Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5726722" data-attributes="member: 22424">There's an awful lot of truth in this article. And it's also something I've had to grapple with fairly recently, as the game group I've been with since university has gradually dropped away down to the minimum number of players we could work with... and then below that point.That's definitely a factor. To a large extent, it's about priorities - if someone really wants to carry on gaming, they can probably find a way to make it work. But if gaming comes below other things on the list of priorities (and it probably does, and certainly should) then things get harder.When you have to coordinate six people, each of whom has to work around work commitments, many of whom have SOs who are more or less supportive, and several of whom have children... yeah, it's difficult.But it's not impossible...I think there are two key factors:Firstly, roleplayers tend to be a fairly clique-y bunch. Many people simply will not play with some other gamers. Many simply will not play particular games (and the 4e/PF split is particularly damaging here). But, more than anything else, most people have a game group that they play with, they're happy with that group, and they don't therefore bother making any connections to the rest of the gamer network.That's fine... but game groups don't last forever. Gradually, people will drift away, or move, or otherwise leave. And as that happens, the group either needs to recruit some new blood, or it will die out.Secondly, the default model for RPG play is the campaign, where you have a fixed bunch of players who have to commit to regular play across several months. That's a big ask, and something that a lot of people just can't do. And so, you have a lot of people who want to play, but who just can't make the commitment, and so they drift away...I think there are three things that will help:1) More communication between groups, between players, and in the network generally. The internet helps immensely with this - via ENWorld I have contact with thousands of gamers, most of whom I've never met; via first Meetup and then Groupspaces I've been able to assemble a player pool of 30 people local to me, where two years ago I knew no other players in or around Falkirk.Having more people available makes it much easier to fill a campaign - if your group is you, Al, Bob and Chris, you need to coordinate 4 schedules to have a campaign; if your group consists of 30 people, you only need to coordinate any 4, which is a much easier proposition. Also, it makes people less likely to drift off - if Bob's work pattern changes so he can no longer join the only game in town, he'll probably be an ex-gamer pretty soon, but if there are several other games out there, hopefully one of them can accomodate him?2) I've said it before, and been more or less shouted down, but a greater willingness to at least play games other than your favourite is a must. 90%+ of the enjoyment of roleplaying comes from the people around the table anyway!3) Something really needs to be done about the level of commitment required to play these games. The default assumption is that people will sit down with the same group for regular sessions of several hours each, over the course of several months or even years.That's a lot of commitment required, and many people won't be able to commit to something like that. Indeed, some people won't be able to commit to any regular pattern of attendance - their schedule just won't permit it.So, what's the answer? Good pre-gen adventures intended for play in a single short-ish session? Shorter campaigns? An 'open' campaign (as discussed on the Alexandrian's blog)? More flexibility in dealing with absences? More support for online play via VTTs?The answer is probably "Yes - all of the above." Basically, we need some means by which groups can get together as and when they are able, and to have as good a time as possible in whatever time they have. And it needs to be possible to do that even if there can be no assumption that they'll be able to get together again to continue the adventure (or, perhaps, ever).This ties in to Ryan Dancey's old "20 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours" rant. And, again, there's a lot of truth in that - any "non-fun" activities in the game should be streamlined out as effectively as possible.The problem there is that what amounts to "non-fun" will depend very much on the group. I know a lot of groups love the tactical mini-game that is combat in 4e. Personally, I hate it - too much micro-management of conditions. Likewise, while lots of people love the sheer range of options for customising characters in 4e, I hate it - give me a handful of big, meaningful choices with a decent range of options and I'm sorted; I don't need or want 5,000 different ways to marginally customise my character. (And I particularly hate that I have to use these options or I'm behind everyone else - yes, I could just not choose a background for my character... but then he's objectively worse than the other PCs. Some choice.)I have an answer to this, but it only works for me. Other people will need other answers. But, again, I think it's an area where work needs to be done:- The buy-in to learn a new system needs to be reduced (since people may not play often, they may not play much, and they may have to change systems often)- The role of "system mastery" needs to be sharply reduced, at least for groups who are hitting against time constraints - if I'm playing six times a year, I have neither the time nor interest to get up to speed on 100 supplements for the game, nor do I care enough about the intricate details of housing in Waterdeep.(Of course, for groups with lots of time on their hands, neither of these is a problem, and the latter may be positively beneficial. It shouldn't be surprising that different groups have different needs, and neither should be surprising to suggest that one game cannot suit all-comers!)</blockquote>

Verification