<snip> Interesting stuff. A few caveats: 1) The sign-up sheet system has its own drawbacks. There's more choice of game, but far less chance that you actually get to play all the games you want. There's usually either an unsightly scrum when the sign-up sheets are put out, and at some bigger cons there's a confusing lack of central organisation.
2) It's not a guarantee of a good game, either. I remember one game at Conpulsion a few years ago where we signed up for a game, the GM shows up...and then stalls for thirty minutes until he admits that he doesn't actually have any character sheets or any game at all. I think a well-written scenario can help a poor GM, just as a good GM can rescue a poor scenario. That said, I'd be broadly supportive of a switch to a hybrid model. I know when I write games for the smaller cons, I generally assume that I'll be the only GM for that game; ditto for more esoteric games at a larger con. However, I don't think cons should move away from the one scenario/many tables approach entirely - games like Cthulhu, D&D and so on can still reliably get six tables at Warpcon, for example. If I were running a con, then I'd probably go for a two-tier approach. You've got a few big 'tournament-style' games with multiple tables running, and then a lot of smaller games using sign-up sheets. Gar [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
