Help me save gaming at my FLGS - difficult situation

[Retreater]

Ok. Quick history about gaming at my FLGS. The owner is a personal friend of mine from high school. I have run many games there - Pathfinder Society, Boardgame Demos, D&D Lair Assault, D&D Encounters, etc. I have had to take some time off due to work commitments to find that the tabletop gaming culture there has disintegrated into no gaming at all from a heyday of 3-4 tables of D&D Encounters every week (about a year ago).

Of course there are many factors, but the owner is focused on one factor.

There is a middle aged couple that started attending. They are older, considered "uncool" by most of the players. They are not that quick with the rules, and they do not have a good deal of Charisma. The other players have tried to "hate" them out of Encounters by killing off their characters, but they keep coming back.

To try to get back the "cool" players (who also spend more money in his store) the owner is thinking about banning the uncool players (who he thinks are bad for business). I'm in the middle of the debate between both groups (the owner and the cool players). Talking to the cool players, they refer to the other factors and say that even if the uncool players are banned, they doubt they will return. So in the meantime, the uncool players come every week and wait for a game that will never happen.

I'm in my mid 30s and can't believe this high school stuff. I would have hoped that gamers would be less judgmental than this.

My kneejerk reaction is that banning people for no good reason other than some people don't like them is bad for business and the hobby in general.

So I'm drafting an email to the FLGS owner - and he has asked for my opinion. I don't know 100% if it's the right way to go or not, but I would appreciate feedback on the situation overall.

Thanks.

 

[BriarMonkey]

You mentioned you spoke with some of the other people about "other factors" at play. Are those something that can be mentioned? I have to say, if the "ban" has no impact on the other players' desire to return, it sounds like these "other factors" are actually quite significant.

But on the very face of it, I'd find it hard to believe that just a couple of people would have that large an impact across all games on all days.

 

[Retreater]

I have mentioned the other factors to the owner, and they're things that he can't easily do anything about. For example, the players want to be able to drink beers at the game; they want to be able to play later in the evening (which would last an hour or so beyond the store's closing time); they also do not like the change in format of Encounters when they started adding D&D Next into it.
Mostly, this is tabletop RPGs that the walkout has affected, with the biggest impact on Encounters. He had only about 4 people willing to DM (including Lair Assault, etc.), and those DMs have walked out of the store (again, for a combination of reasons).
I don't know if banning a few obnoxious gamers will be enough for him to revive the tabletop hobby at his store, and it might backfire on him if he gets a reputation in our small town for playing favorites.

 

[BriarMonkey]

I'm thinking any banning will not help. It will not help any perceptions of Encounters - much less the addition of 5e to the mix; it won't help with alcohol (which is a whole other legal and liability issue); and it won't help with gaming hours. But, it could help garner an adverse reputation - as you mention.

If the issues are around WotC and their promotions - then you have precious little chance of fixing that.

However, has there been any discussions as to expanding gaming to include boardgames, other RPGS, or games such as Magic? Diversification could help overcome the Encounters issues.

Hours is a business decision, so that is his call.

And the booze, that is something that only the local laws, business regulations, and licensing can answer - if he even wants to consider it (to which, you would probably also now have to include insurance concerns).

 

[Lhorgrim]

You know, there is a great scene in the movie "The Caine Mutiny" when the defense attorney that has successfully defended the crew gets drunk and tells them what he really thinks. He reminds them that their duty as naval officers was to help the Captain overcome his issues and problems. They were supposed to work together and succeed as a team, rather than step back and watch the Captain fail.

Is there any way to convince the "cool" group to attempt to help the "uncool" older gamers to improve and join the team?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Trying to get the cool players to help the uncool is a good idea, if they're up for it. I have had players in my groups who never "get" the rules, but are fun to game with.

Those "other issues" DO sound like they're important, possibly insurmountable: booze, as has been mentioned before, is potentially a liability/legal issue. Not to mention the cleanup issue. Who wants to go into a game store that smells like the beer that someone spilled last night?

And yes, playing favorites has a nasty tendency to backfire.

 

[Nytmare]

I... really?

Wouldn't "banning" the two people open the owner of the shop up to a very blatantly obvious lawsuit?

 

[Alan Shutko]

Private businesses are free to ban people from entering in most countries, unless the reason for their ban is in a certain set of protected classes.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I'm in my mid 30s and can't believe this high school stuff. I would have hoped that gamers would be less judgmental than this.

I mean I would probably bail too rather than game with two people I don't like in an environment where I'm not allowed to drink. Especially if the venue put arbitrary limits on when I could play. And extra-especially if the game was one I wasn't too keen on in the first place.

So I'm drafting an email to the FLGS owner - and he has asked for my opinion. I don't know 100% if it's the right way to go or not, but I would appreciate feedback on the situation overall.

There are lots of ways to marginalize unprofitable customers short of banning them outright. Shopkeepers have been dealing with this problem for like thousands of years now.

But honestly, it sounds like the old annoying couple are only a small part of the problem. It sounds like the local Encounters community is just dead, and a new approach is needed.

 

[Alan Shutko]

Especially if the venue put arbitrary limits on when I could play.

Operating hours aren't arbitrary. There's a very real cost in terms of staff and utilities, especially if the extra time means you need to staff an extra shift or pay overtime. There might also be local laws limiting the hours businesses of certain types can be open.

It sounds like the folks who are upset want the benefit of gaming in their living room while not requiring them to actually have said living room.