Sample prospectus

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Huh. It just never occurred to me to worry about location in that way. I took it for granted that anyone who wanted to play in a game would be willing to go to where the game was. Yesterday one of my regulars gave me a lift to the house of another of my regulars, who is running a campaign we both play in; it took her about half an hour to get from my place to the game location, and she had been on the road maybe fifteen minutes to get to my place. Admittedly that's kind of high end for us, but not unprecedented. Do you have longer travel times than that, or do you just have a lot of people than spend any time on the road?

Many of my gamers would be willing to drive, they're just not able to. Many of my gamers have their own families, and several of them have small children. My core group meets at one house due to those gamers having a toddler and getting a babysitter is usually problematic. Not all the small children are compatable (it's odd, but true).

Originally Posted by whswhs

(That's not to mention the two people who have driven down from UCLA, once a month. They're extreme cases, even for our circle!)

When I lived in New Mexico, I would regularly drive over an hour to get to my gaming session, one way. Currently, I drive about thirty minutes from south Aurora to DIA to game. I don't have a "family." My sister does, so she can't always get out to game, and she lives twice as far from our primary gaming location as I do. As do several other friends, both the family and the distance. My "core" group exists around people who can get to Gummibear's house.

Originally Posted by whswhs

As a result, I've never had the thing of "here's this group of people that already exists—what can I do that all of them will like?" I handed the list out to everyone and put together groups that liked the same proposals, and just took it for granted that they could all get together. I didn't even realize when I started out that I had to worry about player compatibility, though I've been giving players the right to refuse to game with other players for years and years now, and some players are effectively banned by having made themselves unwelcome to too many other players. But I took it as, "This is an invitation from me to you to do X." The players are players because I invited them; the group of players exists because I brought together players who wanted the same game, even if they didn't know each other before the first session.

And that is why I say you live in a gamer's paradise. Me, personally, I'm willing to drive a long distance to game. I'm willing to learn a game I really don't like (Hero) to play with people I like. For me, it's not that big a deal. But several of the other gamers, whom I said I would be more than happy to shuttle out there, don't like not having their car, not having the ability to leave should they need to. And sometimes, they're just simply unable to go due to other duties.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Or as Bertolt Brecht said, "If the government doesn't trust the people, why doesn't it dissolve them and elect a new people?"

All of which would be terribly dictatorial if a government did it. But no one has to game, or to game with a specific GM, and so I'm subject to market feedback, which helps motivate me to keep trying to come up with good product.

If I could only dissolve people. I would be a happy psychotic. 8-P

However, you say that no one has to game, but they may want to game. I wanted to game with Gummibear and his wife, so I learned Hero. Well, am learning it.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

Many of my gamers would be willing to drive, they're just not able to. Many of my gamers have their own families, and several of them have small children. My core group meets at one house due to those gamers having a toddler and getting a babysitter is usually problematic. Not all the small children are compatable (it's odd, but true).

That's probably got a lot to do with it. Of my current 14 players, only 4 are married (two to each other, but they're in different campaigns), and none of them has children of any age, though one has two grown stepchildren.

[selenite]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

Many of my gamers have their own families, and several of them have small children. My core group meets at one house due to those gamers having a toddler and getting a babysitter is usually problematic. Not all the small children are compatable (it's odd, but true).

I'm having trouble because the small fry are TOO compatible. My two (2 and 4), no problem. The other couple's two (1 and 3), no problem. All four have so much fun the volume gives our hostess such a headache she can't play. So we're trying to sort that out.

[Kyle Aaron]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Huh. It just never occurred to me to worry about location in that way. I took it for granted that anyone who wanted to play in a game would be willing to go to where the game was.

Cost vs benefit, and all that. "This is a game I would drive fifteen minutes for. This other one, I'd drive an hour for. This one? Man, I would not walk next door for that!" :D

Then of course there's the factor that sometimes people don't know how big the "benefit" will be. Suppose I have to drive an hour to a game, but I know the GM and the players and we've had lots of fun before and I'm really keen on the setting - great! I'll do it. But then suppose it's a new group, I've never played with any of them before, I don't really know much about the setting... but it's half an hour drive. Do I take the gamble of the cost (effort to drive) vs the unknown benefit? Depends on my personality...

When you've run a successful campaign or two for particular players, they become more willing to take the bet on a setting, or some combination of new players. For example, recently with two gaming friends we were discussing what new campaign we might play. The idea of an oriental one, a "stronger than human, but not magical" wuxia campaign, that came up. I said, "Well, I don't know Chinese culture so well as European, so I'm not as confident in my ability to bring it alive for you by means of the many small details, as I did with Tiwesdaeg."

They replied, "That's okay, a small drop down in quality from that very high place, that still leaves a good game." I was flattered and touched by their trust in me. These guys will drive a fair way for a game I run now, and will be willing to try new things.

On the other hand, the same players were offered a game with another group, it's a setting they know well enough by reputation, but they don't know any of the players (apart from me), or the would-be GM... they say it's too far to drive - though it's further for one, it's closer for the other.

So obviously, William, you have developed the trust and respect of that circle of players!

Originally Posted by whswhs

As a result, I've never had the thing of "here's this group of people that already exists—what can I do that all of them will like?"

The other aspect is that a lot of gamers don't seek out a large game circle, they seek out a little group. I think this is a kind of defensive reaction to the common cycle gamers go through - you get together in a game group, choose the game to play, maybe have a good campaign or two, then someone leaves the group or someone new comes, or schedules change and you can't get together, the group flaps around a bit, going from system to system in the hopes of finding something that sticks... but it just all fizzles.

So then the players go off in search of a new group. But this time, they're determined their group will be stable and reliable. So they have this ambition of having a single stable reliable group that they game with each week (or month, or whatever), the same players with the same GM with the same time each week and the same campaign and the same characters for years on end.

It's also a fact that many game books, that's the model they present to readers - that they'll be in this well-settled game group for years on end. So people have this image in their minds of the Perfect Group with the Perfect Grand Epic Campaign That Never Ends. So they seek out little groups and try to stay with them. It's somewhat like gambling... that you lost last time doesn't make you stop, it makes you gamble more and harder this time... Last group fizzled? Better hold on to this one...

Of the players in my current group, one stayed with a D&D group that made him miserable for six years, another with a GURPS group for two years. That's quite typical among gamers - not that they're miserable in their gaming, but that if they are miserable, they stick with the group anyway. There's a sort of feeling of loyalty to the group... Even if they're dorks.

The last factor is that it's simply easier to stick with the current group. It's hard work to go out and meet new people, to introduce them to one another, to be social and talkative with relative strangers. And if you're happy today with the people you're gaming with today, why bother? It'll last forever, won't it? That's what the AD&D player's handbook told me....

Originally Posted by whswhs

But no one has to game, or to game with a specific GM, and so I'm subject to market feedback, which helps motivate me to keep trying to come up with good product.

I've much the same attitude - I'm happy to be told my campaign idea or execution is crap, so long as they're equally willing to tell me when it's great, and will actually specify what they'd like, how we can improve things, etc. But some people are not so welcoming of comments. If criticised, rather than actually trying to understand those criticisms, they tend to justify the status quo.

"I don't like the way we do X, because of Y."
Responsive: "Oh, is that so? Well, perhaps instead we could do Z?"
Justifying: "Well you are wrong, because Y is actually great, you just don't understand how great it is, and anyway that's the way we've always done it, you're only complaining now?" (etc)

For example, my gaming friend the D&D Refugee, he recently finally gave up on that game group. He simply said to them that he wanted different things from the gaming than could be offered by the game as written, or as played by that group. The GM replied that what they offered was great, and...

So if you're willing to listen to the feedback of players, that's great! But it's not universal...

I can understand Mark Skarr's point of view here. It's not fundamentally different from yours, William, in writing a prospectus. You write out several ideas and pitch them, and then will adjust them to suit the tastes of those who express interest. Mark obviously does the same thing, but in conversation rather than with a pitch. Of course we don't have a record of their conversations, but in most game groups, the GM is the social and conversational leader (or the social and conversational leader becomes the GM, which comes to the same thing). So while the GM may have the perception that the initiative is coming equally from all, in practice it's mostly coming from the GM. "Hey how about we do so-and-so?" So Mark would be doing the same thing as William, really, just in a less formalised way. The campaign ideas pitched are just less well-formed before being offered to the players.

It is slightly different, in that it's more to the "consensus" side than the "representative democracy" style of decision-making. But it's usually easier to achieve and work with consensus with five people than with twenty ;)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

Cost vs benefit, and all that. "This is a game I would drive fifteen minutes for. This other one, I'd drive an hour for. This one? Man, I would not walk next door for that!"

Then of course there's the factor that sometimes people don't know how big the "benefit" will be. Suppose I have to drive an hour to a game, but I know the GM and the players and we've had lots of fun before and I'm really keen on the setting - great! I'll do it. But then suppose it's a new group, I've never played with any of them before, I don't really know much about the setting... but it's half an hour drive. Do I take the gamble of the cost (effort to drive) vs the unknown benefit? Depends on my personality...

When you've run a successful campaign or two for particular players, they become more willing to take the bet on a setting, or some combination of new players.

So obviously, William, you have developed the trust and respect of that circle of players!

Okay, I can see that part of the analysis. Straightforward cost/benefit, as you say.

The other aspect is that a lot of gamers don't seek out a large game circle, they seek out a little group.

It's also a fact that many game books, that's the model they present to readers - that they'll be in this well-settled game group for years on end. So people have this image in their minds of the Perfect Group with the Perfect Grand Epic Campaign That Never Ends. So they seek out little groups and try to stay with them.

The last factor is that it's simply easier to stick with the current group. It's hard work to go out and meet new people, to introduce them to one another, to be social and talkative with relative strangers. And if you're happy today with the people you're gaming with today, why bother? It'll last forever, won't it? That's what the AD&D player's handbook told me....

That's the part that puzzles me. I mean, I'm the classic fannish personality type: all through elementary school I was five years ahead intellectually and about two years behind socially. I've always thought of myself as an introvert, and the Meyers-Briggs agrees with me. But I don't find it hard to deal with bringing together new social groups for my campaigns. So I'm a little perplexed about what makes it hard.

When I started doing prospectuses, I didn't have any campaign going on. But I had half a dozen people I had met through the local science fiction club, of whom three were serious gamers, and two of those three and one other had gamed with me previously; I had the boyfriend of one of those people, and the teenage son of another; I had my division head at Comic-Con, who I knew was a gamer. These were all people I knew from previous gaming and/or in contexts other than gaming. Subsequent to them, a lot of my new players came in via networking, and a couple from conversations on Pyramid, and I fitted in one or two new people at a time, in a larger gaming group that had an established culture.[/QUOTE]

It is slightly different, in that it's more to the "consensus" side than the "representative democracy" style of decision-making. But it's usually easier to achieve and work with consensus with five people than with twenty ;)

Yes, and that means that using it tends more to encourage you to stay with the single small circle. I perceive such circles as a trap to be avoided. No doubt there are people who are perfectly happy with theirs, but I HAVE seen a number of people complaining about the narrowness, low standards of role-playing, or other unappealing traits of the circles they're stuck in . . . if I didn't see so much evidence of dissatisfaction I would be less inclined to encourage people to do something different. Even if, for me, it would be terribly dull, because I actively like being able to try weird ideas and seeing how different sets of players mesh.

For example, in my current Manse campaign, I have two players who were in my campaign set in a Middle-Earth where Sauron had one, one who was in my 1920s superheroes campaign, and one who was in my Muslim superheroes fighting against the First Crusade campaign. I put them together partly because they're all passionate storytellers: one is a published novelist, one has published a few erotica in anthologies and loves worldbuilding, and the other two are serious fanfic writers. So I asked them all to play in a campaign where they had to make stuff up, and they just took off. They have quite different play styles in some ways, but they all enjoy watching each other's strange character bits. But when this campaign is over, I think the chances of their all sticking together for the next one are very low.

[Kyle Aaron]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Okay, I can see that part of the analysis. Straightforward cost/benefit, as you say.

Not entirely straightforward. As I said, when the benefit part's unknown, then the personality of the person kicks in - will they roll the dice and see if a good game comes about, or not? Shy or confident?

Originally Posted by whswhs

I've always thought of myself as an introvert, and the Meyers-Briggs agrees with me. But I don't find it hard to deal with bringing together new social groups for my campaigns. So I'm a little perplexed about what makes it hard.

Remember that introvert/extrovert isn't either/or, there are degrees of these things. An introvert can learn to be somewhat extroverted - as the Army taught me, there's it's socialise or be beaten - and an introverted person can be more social when it comes to their hobby or work. Would you find it as easy to bring together a group for, say, a social soccer team?

Also, introvert/extrovert isn't the only aspect of human personality. You can be a shy extrovert, or a confident introvert. The extro/intro part just refers to whether you get your energy from dealing with other people, or from dealing with yourself.

The intro/extrovert aspect will simply tell us whether you (in general, not factoring in interests) feel inclined to deal with groups of people. Confident/shy will tell us whether you are good at dealing with groups of people. So probably you're a confident introvert;)

In any case, these are simply personality aspects, and reflect your basic inclinations and capabilities; an act of will, a choice, can overcome them, so that an introvert can force themselves to hang with others, a shy person can force themselves to step forward and introduce themselves, etc.

People are pretty complicated, and intro/extrovert isn't really enough to describe 'em, I reckon.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Subsequent to them, a lot of my new players came in via networking, and a couple from conversations on Pyramid, and I fitted in one or two new people at a time, in a larger gaming group that had an established culture.

So while you've got the large group now, you built them up individually. That fits in with the idea of a person being an introvert, they'll feel inclined to deal with themselves over other individuals, and with other individuals over groups. Once the group is up and running, there's less work involved than setting it up. I've started and killed game clubs, so trust me, starting up a group of a couple of dozen is hard work :(

Sorry for the amateur psychoanalysis, I'm writing a long piece on running game groups right now, so it's on my mind...

Originally Posted by whswhs

Yes, and that means that using it tends more to encourage you to stay with the single small circle. I perceive such circles as a trap to be avoided. No doubt there are people who are perfectly happy with theirs, but I HAVE seen a number of people complaining about the narrowness, low standards of role-playing, or other unappealing traits of the circles they're stuck in . . .

Absolutely! And people hang around for years on end out of some kind of crazy loyalty. "But they're my friends." "Mate, if they are truly your friends, they'll still be your friends if you stop gaming with them. If they're not, then no loss!" But I'm a bit ruthless in that way. I'll game with just about anyone at least once. It might really be "just once", though...

Originally Posted by whswhs

[two of my players...] have quite different play styles in some ways, but they all enjoy watching each other's strange character bits. But when this campaign is over, I think the chances of their all sticking together for the next one are very low.

I understand that situation very well. Two of the players we had with us for the Tiwesdaeg campaign are no longer with us for our current postapocalyptic one, and probably won't be with us for what we expect to be our next oriental one. They fit extremely well into the play style last time, but wouldn't into the current one.

Unfortunately, those two also have that "One Perfect Game Group For Ever!" model stuck in their heads, so since not gaming with them we've not heard from them at all. It appears they've taken "we're not gaming together for this campaign" to mean, "we're not gaming together ever again, bugger off!" I swear our emails didn't have that tone, but...

Had any similar experiences with your game circle? Had anyone say, "what?! I can't play this campaign? I'm off, then!"? And/or had them just drift away?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

Unfortunately, those two also have that "One Perfect Game Group For Ever!" model stuck in their heads, so since not gaming with them we've not heard from them at all. It appears they've taken "we're not gaming together for this campaign" to mean, "we're not gaming together ever again, bugger off!" I swear our emails didn't have that tone, but...

Had any similar experiences with your game circle? Had anyone say, "what?! I can't play this campaign? I'm off, then!"? And/or had them just drift away?

By and large, I don't drop people from my set of campaigns; instead, I match them up with different sets of fellow players in new campaigns. Not all my players are equally enthusiastic about this—some would like to be able to stick with the same fellow players, I think—but they all accept it. At least it's not a new revelation to them. I have a number of players who've never really been in the kind of group where people always game together; they've gamed mostly with me, after a few, often not very satisfactory, experiences, often long in the past. Then there's the player who heard about my campaigns on Pyramid, asked about joining one, and is now commuting from UCLA to San Diego once a month.

A while back I tried running a six-month mini-series followed by a longer campaign. I had a player or two sit out the mini-series, and a player or two sit out the longer campaign, but they're all still with me. At least with the mini-series, the idea of "this is a short-term change of pace" may have made sitting things out seem less extreme.

The players I've lost have been mostly people who moved too far away to continue playing; I have former players in Kansas, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania.

Then there are the people I stopped inviting for cause—"cause" meaning that they stopped showing up for games and <i>didn't communicate with me about it.</i> Two of them were a couple who were respectively a mediocre roleplayer and the worst roleplayer I've ever seen (by which I mean not aggressive munchkin but totally passive); I dropped them after one offense. The third was actually a pretty good roleplayer, so I gave him a second chance, and when he did it again I decided I could do without him. By and large, I take as part of the "dinner party" model that if you agree to attend, you either attend or give notice that you need to cancel; simply not showing up is unacceptable rudeness.

I also have one player who's been asked to resign twice by consensus of the other players. I still gave him my last prospectus, but with a warning that I might not be able to fit him in, which is what actually happened; there were maybe half a dozen players who wouldn't play if he was in a campaign, and I couldn't come up with a good schedule that included him.

Really, I think I've only heard about the "small group of people who always game together" model in online discussions; I've never encountered it, or not in years and years, anyway. It sounded really strange to me when I first heard about it.

[Kyle Aaron]

Originally Posted by whswhs

By and large, I don't drop people from my set of campaigns; instead, I match them up with different sets of fellow players in new campaigns.

In the recent case, we didn't drop these two players, they simply weren't interested in the games we wanted to play in for the next round, and in any case I was encouraging them to try some new games with some new people. One of them is now the GM of a campaign - this person had never GMed tabletop games before - and in that group of five has two people new to roleplaying. In this way, people get to try new games with new people, and even introduce some to roleplaying, making new gamers.

Originally Posted by whwhs

Then there's the player who heard about my campaigns on Pyramid, asked about joining one, and is now commuting from UCLA to San Diego once a month.

I believe we were saying something about making the effort if you're interested enough... :D

Originally Posted by whswhs

Really, I think I've only heard about the "small group of people who always game together" model in online discussions; I've never encountered it, or not in years and years, anyway. It sounded really strange to me when I first heard about it.

It exists, believe me. In practice it rarely works out. I have a long ebook I'm working on describing these sorts of things, how groups form and break up. I've sent some draft stuff to roleplayers I know online and in person and whose opinions I value, you only missed out because I figure any prominent rpg writer or editor has a) got better things to do, and b) already has a heap of fanboys annoying him with their crazy ideas already ;)

Anyway, this ebook talks about the stages of group development, stealing a bit from management-speak - forming, storming, norming, performing, adjournment and (my addition) stagnation. In the "forming" stage people don't know each-other and are super-polite, so things are nice but nothing gets done. In the "storming" stage the group starts to form and arrange procedures, etc, everyone puts their bit in, and there's chaos. In "norming," they establish their procedures and quiet down, but it's not until they really begin to gel with one another that they "perform." If the group is breaking up because they've achieved their purpose (finish the group project, finish the adventure, etc), that's the "adjournment" stage characterised by nostalgia, etc. Because game groups, unlike work groups, are voluntary groups, typically with no specific distinct realisable goal (unlike work groups), they may enter a "stagnation" stage.

Now, lots of game groups break up at the "storming" stage, because the conflicts which arise then seem pointless and unresolvable, and seem "not fun", thus defeating the purpose of a hobby. Those which make it through that stage... we're not going to meet them much. They keep to themselves. So if you don't meet them, that's why. Many of them become insular and xenophobic, averse to inviting in new gamers, or trying new games.

For example one of the players in my group, we call him the "D&D Refugee", not to insult D&D, that's simply the group he'd left. The GM there had spent literally thousands of dollars and doubtless thousands of hours on D&D stuff, so any criticism of the game he took personally. They'd try other games, but when they did so, the D&D GM would never run them, only play, and would as a player usually (consciously or unconsciously) sabotage the game in some way. Or he'd absent himself from the game, just to establish, "that's an alternate game... the real game is the one I run." One player would come and sleep on the couch, asking to be awoken to roll for combats, and this was generally accepted by most of the group as a fair and reasonable thing. The GM him placed himself physically separate from the players, on a little desk in the corner with his laptop and piles of books and maps, calling out the action to the players slumped around his loungeroom no less than five feet away each. Combats would sometimes go for two full sessions.

This took about two years to develop, but had gone on after that for four years.

We see here a classic (though extreme) example of the "stagnation" stage of group development. The group had stagnated, couldn't move on. They could only play one particular game with one particular GM and several particular players, and in a particular way. Any criticism of this system was taken personally by the GM. Any attempt to try something different, take some of the players to new games or groups, was thwarted.

Now, certainly not all One Perfect Game Groups end up like this. Many in fact Perform and everyone has fun. But in general, you can see that whether they're Performing or Stagnating, you won't often hear from them, except second-hand as now. These aren't the people you'll see at clubs and conventions, or the people who'll see you talking about your game circle on Pyramid and ask to join your game.

This is not to say it's most common to have One Perfect Game Group (performing or stagnating). I think it's more common for game groups to be Norming and Storming, then breaking up, etc. Five people get together to game, two of them already know each-other and are the core of the group. One of the players comes only irregularly, during the Storming stage, the core two argue with the other two regulars and the two others walk away; then one or two new ones are brought in, they return to Norming and the cycle goes on.

Incidentally, I think a lot of game book sales are made by Stagnating game groups. They're in desperate search for some setting or system which they'll be able to settle on and bring back some Performance to their group.

Anyway that is the sort of thing my ebook will be about ;)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

For example one of the players in my group, we call him the "D&D Refugee", not to insult D&D, that's simply the group he'd left. The GM there had spent literally thousands of dollars and doubtless thousands of hours on D&D stuff, so any criticism of the game he took personally. They'd try other games, but when they did so, the D&D GM would never run them, only play, and would as a player usually (consciously or unconsciously) sabotage the game in some way. Or he'd absent himself from the game, just to establish, "that's an alternate game... the real game is the one I run." One player would come and sleep on the couch, asking to be awoken to roll for combats, and this was generally accepted by most of the group as a fair and reasonable thing. The GM him placed himself physically separate from the players, on a little desk in the corner with his laptop and piles of books and maps, calling out the action to the players slumped around his loungeroom no less than five feet away each. Combats would sometimes go for two full sessions.

One of the players in a campaign I'm playing in has very little involvement with anything but combat. I've actually seen him get up and leave the room when the fight was over. I seriously dislike this behavior; if he doesn't want to have his character interact with other characters, he ought to go back to video games and not waste the other players' time.

[flyingwombat]

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

One player would come and sleep on the couch, asking to be awoken to roll for combats, and this was generally accepted by most of the group as a fair and reasonable thing.

I have been falling asleep during a game for sometime now. I'm not doing it to be insulting or to show disinterest, I'm legitimately tired. The upside, if there is one, is I'm usually awake within a couple of minutes. I find it like a computer being rebooted...

I am always looking for something to prevent this issue from recurring.