We seemed to have exceptionally low numbers for the random games this year, is this because people don’t want to play a random game or is it just due to the time of year? If people don’t want to take please say so, it is anonymous, and it will influence if we do this again.
Ian
Gileh
can we have some more options on the poll like "Yes, different time of year" or "Yes, I was ill this year"
metagaia
I think in hindsight it might have been better if we kept with 5 GMs rather than 6. Last time, we only had the 5, which was fine for the first week (possibly a little overcrowded in the 2nd, at least for me). It might be worth in future keeping one person as a 'reserve GM' who can take overspill if maximum capacity is reached, but won't GM if that is not the case.
I think we should run it again, just because the first one was so successful, and bear that in mind with what went wrong this time.
Death Jester
the problem with a 'reserve gm' is that the person who does that wont be able to do a complete game. When i went to the club i was forever dropping out of games to look after new people. I didn't mind doing this at all but when playing games i was always concious that i may have to leave. sort of made it hard to enjoy.
If it is organised properly in advance then all people should be assigned a slot in a game a couple of weeks ahead of schedule so that nobody is without. And of course if its organised that far in advance then people shouldn't be coming along needing space in week 2.
HDimagination
Death Jester wrote:
the problem with a 'reserve gm' is that the person who does that wont be able to do a complete game. When i went to the club i was forever dropping out of games to look after new people. I didn't mind doing this at all but when playing games i was always concious that i may have to leave. sort of made it hard to enjoy.
If it is organised properly in advance then all people should be assigned a slot in a game a couple of weeks ahead of schedule so that nobody is without. And of course if its organised that far in advance then people shouldn't be coming along needing space in week 2.
I'm sorry Death Jester, but this game shuffle was organised 2 weeks in advance. But we had a low turn out like Dead said in his OP. I think that what Dead is trying to find out if the low atendance on monday was down to people not fancying the game they were drawn for or if it is was down to problems in real life.
dead
Death Jester wrote:
the problem with a 'reserve gm' is that the person who does that wont be able to do a complete game. When i went to the club i was forever dropping out of games to look after new people. I didn't mind doing this at all but when playing games i was always concious that i may have to leave. sort of made it hard to enjoy.
If it is organised properly in advance then all people should be assigned a slot in a game a couple of weeks ahead of schedule so that nobody is without. And of course if its organised that far in advance then people shouldn't be coming along needing space in week 2.
The problem was not the organisation, that has worked out fine. A number of people have dropped out for a variety of reasons. I was wondering if its just a case of it being silly season at home and sickness or are people just not that interested in the idea which is influencing their decision to come.
Besides arranging assigning players too far in advance is counter productive. Most people wont be able to tell you they cant make it until the week before anyway.
Ian
Haxar
I wasn't absent because it was random games week, that was just RL butting in. I like the idea of a random games week. I think it just came at a time when works christmas dos and visiting family happen for a lot of people. Next time, run it in easter, when nothing but chocolate happens.
paz
I would've been there if I hadn't been ill. I'm not sure about the way we organise the 'shuffle'; I like the idea of mixing things up a bit, but I'm not sure the 'pick 6 GMs, names out of a hat' method is the best way of doing it.
ian jones
The honest truth for my none attendance is change of game at time of year.
If i was in the long running game i would have made sure i turned up as i had made a commitment to the rest of the group.
I had a combination of knowing:
1) I would have to work a few hours later and be a bit more tired/ stressed on mondays.
2) Wife was questioning if i was going because she is getting stressed/ tired over Christmas.
also added to that the cold(er) weather/ parking at the time i would be getting to the club. Monies involved (include petrol and food bought before club), feeling that the present game had become 'bity' because of the 2 meetings held over last few weeks (not taking away from the current campaign in any way).
So to summerize 1)random game shuffle should be done at a different time
or
2) maybe gm's should announce what they are planning (forum) so anybody who has not been in that group before can aquire about playing.
Kamikazegerbil
I think I think timing may have been our problem mainly but 6 GMs was a bit much in hindsight. I'd say limiting it to 4 or 5 would have made things easier.
I think Paz makes a decent point. While both shuffle ups allowed me to play with people I don't normally play with that was partly luck. It might not hurt to look at other systems of selecting games.
As for the reserve GM thing it could be useful if we find we have more wanting to play than those wanting to GM are willing to run for so it might be worth asking if any mind having an adventure or scenario ready just in case the above happens (the reserve GM would have a week or two of notice anyway) and if it's not used the reserve GM has a one-shot ready to go should they ever feel the need for one.
metagaia
I agree with Paz and Kamikazegerbil. It's definitely a point to be brought up at the AGM. I'm not sure at the moment exactly what system to use in it's place, but the randomness does have a slight problem of being too 'random'.
Timingwise, it's an easier thing to correct next time round, just hold it earlier!
dedindahed
dead wrote:
The problem was not the organisation, that has worked out fine. A number of people have dropped out for a variety of reasons. I was wondering if its just a case of it being silly season at home and sickness or are people just not that interested in the idea which is influencing their decision to come.
Besides arranging assigning players too far in advance is counter productive. Most people wont be able to tell you they cant make it until the week before anyway.
Ian
Organisation was a little sloppy, seemed to half on a secret peice of paper and half on the forum, but something we can easily fix next time, and not something that has actually hindered gaming for those that made it.
I definately think the time of year has been the biggest factor impacting the numbers, the 2 weeks before christmas tend to get pretty hectic.
It did seem we had too many gms last week, but possibly due to lack of numbers. Assigning players on the day of the first session might work out next time, but at the expense of cutting into gaming time.
also might be a good idea next time if some or all gm's can design a scenario that's deliberately flexible in number of players (3- to help out if numbers fluctuate on game week, though possibly unnesscesary if the next one runs on a regular week rather than a holiday period.
HDimagination
dedindahed wrote:
Organisation was a little sloppy, seemed to half on a secret peice of paper and half on the forum, but something we can easily fix next time, and not something that has actually hindered gaming for those that made it.
I definately think the time of year has been the biggest factor impacting the numbers, the 2 weeks before christmas tend to get pretty hectic.
It did seem we had too many gms last week, but possibly due to lack of numbers. Assigning players on the day of the first session might work out next time, but at the expense of cutting into gaming time.
also might be a good idea next time if some or all gm's can design a scenario that's deliberately flexible in number of players (3- to help out if numbers fluctuate on game week, though possibly unnesscesary if the next one runs on a regular week rather than a holiday period.
Oh no! Not a secret peice of paper!!!!!! Was it kept in a safe? Or writen in code perhaps?
On a serious note, yeah, I think that the low turn out was pretty much only due to time of year, well you live you learn. I don't see that there was a problem with the organisation, as everyone knew what game they were in, and everyone found a game to play, even when Dead didn't end up with enough players to run.
Also bare in mind that writing a scenario that is flexable for 3-8 players is not as easy as it might sound. That is quite a large range, and many GMs will have a maximum and minimum amount of players they are willing to run for (not to mention table restrictions).
Personally I think that we are overstating the problem here.
dedindahed
HDimagination wrote:
Oh no! Not a secret peice of paper!!!!!! Was it kept in a safe? Or writen in code perhaps?
I had no idea my game had been excluded from the shuffle untill halfway through the draw, also when the games list was posted to the forum several iterations of corrections were needed to get it right.
Next time I would propose a single locked forum post where a running list of gm's & games is kept, and visible to all.
HDimagination wrote:
I don't see that there was a problem with the organisation, as everyone knew what game they were in, and everyone found a game to play, even when Dead didn't end up with enough players to run.
I was left with no idea how many players I had, or whether i would be running at all.
HDimagination wrote:
Personally I think that we are overstating the problem here.
Agreed the season is the main factor so no need to put work into fixing something that isn't broke.
HDimagination
dedindahed wrote:
I had no idea my game had been excluded from the shuffle untill halfway through the draw, also when the games list was posted to the forum several iterations of corrections were needed to get it right.
Next time I would propose a single locked forum post where a running list of gm's & games is kept, and visible to all.
Don't know anything about this really, so I'll not coment.
dedindahed wrote:
I was left with no idea how many players I had, or whether i would be running at all.
Ok, so you probably should have been told, but by the same token, you also could also have asked.
dedindahed wrote:
Agreed the season is the main factor so no need to put work into fixing something that isn't broke.
With regards to my 'secret list' coment, I'll just mention that the last time something like this was mentioned it ended up upseting a few of the people on the comitte. I'm sure that is not the intention, but it comes across as somewhat accusatory, so I thought it was worth drawing attention to.
metagaia
I think that a poll would be better at the AGM to be honest. I do also think that it's a reasonable thing to put on the agenda for then since it's probably best if we get the organisation set out beforehand if we plan to run it again.
Shaphron
Simply to clear up confusions, I will explain how this was organised this year, as some pople don't seem to know.
Firslty, it was all organised the week before, everyone who koined in said that they owuld be there the next two weeks, so I'm thinking it was a bad time of year. None of it was organised on the forum at all.
The idea is to mix people up so they don't roleplay with all the same people, so we *wanted* to have it random. While poeple have said they do not necersarily agree with the pick a gm out of a hat idea, no-one has so far suggested a better way. I'm more than willing to embrace a different way, but I personally can't think of another way that works as well for randomising who you play with.
The actual draw was as follows: Fisrt, and mostly, pepople were asked if they wanted to roleplay at all - this being a roleplay/board games club, not everyone wants to roleplay. So those who didn't were offered Dave's game, Battlestations, described as a mix between a board game and a rpg - just a Dave told me. Those who preffered board games opted for that. The reason this was separate was because a)those who don't want to rpg shouldn't be forced to by a random draw b)those who do want to rpg, by the same token, shouldn't be forced not to by a random draw, and c) because that's how Dave offered it - he said, and I quote (well, paraphrase) I'll run Battlestations for those who don't want to roleplay. So that's why that was.
Once people had decided if they wanted to do that, they then picked a name of one of the 5 GMs out of the hat. They were allowed to veto one GM if they wanted. We only had a couple of forfits, and they were all because that player was already playing a similar game, so wanted some variety. Once they pulled the name out, their name was written on a piece of paper (which, by the way, was in no way secret, in fact anyone who asked looked att he paper themselves and saw what was going on, or got a summery as and when they asked). As I had found out everyone's minimum number of players beforehand, as soon as a GM had reached the minimum number of players their name was no longer put back into the bag, so no-one else could pick it. It actually worked out that att hat point every GM had minimum numbers (tho no more) and Dave had 2 players (requiring 4). As there was the idea that at least 2 others - jodh and Daz - may be coming the next week due to end of term, plus the possibility that others may be turning up, this was thought to be OK. Everyone who asked (and all the GMs did) were told how many and who, if they asked, was in what game. So there would be no confusion.
For next time, I think a different time would be far better - just before xmas didn't work. Plus maybe less GMs, but I owuld like to point out that if everyone had turned up, and they all had inteneded to - then everyone whould have had their minimum amounts. So 6 GMs has the possibility of working. Especially if we keep on growing like we have been. 6 was stretching it, but wasn't unreasonable given full turnout.
As a GM who serendipitously actually had everyone turn up, it worked out quite well. Although I now agree with Ian - actually handing out games on the day owuld not work as well, as we would easily run out of time to actually run the game.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Just one further point - the first day of the shuffle, the "secret piece of paper" was handed out and wandered off with many people, and left on the side of the bar, and such. So it was so very secret.
Shell
dedindahed
Shaphron wrote:
c) because that's how Dave offered it - he said, and I quote (well, paraphrase) I'll run Battlestations for those who don't want to roleplay. So that's why that was.
Shell
I didn't ever say anything close to that, I do remeber being asked if I would be organising boardgames during the shuffle for an alternative, and my reply was no I want to take part.
Seems like there has been assumptions/misunderstandings on both sides of the situation, and I still think the best answer for the next shuffle is to have
an official, updated forum thread listing games & GM's
weird that the second run went less smoothly than the successful first run.
to help out if numbers fluctuate on game week, though possibly unnesscesary if the next one runs on a regular week rather than a holiday period.
Was it kept in a safe? Or writen in code perhaps? 