|
I don't actually know if we are still going to have "Specials" in the new PRS2e format... but I would think so.
So ok, here is a suggestion on "Inter-Table Interaction" (a term I think I just coined) at Multi-Table events ("Specials).
How about a "puzzle" challenge where the players only get 3 of the required 4 parts for, and they get "an extra piece" that actually belongs to the table beside you. Something like a fragmented "Key" that unlocks a door the PCs need to pass... and now they arrange the 3 parts to their "mcguffen" and find they are a piece short - Part of their key is missing! and worse yet, they have a extra bit... how long does it take them to figure out that someone else has their missing piece? How much longer does it take for them to figure they also have someone else's "extra piece"? (and here's the kicker) How long does it take them to realize that they need to take their extra piece to another table. NOT just get their won "mcguffen" put together, but "Cooperate" with the other tables?
Explore! - Find your cache of broken mcguffen pieces.
Report! - "Hay, we found most of a Blue McGuffen! and this extra Red piece "
Cooperate! - "Did you say you had a BLUE piece mixed into your YELLOW pieces? - Hay, who needs a RED McGuffen piece?"
|
|
No.Just no.
It doesn't work.
Never seen it work.
Please do not try this.
Thanks for the idea, but please no.
really?
Ok, I guess. (I do trust your opinion a lot...)
Though I would think that if even one of the tables thought to check with the table beside them... but perhaps you are right. I have seen a table in a current Multi-Table event just ignore the "Pass this to another table to give them an advantage" slips, not bothering to take the effort to walk them over to another table. Because it didn't help THEM...
Ah well...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The logistical problem is actually three problems:
1. The number of puzzles required varies by the number of tables. That means the organizers have to prepare at least as many puzzle packs as the expected number of tables. Which leads to problem 2.
2. (Mathematics) In order for the possibility to exist that all tables will be able to solve their puzzle the number of “mismatched” pieces of each color in circulation must be exactly equal to the number of tables that need that color.
In other words, if I prepare 30 puzzles using 5 colors but only 28 tables are running, I can’t just remove 2 packets at random. I have to ensure that I remove one packet containing 3 pieces of color A and one color B and a second packet containing 3 pieces of color B and one color A. If I remove any of color C, D, or E, at least one table will be unable to complete the puzzle. Which means I can’t pass out the puzzle packs until after the game has started. Which requires someone able to do the math and properly adjust packet composition, as well as helpers to pass them out.
3. (Organizational Psychology) Even assuming that all tables are able to discern what to do and the GMs understand how to facilitate, the tendency will be to grab the first piece that solves your own puzzle. Which means that a table near an edge is likely to find no nearby matching pieces as they have all been taken by more central tables. So at GenCon you will have dozens of people roaming around yelling “I have a green! Who has a blue!”
|
|
The logistical problem is actually three problems:
1. The number of puzzles required varies by the number of tables. That means the organizers have to prepare at least as many puzzle packs as the expected number of tables. Which leads to problem 2.
2. (Mathematics) In order for the possibility to exist that all tables will be able to solve their puzzle the number of “mismatched” pieces of each color in circulation must be exactly equal to the number of tables that need that color.
In other words, if I prepare 30 puzzles using 5 colors but only 28 tables are running, I can’t just remove 2 packets at random. I have to ensure that I remove one packet containing 3 pieces of color A and one color B and a second packet containing 3 pieces of color B and one color A. If I remove any of color C, D, or E, at least one table will be unable to complete the puzzle. Which means I can’t pass out the puzzle packs until after the game has started. Which requires someone able to do the math and properly adjust packet composition, as well as helpers to pass them out.
3. (Organizational Psychology) Even assuming that all tables are able to discern what to do and the GMs understand how to facilitate, the tendency will be to grab the first piece that solves your own puzzle. Which means that a table near an edge is likely to find no nearby matching pieces as they have all been taken by more central tables. So at GenCon you will have dozens of people roaming around yelling “I have a green! Who has a blue!”
LOL! perhaps...
or you might have someone step forward and announce to all tables in general "if you have a piece that doesn't fit your puzzle - pass it to the next table...". This does not protect us from the tables that just grab all the extra pieces and keep them, to ensure that the other tables are unable to complete their mission and that they would get MORE completed "Keys". Yeah, I can now see that happening... I've played with people who would do that and say "but I'm just doing what my PC would do! I'm playing IN CHARACTER!".
so yeah - perhaps it's a bad idea after all... I still think it would be fun though. I do wish the Multi-Table games had better ways to "work together" to overcome challenges...
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
Actually #9-00 had something like that. In the beginning there are 7 different missions of which a table can do about 2 or 3 (4 if you really rushed). The idea was to have a short break so people from different tables could intermingle a bit and share the different things they learned.
From what I understand, everyone went to the toilet instead, creating massive queues and even while queuing they didn't bother to talk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually #9-00 had something like that. In the beginning there are 7 different missions of which a table can do about 2 or 3 (4 if you really rushed). The idea was to have a short break so people from different tables could intermingle a bit and share the different things they learned.
From what I understand, everyone went to the toilet instead, creating massive queues and even while queuing they didn't bother to talk.
yeah - gamers.
LOL! this gives an entirely different spin on "Dumping CHA"!
|
|
Not only the bathroom break as mentioned above, but most times it is REALLY hard to ever get Aid Tokens to be passed around table to table, good luck with passing puzzle pieces across the length and breadth of the Sagamore! JMTC
well, it would be best if the puzzles were handed to the judges after the tables were seated... and that way each table would have it's missing piece at a table beside it.
But I get the point. This is a pipe dream... sigh.
When Wei Ji the Learner didn't like it, I figured it was a bad idea.
anyone else have any ideas about how to have the Multi-Table games "work together" to overcome challenges?
|
I still want to see a Starfinder special where 3 tables work together in one section, each representing the crew of a different starship.
^ this reminds me of the Season 2 Special: Year of the Shadow Lodge, where multiple tables could work together on certain things. I'd love to see more things like that, too!
|
|
well, it would be best if the puzzles were handed to the judges after the tables were seated... and that way each table would have it's missing piece at a table beside it.
But I get the point. This is a pipe dream... sigh.
When Wei Ji the Learner didn't like it, I figured it was a bad idea.
anyone else have any ideas about how to have the Multi-Table games "work together" to overcome challenges?
Muse,
The worst part about it is that I *like* the idea a lot. It's a nice dreaming cooperative idea!
I'd *love* to have a perfect situation where it could be implemented and work well. However, organizational experience and some of the math pointed out after my post is what really weighs against such a thing.
As such, the weighing in with the voice of experience felt necessary.
I've heard 'stories' about Year o/t Shadow Lodge and Siege o/t Diamond City, but I have not played either, and the idea of being able to 'hot-swap' help to other tables by having other players walk over and ask "Hey, y'all need help with anything? We're done with our stuff and have a few to lend a hand!" seems like a more 'personal' version of the 'aid token'?
Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Sheffield
|
well, it would be best if the puzzles were handed to the judges after the tables were seated... and that way each table would have it's missing piece at a table beside it.
But I get the point. This is a pipe dream... sigh.
When Wei Ji the Learner didn't like it, I figured it was a bad idea.
anyone else have any ideas about how to have the Multi-Table games "work together" to overcome challenges?
Muse,
The worst part about it is that I *like* the idea a lot. It's a nice dreaming cooperative idea!
I'd *love* to have a perfect situation where it could be implemented and work well. However, organizational experience and some of the math pointed out after my post is what really weighs against such a thing.
As such, the weighing in with the voice of experience felt necessary.
I've heard 'stories' about Year o/t Shadow Lodge and Siege o/t Diamond City, but I have not played either, and the idea of being able to 'hot-swap' help to other tables by having other players walk over and ask "Hey, y'all need help with anything? We're done with our stuff and have a few to lend a hand!" seems like a more 'personal' version of the 'aid token'?
I thought the overall framework of Siege of the Diamond City was very good.
