|
While I cannot prove that the VL's are pulling favorites, I'm upset that they wouldn't attempt max out what's available. 22 players and 4 tables. 5/5/4/4/4 could have worked for a 1-5 scenario. I even took into account couples & friends. I spent a whole month waiting to run this and never been so disappointed in Society.
|
Don't worry too much about it. Sometimes tables don't go off because they'd rather max out number of players at a table than have too few, especially if it's a difficult scenario. At the last convention that I was registered to GM 3 tables at (one each day) only 1 actually had players. Sure, I was pretty bummed out after doing tons of prep (one table of mine that didn't happen was the Stonelords Special -not enough tier 1-2 players) but I shrugged it off and joined in as a player at another table. Met some awesome people and had tons of fun!
|
Event coordinators are many things, but they are definitely not mind readers. They may have thought they were doing you a favor and letting you have the night off from running. If there is an event that you look forward to running share that enthusiasm with whomever is in charge and you probably will not have this problem again.
|
|
Unless you were running a newly-released scenario, you also have to consider the possibility that some of the players had already played the scenario.
Or the possibility that players didn't have characters that were a good fit for the scenario. A no-social-skills combat character doesn't do well in a schmoozing scenario, or a cavalier with a large mount might not work inside.
I empathize with your frustration. More than once, I've gone home early or hung out in a hotel bar for 4 hours when my table didn't make for whatever reason.
Please talk to the event coordinator and/or your local VOs. Once everyone understands why the table didn't make, they can take steps to reduce the chance of it happening again. Or maybe they can do table sign ups in advance so you know whether you have players before you make the trip out to the event.
|
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to running around like a herd of cats.Cats are malicious.
This (and alergies) is why I'm a dog person.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I cannot prove that the VL's are pulling favorites, I'm upset that they wouldn't attempt max out what's available. 22 players and 4 tables. 5/5/4/4/4 could have worked for a 1-5 scenario. I even took into account couples & friends. I spent a whole month waiting to run this and never been so disappointed in Society.
I could chime in and tell a similar horror story - only GMing a single slot at GenCon, flying from as far as Europe, buying stuff and spending 2 hours in the hotel just to draw a Kyle Baird map - and then an empty table. It even happens to a five-star.
I'm sure if I really, really would have wanted to GM then they would ha e found a way. But I had GMed a great game the morning before at Scotties and was relaxed.
So no - there shouldn't be favourites - but more local it happens that some players prefer known GMs. The other issue is that as organized I also try to have tables of 6 and not multiple tables of 4/5 as they can be more deadly.
So what likely got lost was that you really, really have been keen to GM. As organized I try to keep this in mind and yes - I do favourites in regard to keen GMs first, new GMs first as well, old 4/5 stars in reserve.
Other organizers will prioritise different - so go speak to them. That is the only way they know what is important for you and can ensure that your wishes are followed next time.
|
Talk to you Organizer, most are more than willing to work with their GM pool, especially the enthusiastic GMs.
I know a lot of players prefer 5-6 player tables. Taking that into consideration, I would try not to take it personally.
If it is a consistant situation of you getting cut, have a conversation with you coordinator. Unless you have reason to believe malice is in play, take it to your your VO. If your Coordinator and VO are one in the same (Varies by place) and you have a problem with them, take it to the next highest authority.
But do not do this for petty stuff.
Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD—Brisbane
|
Speaking for my own experiences, we are constantly finding ourselves with a choice of two 6-7 player tables, or 3 4-5 player tables, mostly running season 3 scenarios. As the person who organises the chaos, regardless of what people sign up for, our overriding goal is not turning anyone away. It doesn't matter whether you sign up early or late, or not at all - you get a game. It might not be the game you prefer, but it will be a game.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
tempest, 22 players at 3 tables would mean at least one table of 8 (assuming the head count is not including GMs.
4 was the right number of tables. (six person tables bring a more versetile skill set, and the 4 person adjustment often removes interesting options from GMs and tends to trivialize encounters.)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Ji-kun, there's a strong incentive for people managing a convention to *minimize* tables. Moving from 5 tables to 4 means that the parties at each table are stronger, so the PCs are more likely to survive.
It also means that there is one more scenario that the playerbase hasn't seen. So it will be easier to schedule that scenario in the future.
Also, convention managers *do* play favorites. Absolutely. If I'm running a convention, I'll want the best GMs running my tables. Those may not necessarily be the longest-serving GMs -- some new GMs are spectacular -- but that's often the most reliable choice.
Having said that, they might well have owed you an opportunity to get some GM experience under your belt. If there's no reason to avoid your services, and if you did indeed prep the scenario for an entire month, that seems a shame.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Virginia—Alexandria
|
While I cannot prove that the VL's are pulling favorites, I'm upset that they wouldn't attempt max out what's available. 22 players and 4 tables. 5/5/4/4/4 could have worked for a 1-5 scenario. I even took into account couples & friends. I spent a whole month waiting to run this and never been so disappointed in Society.
Hey Ji-kun!
You're actually from my local region and running at the same convention I am.
Have you actually talked to our venture officer about this issue at all? Did you talk to her when the issue arose? We can't fix what we aren't aware of. Passive aggressively posting isn't going to help anyone.
Either way, it is to our benefit to run smaller tables. There are adjustments in the mod that you are talking about dependent on table size. Often times, certain players (especially in our region) will *not* sit on a table of 5 since it can be deadlier.
Many people in our region are running because we need judges, not because they are necessarily wanting to run that game. I know of at least two GM's who would have gladly taken that slot off if you had approached us individually, or if you had talked to our VL and she had passed the word on.
