Shaphron
|
Random Game ShuffleAs it's gone half-way through the year, I thought I'd bring up the possibility of another random game shuffle. I'm willing to do the organisation again (if you have any suggestions on how to improve, do tell me in advance!), so long as no-one objects as I'm no longer on the committee.
For those new to the club, we try to have (maybe twice a year) a random game shuffle. This consists of 2 weeks where *everyone* (apart from those preferring to board game) temporarily halts their games to have a shuffle-around. It's designed so that people get some chance to play with people they normally wouldn't, and to give people a variety of games that they've played.
Organisationally, we set a date of 2 weeks which it will be running on. People volunteer if they have a game to run for 2 weeks only. We attempt to match places on games to number of available players. Then, a week before the shuffle starts, I call each player over singly, and they pull a random game out of a hat. This is done in private, as each player has an option to Veto their first pull, if they don't want to play that game or with that GM. I write down who goes in what game. When each player has been allocated a game, I go to each GM and give them a list of their players for the 2 weeks. We then play for those 2 weeks, and then go back to normal afterwards, hopefully with new experiences and friends for having done the shuffle.
So, for my first, and most simple question, do people think that soon(ish), maybe the next month or so, would be a good time to have another random shuffle?
|
Jimmy
|
Yes please shuffle please
ASAP would be better for me but I realise that is a little selfish
|
Marla
|
It sounds like a really good idea and plenty of fun. I believe I would be interested.
|
paz
|
Given that I've hardly played with anyone but my D&D group recently, and the fact that the campaign still has a little way to go yet, it's probably a good idea.
|
Gileh
|
I'll participate if I can accommodate my turning up late- so rp games that are happy to write me in half way through a session.
|
dead
|
I was actually thinking about suggesting this myself.
I am willing to run but would like to play for a change. Can we give the priority to new/inexperienced GM's if possible? Use this to encourage some new GM's to come forward?
Ian
|
Liebasket
|
Yes - This sounds fun.
|
annoyinglizardvoice
|
I'm intersted in theory, but can we wait a little 'cause I'm not quite sure where will be a good breaking point in my game.
|
paz
|
One request - can we make sure the suggestions or improvements that resulted from previous shuffles are taken into account? Searching for 'shuffle' on the forum throws up a number of relevant threads.
One thing that a few people commented on was that the totally random draw meant that you could end up with a few people from the same game together.
My suggestion to try and ensure we had a good 'spread' at each table was as follows:
| paz wrote: | Do it like the world cup draw! 
Pot 1 = GMs
Pot 2 = people normally in game A
Pot 3 = people normally in game B
etc.
Draw one from each pot for each game table in the shuffle. |
So me, Matt B, Matt R, metagaia, Gileh & Teflon Billy would be in one pot (excluding volunteers for GMing), and guaranteed that only one (or maybe two) of us would be in a game.
|
Jimmy
|
Sounds logical
|
Shaphron
|
| paz wrote: |
My suggestion to try and ensure we had a good 'spread' at each table was as follows:
| paz wrote: | Do it like the world cup draw!
Pot 1 = GMs
Pot 2 = people normally in game A
Pot 3 = people normally in game B
etc.
Draw one from each pot for each game table in the shuffle. |
So me, Matt B, Matt R, metagaia, Gileh & Teflon Billy would be in one pot (excluding volunteers for GMing), and guaranteed that only one (or maybe two) of us would be in a game. |
The only problem with that is that it would make it more difficult for people to vito a game they don't want to be in. Also, we only really have two long running games in the club, so which pot would the rest of the people be in?
Is this actually a problem though? The last time the game shuffle happened this didn't really seem to be a problem did it? It's possible that one or two people from a long term game will end up together but there is no way around that really. A an alternative is that the players in long term games make sure they are drawn first and if necessary use their veto to make sure they are in different games.
In the end, it's easier to run the draw if it is simple and the more complex we make it the more can go wrong. What other suggestions were made last time?
|
Haxar
|
I think unless we have as many GMs as there are players in the largest group, which is 6 or 7 right now, we're going to get 2 players in the same group at some point but we're pretty unlikely to get 3 either way. Whichever we use, keep vetoes as it means no one has to play something they don't like.
Or we can go with the other world cup system and let a psychic octopus choose for us?
Anyway, think I'll also GM something this time so I'll post in the other topic.
|
paz
|
| Shaphron wrote: | | The only problem with that is that it would make it more difficult for people to vito a game they don't want to be in. |
I must admit, I don't know how the veto works now. How do you stop everyone drawn in the 'Jane Austen elbows-only mime' game vetoing it?
| Shaphron wrote: | | Also, we only really have two long running games in the club, so which pot would the rest of the people be in? |
Simple - one large 'unattached' pot to fill out the groups.
| Shaphron wrote: | | Is this actually a problem though? The last time the game shuffle happened this didn't really seem to be a problem did it? It's possible that one or two people from a long term game will end up together but there is no way around that really. |
I'm only going by personal experience, and what I've read today on the threads on this forum.
| Shaphron wrote: | | An alternative is that the players in long term games make sure they are drawn first and if necessary use their veto to make sure they are in different games. |
If you're separating those players out by drawing them first, why not spread them out anyway?
| Shaphron wrote: | | In the end, it's easier to run the draw if it is simple and the more complex we make it the more can go wrong. |
I'm not suggesting making sweeping changes, just taking one step to try and spread established groups around.
| Shaphron wrote: | | What other suggestions were made last time? |
From reading the threads today, most suggestions were about the communication (or lack of) and confusion over which games were actually running (or not).
|
paz
|
| Haxar wrote: | | I think unless we have as many GMs as there are players in the largest group, which is 6 or 7 right now, we're going to get 2 players in the same group at some point |
I did say 'or maybe two' in my post.
| Haxar wrote: | | but we're pretty unlikely to get 3 either way. |
Except I think it's happened both times so far. It's actually quite likely, given the numbers involved.
| Haxar wrote: | | Whichever we use, keep vetoes as it means no one has to play something they don't like. |
I'm hopeful that given the point of the exercise, people are going to pitch compelling and fun games that anyone would enjoy.
|
|
|
|