesn't seem to hold much water with her).  The photo to the right, for example, is one of her favorite photos that I've taken of her. Personally, I find it a little blurry and not all that spectacular, but she really loves it. Enough that she has used it as her userpic on several sites. It also highlights the Rule of Thirds pretty well - the arm of her glasses draws the eye immediately.  Were I re-shooting (or cropping) this one, I'd shift the camera up or down a bit and to the right so that her eye is in that sweet spot, instead of the arm of her glasses.

At a convention, you won't always have enough time to earn any sort of degree of trust - in fact, you very rarely will.  But keep in mind that some of the best (and most striking) portraits don't show the full face/body/whatever.  But - if you're shooting an unusual angle, try to make your subject aware of your presence and your goal.  Otherwise, you run the risk of looking - again - like a creeper.

People also look thinner when they are looking up at the camera. And - realistically - many people want to look thinner (myself included). If you're short and can do so, hold your camera up. Just be careful to avoid looking like you're just trying to get a down-the-shirt cleavage shot.  Because that is tremendously creepy.

Be Prepared to Show the Photo to the Subject
One of the advantages of shooting digital is the ability to show the subject the photo immediately.  If they ask to see your photo, show it to them.  Seriously. Don't waffle, don't mumble.  Even if it's a terrible photo, let them see it.  They were kind enough to smile or pose for you - it's the least you could do. If it's a bad shot, offer to delete and re-take it.  If they think it's a bad shot, make the same offer. Yes, really.

You should also be willing to provide them with a link where they can see it later.  I put most of my pics up on Flickr. Knowing that in advance allows me to print up business cards with the URL where the photos will appear "in a few weeks."  This also gives you time to tweak the image if you don't got directly from camera to website (or if, like me, you sometimes shoot film).

I could probably go on about this for a while - and throw in more technical detail - but, realistically, if you haven't caught what I've said so far, then anything else will be too much.

And, if I have lost you earlier, here is the main point you need to remember as someone with a camera at a convention:  Treat your subject with respect. If you follow that one rule, I think you'll find that your photos will be the better for it.