Gotta disagree with you there, for a number of reasons. Let's start with the basic assumption.
You asked why the system has failed. The answer is laziness. Really, it's that simple. People are being lazy. The system itself isn't necessarily flawed, people are just being crap. While, as gothwalk pointed out, the fault may not entirely lie with the writer at times, as sometimes information on deadlines hasn't been passed on (which is another form of laziness, as people assume everyone knows), there are numerous examples I could cite off the top of my head of people who should know better just not bothering their asses. This is an argument that's come up several times before, whereby people say "but I'm a volunteer; I should'nt have people making demands of me", and my response has invariably been "either you volunteer, or you don't." Now, maybe I'm unreasonably hard-nosed about these things, but I don't believe in changing systems because people are dragging their heels. If we changed everything that people are too lazy to do properly, we'd have nothing. Nada. Zilch. The only good reason for changing a system like this comes from evaluating the aims of your system and what you are trying to deliver. Personally, I like the Irish system, both from the point of view of a player and a writer. I like what it provides. The UK and US systems really don't float my boat. I'll go through why below. 1. Shared experience You mentioned this one above, but it's worth reiterating again. Some of the most fun conversations I've had down the years have drawn off the shared experience of scenario X that two or more people in a group have played or run at different tables. It draws people together. For me, this is the cornerstone of the irish gaming experience. Take that away, and you'll find that all you have to talk about with peole is games that you didn't share. Gosh, I'd just love to hear about your 16th level drow paladin... 2. Structure There is here, I feel, a marked difference in how we approach conventions. Some people like to show up, chat to some people, have a few drinks and maybe play some games. Bugger that. I want to do. I want to have something organised for me. I'm not paying somebody else my entrance fee for me to then go and make my own entertainment. I can do that myself, thank you very much. In fact, in this age of online communities, it's no longer even a carrying argument that nowhere else would I find so many people in the one place - we just aren't that isolated anymore. I don't like to drift through cons. I hate watching time slip away without anything actually happening. I want to be able to look at the timetable and think "yeah, I could do that, and then maybe that, and that brings me up to evening when I'll do that". If I want some time off, then I can take a slot off - that's ok. What I don't want is to be hanging around wondering if a table of game X is actually going to take off, and watching my other opportunities falling away one by one as I hedge my bets. This is just as much the case as a writer/GM. I will volunteer to run something in a given slot. That's fine. I don't want to be sitting around wondering if my table is going to fill up or if I have to wait until an hour later when it's going to clash with other things I want to do. 3. Investment If I'm going to write a game, then I want it to be worth my effort. If other people get to run my game, and I get to hear how they fared, that helps. It also makes it less likely that my game is only going to be run at a table full of, and I'm sorry for using a term which doesn't embrace our right to all play in different ways, crap players. I really don't feel motivated to put time and effort into crafted something special if I'm going to get a table full of muppets who would make ADHD sufferers scorn their short attention spans, and who think the height of humour is to rape the first encounter. That's not a metaphor, by the way. Sure, I could cherry pick my players, but wait - I can do that at home. So, er, why am I bothering? So, that's some of what I feel would be thrown away with a move away from the current system. Rather than, as Shane says elsewhere, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I'd much rather see people try to make the current system work. A switch over to a different system would leave us with something that I'm not really sure I could be bothered attending. Just because something is called -con, doesn't make it the experience I enjoy. It's all about the content. Bear in mind that I talk here has someone who has, in the past, removed writers from the line-up for not producing the goods on time, brought in ringers to replace them and tossed out scenarios for being rubbish. Sometimes, you just have to do that. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Nisbet" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:49 PM Subject: [irish gaming] Why the Irish Con Scenario System Has Failed. > Ireland, for those of you that are unaware, runs a very different > system of scenario running to most other countries. Here one person > writes a scenario then it is run by multiple GMs across a number of > tables. There are many benefits to this system. It allows a large > number of people to play a popular game with a requirement for only > one scenario. It allows people to run games without having to write > them and it allows a shared experience amongst players that has fed > many a post-con conversation. There are a bunch of fringe benefits as > well and I have been a staunch defender of the system (primarily > against sign-up sheets and single table games) for many years. > > However I now feel that the system has broken down to the point where > it is hampering enjoyment for all concerned, the con organisers, the > GMs and the players. There are also considerations relating to > reduced tabletop RPG player numbers. My feeling at this point is that > we either need to change the system, or simply change system, to > reflect modern realities. > > I suspect this discussion is easiest to consider under a few headings, > so that's what I'll do: > > 1) Scenarios and Deadlines > > Way back when (there'll be a lot of this), scenario deadlines were > something that most people adhered to, roughly, anyway. Yes, there > were always last minute people, but more stuff came in on time than > didn't. This meant that scenarios could be reviewed, possibly even > suggestions made, photocopied and distributed weeks before the con. > The Irish system relies on this and recently this has been happening > less and less, even with the more organised events such as Gaelcon. > The assumption now is that later is fine. This is, of course, grand > if you're guaranteed to be the only one running your event, but if > there's the possibility that it might need to get to other people, > this falls down. > > 2) GMs and Preparedness > > Of course the above flows directly into the matter of prepared GMs. > In order to prepare your GMs you need to find out what they're willing > to run and then get them the scenarios in plenty of time. For this > you need to have a list of GMs and all the scenarios. More and more > the system is devolving into giving people two minutes to read the > pages and then pointing them at a table. I'm not saying this didn't > used to happen, but in previous times there was a pre-slot briefing > session with the writer which could make up for a lot of not reading. > So the GMs had a coordinated view of the scenario and any questions > that weren't answered in the written document could be answered live. > This, to my mind, greatly improved the experience. I haven't heard of > a briefing session happening at an Irish con in years. Equally there > used to be a proper debrief, which gave an opportunity for discussion > and criticism, which would lead to improved scenarios next time. > Again, this doesn't really happen any more. > > 3) Player Numbers > > When I started going to cons in 1990 you could expect fifteen or more > tables of the big games at Gaelcon. By the mid-90s the numbers were > still high at Gaelcon and Warpcon for Vampire, Cthulhu and AD&D with > the smaller events still pulling in decent table numbers. Even > smaller systems had multiple tables running. Today those numbers have > shot down. The latest figures I have to hand are for Gaelcon 2005 > when there were three tables of Cthulhu. It's not impossible that > only two of those tables ran. So there goes your massive shared > experience right there. And of course with fewer tables running, > organisers are putting less effort into getting lots of GMs organised > and so forth, it all feeds into itself. > > So, we're left with scenarios arriving late, two or three tables > running, with all bar the writer likely being an ill-prepared GM. > This isn't a way to encourage people to play scenarios and it's > putting a huge organisational burden on some people that doesn't pay > off. > > So, what should be done about it? > > I feel we've passed the point of no return on the old system. While > there are ways of bringing con numbers back up, I don't think that > will translate, ever, into returning tabletop RPG numbers to their > previous high level, there's just too much else going on. So we can > continue our current system of trying to get an extra couple of tables > going, with all the additional organisational effort, or we can go a > different way. It is, perhaps, the time to move in the direction of > our neighbours, to encourage more people to write a scenario they'll > run themselves and either sell tickets to a single table (as tends to > be the situation in the US I believe) or offer UK-style sign-up > sheets. At that point it doesn't really make much difference, it's > the writer/GM shift that's the bigger piece. > > Scenario quality control is still possible, should it be required, as > is selling tickets. However it gives the writer a more relaxed > writing experience as they know they'll only be writing for themselves > (or a designated GM perhaps) and the players know that the person at > the table hasn't had a wodge of paper thrust at them five minutes ago > by a desperate RPG co-ordinator. > > The system, when it was organised and it worked, worked really well. > I firmly believe that it's a better system than single table (although > that has its place) and I'd love to go back to those days, however > reality has dictated otherwise and the system we have right now is the > worst of both worlds. Time to change. > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
