I'm afraid I'm in complete agreement with Brian here. This past weekend at Conpulsion was my first experience with the single-table system, and the standard was universally excellent. Typically I'll count myself lucky these days if I play two great RPG sessions at an Irish con.
I've only been going to cons since the mid-to-late '90s so I don't remember the days of 15 tables and briefing and debriefing sessions, but to hear of them here certainly fits the pattern of slippage. At a recent con I was in several games that started late, at least partially because the scenarios were being printed right then (and this was announced to us like it was understandable). It's long been the case for the savvy con-goer that the table to try to get onto is the writer's, which is a strong case for the single-table system. That said, I don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are writers who will have their stuff done well in advance, playtest it, have GMs ready and briefed and familiar with the system, provide rule-books and basically provide an equal experience for all tables, and if a writer does that there's no problem with running multiple tables. Just not as a requirement for every game. The only real argument I've heard against it is the difficulty getting writers, with which I'm not convinced - I know plenty of people who'd be willing to jot notes and run a table of a scenario they have in their heads, but are not inclined to write it as a scenario book. The organisers of Conpulsion told me they're turning away writers. Most definitely worth considering. The system is failing, sticking with it unaltered is pretty irrational. Shane -- I found out, long ago It's a long way down the holiday road
