Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Rule of 6, and 8 week rotations - Clarification...

Rule of 6, and 8 week rotations - Clarification... 7 years 3 months ago #1819

  • Inept
  • Inept's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 352
All,
This really isn't meant as a criticism... so PLEASE don't take it as such!

There have been a couple of posts (and I overheard some well mannered grumbling!) recently that seem to be an objection to criteria and accepted practice for selecting players for games. In particular the so-called rule of 6.

For info, the rule of 6 was introduced a long time ago prior to us coming to the new coronation club!). It was designed so that we would have a variety of games offered in any one rotation and linked firmly with the website that Scott originally put into place (bless you my man!). The 8 week rule was implemented at the same time so as to limit campaign saga's running end on end that prevented mixing of players, and the new website used as a much better and fairer way of expressing interest in games.

I originally argued at the time it should be a rule of 4 (but was shouted down) and that campaigns ought to be allowed 1 role over (again shouted down! democracy in action!). 6 was determined to be the maximum for a DM to usefully handle and maintain player enjoyment, whilst not denuding other games of needed players. My roleover suggestion was rejected as it prevented mixing. Some exceptions were made in latter years where we had multiple games running and a a spare man without a game. (If we'd have taken the rule of 4 this would be less likely to happen! but hey...)

If you happen to see a game late, you may not get the game you are most interested in. Its tough, but at least its fair.

Some players (and DM's) have taken to reserving slots. Whatever the rights and wrongs of doing so, this happens and I haven't heard anyone complain particularly about it. so, like the rule of 6, and 8 week rotations, this also appears to be accepted practice. This is particularly the case for folks returning to campaigns. I personally love this option as I much prefer campaign play to one offs.

I hope that provides the information needed so that everyone understands that DM's are not penalising players when applying for games, they are simply applying acknowledged club arrangements for games and ensuring that other games are provided/encouraged.

More than happy to be corrected if I have any of this wrong (it was a long while ago). In the meantime sign up early to avoid disappointment!
Red Wine should always be opened and allowed to breathe....

if it doesn't apply mouth to bottle resuscitation.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Rule of 6, and 8 week rotations - Clarification... 7 years 3 months ago #1820

  • mikeawmids
  • mikeawmids's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Sadly, life can't be all gimps and mayonnaise.
  • Posts: 1092
Obviously this issue has arisen from me trying to sign up for Stew's CoC game. I will repeat, I misread the post and believed only five of the six slots to have been 'pre-sold' - if I had read it properly and comprehended all six seats were spoken for, I would not have posted. It was my error and I acknowledge that.

However, I would argue that while I would expect a GM to reserve seats for returning players in an ongoing campaign, reserving 100% of the slots in a brand new game before posting on the forums defeats the idea of "sign[ing] up early to avoid disappointment!"

Yes, we would all rather play with the people we are most comfortable with. However, if you are going to restrict your game to a close circle of pre-selected players, you might as well be playing in your own private game without posting on the forum at all.

Sure, Stew's post does specify that if any of the chosen few dropped out, spaces would open up, and that mitigates these concerns to an extent, but maybe we need rules/guidelines about reserving slots in brand new games, so that all BCRPS members have a fair and equal chance to sign up?

I would suggest that spaces cannot be reserved in brand new games (with the possible exception of people with unreliable internet access). This is not a perfect solution, as GMs could still tell their desired players WHEN the game will go up so they are ready to pounce, but it at leasts maintains the illusion of equality. :D

Maybe it is also worth considering knocking the player cap down to 5 from R2/2017 onwards, if there are concerns about the number of games running at any one time? That also leaves 'wriggle room' for people without games or new members joining the club (they could get stuck in immediately, rather than having to wait for start of next rotation). I suppose existing campaigns with six players already invested would need to be exempt from this rule, if it was enforced.

Those are my two cents, in the spirit of discussion. No sour grapes. As per opening paragraph, misunderstanding was my fault.
Last Edit: 7 years 3 months ago by mikeawmids.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Rule of 6, and 8 week rotations - Clarification... 7 years 3 months ago #1821

  • Sprite_goblin89
  • Sprite_goblin89's Avatar
It's probably not my place to post, but for what it's worth as a new member, I was extremely grateful for having a 6th place allowed for me in this rotation. I was very surprised that the spaces hadn't all been reserved, but I suppose as a new game it had no one with return-campaign rights over it! Thinking about when/if Mike were to continue with storm kings, I would expect to have a higher position than a new joiner as we're half way through the campaign but only a token invitation, not an outright "no new players". If I decline or accept the invitation to take up the position, publicly, on the forums, then it would prevent uncertainty about my attendance to the game.
But then, I am a hippie druid, peace and love all round guys.
Conner
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Rule of 6, and 8 week rotations - Clarification... 7 years 3 months ago #1822

  • mikeawmids
  • mikeawmids's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Sadly, life can't be all gimps and mayonnaise.
  • Posts: 1092
You're welcome! :D If I had already had six players signed up for Storm King's Thunder, I would have been reluctant to add a seventh (although I probably would have done as new members need to be catered for)*. Managing the Meetup page, I get messages from people interested in joining the club, but less interested in waiting up to 8 weeks for the chance to start playing. Dropping the player cap to 5 would potentially make the club more accessible to brand new members looking to join for the first time.

* although, if a new player's first experience of roleplaying is in a seven player game, that might not be the best intro and may do more harm than good in the long run. :s
Last Edit: 7 years 3 months ago by mikeawmids.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Rule of 6, and 8 week rotations - Clarification... 7 years 3 months ago #1823

  • Sarge
  • Sarge's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 844
This topic comes up from time to time, and I'll always take the stance of having more games with less players, rather than games with lots of palyers

I prefer to see them as guidelines rather than rules, as there is no committee or constitution etc, We should all agree in principal with how the the club run. No one persons views are less valid than anothers, but it is in the interests of balance that common sense should prevail

Overall there is no perfect solution, and we are all guilty of flouting the guidelines from time to time.

I would agree that going forward we cap player numbers to 5, with current campaigns being exempt. This encourages a diversity of games, promotes more members being DM's and allows easier integration should any new members come along.

As for reserving slots, I can see why this can be contentious, but its natural to talk about running games and members showing an interest. So how do we solve this? I'm not sure we can short of avoiding discussing the plans we may have for a games we intend run, and just posting it up in Games Proposals. Or just say no reservations full stop, first come first serve.

Will we be changing the number of weeks in a rotation, I suggest not. For me its a good balance.

As for Campaigns, these are encouraged but the guidelines around not running them in concurrent rotations and only one per rotation continues to make sense to me..

With sensible guidelines the worst case scenario is either choosing another game to play in, or to run a game.
Last Edit: 7 years 3 months ago by Sarge.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Time to create page: 0.119 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
MellyMel - Thu 28 Mar - 16:30

i fancy mothership if there is space (get it?) - no actually i really do

Sarge - Thu 28 Mar - 15:00

Galleons players. Sant is running a Mothership RPG one shot tonight as Coriolis is off, come join the fun!

mikeawmids - Thu 28 Mar - 14:37

Perhaps Charlie Rumble will reach Cook Island after all....

Temrane - Thu 28 Mar - 13:07

galleons folks, no game tonight, work calls unfortunately! back next week

MellyMel - Thu 21 Mar - 15:38

i believe some new user(s) are awaiting authorisation. if so please recreate request as i've just deleted the russian bot swarm and your request might be spotted this time.

Inept - Thu 29 Feb - 17:07

Apologies decent guys... Hell has obviously inflicted itself on my van... It's broke. Won't be there tonight.

rhodsey - Tue 27 Feb - 09:09

I can't accomodate two sorry but I'm happy if they want to come and observe for a bit at least then see if there's a game while they are here.

mikeawmids - Mon 26 Feb - 17:36

Two people have contacted club through Facebook page to join a game. Can any of the R2 DMs accomodate two more new players?

The shoutbox is unavailable to non-members

No events found