Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Conception 2002

4 views
Skip to first unread message

TC

unread,
Feb 11, 2002, 2:13:35 PM2/11/02
to
Just wanted to say a big 'thank you' to everyone involved in this year's
Conception 2002 in Dorset, last weekend.

Not all of us who had booked in my group could make it unfortunately
(for various reasons), but those that did said that they had a fabulous
convention - varied games, friendly people, well organised with very
pleasant surroundings - like cons of old.

(I won't bring up Olympia as a negative comparison - well, maybe just a
quick dig)

:-))

Anyway, the best convention that I've been to.

Thanks guys 'n' gals.

TC
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net

Killans - First And Last And Always

unread,
Feb 12, 2002, 9:16:44 AM2/12/02
to
In article <MPG.16d2283e4...@mammoth.usenet-access.com>,

TC <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Just wanted to say a big 'thank you' to everyone involved in this year's
>Conception 2002 in Dorset, last weekend.

Ditto. I had a great time, and although I didn't play as many games as
I'd have liked (due to raging alcoholism and subsequent hangovers), the
ones I did play were ace. The 2-part CoC game was the best fun I've had
in an RPG for a long time.

Thanks, guys!

Mike

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 12, 2002, 1:15:10 PM2/12/02
to
On 12 Feb 2002 07:16:44 -0700, mcol...@nyx.net (Killans - First And
Last And Always) scribed:

Thanks for the complements, guys. We ran something like 85 tables of
games, and something like 180-200 people stayed on site. We also
raised almost £2,500 for charity (the Round Table Children's Wish),
and we had a fantastic time.

Roll on Conception IV - February 5th-9th 2003 (yes, we're starting on
the Wednesday night next year)!

Best Regards,
Dave
morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk * www.veilofnight.net
Supernovae & Creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/
Kharne - graphical AD&D-based RPG for Windows http://www.kharne.net
Conception 2002 - the South Coast Gaming Convention (7-10th Feb 2002)
http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/conception/

Si

unread,
Feb 14, 2002, 4:10:35 PM2/14/02
to
Count me in. This year was excellent. I had a superb time and got to spend
time with my family as well. Thank you all so much.

Simon Brodie

Stephen Pettifer

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 7:15:37 PM2/15/02
to
I had to abandon my diet,
eat full english breakfasts, drink lots of beer,
go back to a warm and very nice chalet
(though the microwave and tv were alarmed so you did wonder about the summer
clientel)
and played games and played games
I thought I had died and gone to heaven

cheers

steve


Nimrod Jones

unread,
Feb 18, 2002, 9:39:54 AM2/18/02
to
Killans - First And Last And Always <mcol...@nyx.net> wrote in message
news:10135234...@irys.nyx.net...

>
> Ditto. I had a great time, and although I didn't play as many games as
> I'd have liked (due to raging alcoholism and subsequent hangovers), the
> ones I did play were ace. The 2-part CoC game was the best fun I've had
> in an RPG for a long time.

I'll second that. I had a great time. Definitely some great, top comedy
moments in all the games I played, and in general I haven't laughed so hard
and laughed so much in so long it was positively therapeutic.

Thanks all,

Nimrod...
"It's not stupid - it's *advanced*!" -- Almighty Tallest, "Invader Zim"


Stephen Sangar

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 5:31:03 AM2/19/02
to
Si wrote:
>
> Count me in. This year was excellent. I had a superb time and got to spend
> time with my family as well. Thank you all so much.

I read posts like those in this thread and think I really should go to a
convention. Then I read articles like this by Jonny Nexus* where he
says:

"We were feeling socially excluded. ...

If there is a "hobby elite" or "inner circle", we're not part of it.

There seemed to be some kind of a convention within a convention that we
were unaware of. People who knew each other and could get into games
that we didn't know about. (That might all be in our imagination, but
it's how the "reservation roulette" game allocation system made us
feel)."

And all my fears about conventions are reinforced and I don't go.

(*For the complete article, see
http://www.criticalmiss.com/current/conception20021.html)

--
Stephen Sangar
Coventry University
http://www.coventry.ac.uk

Phil Masters

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 8:20:56 AM2/19/02
to
Stephen Sangar wrote:
> There seemed to be some kind of a convention within a convention that we
> were unaware of. People who knew each other and could get into games
> that we didn't know about. (That might all be in our imagination, but
> it's how the "reservation roulette" game allocation system made us
> feel)."

Conventions vary. Quite a lot.

I don't know anything about Conception, and I absolutely won't criticise
it myself - but RPGA conventions are very much oriented towards the
playing of RPGA tournament games, and if that's not your thing, well,
you may not enjoy them that much. There *may* also be cliques within the
RPGA who produce the feeling that the article you quote described; I
wouldn't like to say.

Irish cons, for a comparison, also run heavily on pre-arranged games,
but in a slightly different style. They're also notably friendly, in a
very boozy sort of way. Convulsion is a heavily Glorantha-oriented con,
with a lot of panels and talks from people connected to that subject -
but it's also full of open tabletop games and the odd LARP, while being
small and friendly enough that one can hang out in the bar playing stray
card games or chatting, sign up for the odd RPG session (which may not
even be Chaosium/Glorantha related), and have fun even if one quietly
thinks that the other members' Greg-worship is a bit loopy. The BRS cons
in Cambridge run on a similar style, without the specific focus, and
generally work rather well.

And so on. This stuff ranges from small one-day local events (which can
get a bit cliquish, I'm afraid, though I've been to some good ones), up
to GenCon UK (which is very much an RPGA-oriented event, but which is so
damn huge that you can virtually always find *something* interesting
happening in a corner).

So I really don't think that it's fair to base decisions on one report
of one convention. You might find that was spot on, but then find a
different con that works just fine for you. I'm not sure how to sort out
the sheep from the mutant stargoats, but I guess reading several reports
from events in the same series might be a good start...

--
Phil Masters * Home Page: http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/
"Battle not with flamers, lest ye become a flamer; and stare not too
deeply into the 'net, or you will find the 'net staring into you."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche (loosely translated)

Darrell Impey

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 7:59:19 AM2/19/02
to
In article <3C722967...@coventry.ac.uk>, Stephen Sangar
<cor...@coventry.ac.uk> writes

>And all my fears about conventions are reinforced and I don't go.

At Conception this year there were several dozen events for which
tickets could be purchased on a first come, first served basis.

However, due to the set up of the site (i.e. the very well appointed
chalets for the accommodation) there was an unusual opportunity to play
effectively "private" games at the convention. Several groups of friends
who do not get to play together very often, due to geographic
separation, took advantage of this, to arrange a number of games that
they could play between themselves.

This is quite probably the cause of the convention within a convention
sensation that the reviewer felt. Be assured that Conception always
offers a large number of games of its own organising.
--
Darrell

Phil Masters

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 8:41:31 AM2/19/02
to
Darrell Impey wrote:
> This is quite probably the cause of the convention within a convention
> sensation that the reviewer felt. Be assured that Conception always
> offers a large number of games of its own organising.

You probably need to read the review, I'm afraid, Darrell. It does *not*
reflect well on the con, for a lot of reasons. (And I'm afraid that the
impression of casual incompetence it gives does sound a bit like RPGA
events at their worst.)

Bigfutrpga

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 10:24:25 AM2/19/02
to
I have read the whole review and fully understand where the reviewers are
coming from. At DBB 2001 we found the predominance of Living events taking
place throughout the day destroyed the atmosphere of the event. This is one
reason with the move to the Hilton at the NEC, that DBB will be more orientated
towards non tournament organised games and delegate organised games.

Think back to Gamesfair where there was only 1 tournament and the rest were
DOG's.

Regards

Steve

Phil Masters

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 12:34:14 PM2/19/02
to
Bigfutrpga wrote:
> I have read the whole review and fully understand where the reviewers
> are coming from. At DBB 2001 we found the predominance of Living events
> taking place throughout the day destroyed the atmosphere of the event.

I wasn't entirely sure of the wisdom when Rocococon started using "No
Tournaments!" as a sales slogan - it was more of an accidental de facto
policy at Baroquon - but these days, I think it might have some merit...

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 12:49:10 PM2/19/02
to
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 13:41:31 +0000, Phil Masters
<ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> scribed:

Hi Phil, can you elaborate your reading of the review? I'm currently
drafting a reply, but yes, there were things I think we could have
done better, and CM rightly pointed out, and there are other parts of
the review where I think they are wrong.

Certainly from feedback received during and after the convention, they
appear to be in a small minority in not enjoying it.

I'll post our reply to here as well.

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 12:49:54 PM2/19/02
to
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:34:14 +0000, Phil Masters
<ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> scribed:

>Bigfutrpga wrote:

Witness Fallcon last year, the RP side of things was almost entirely
dominated by Living events.

Nimrod Jones

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 1:42:50 PM2/19/02
to
Stephen Sangar <cor...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3C722967...@coventry.ac.uk...
>
<snip>

> There seemed to be some kind of a convention within a convention that we
> were unaware of. People who knew each other and could get into games
> that we didn't know about. (That might all be in our imagination, but
> it's how the "reservation roulette" game allocation system made us
> feel)."
>
> And all my fears about conventions are reinforced and I don't go.

Well the first convention I went to was a GenCon some four years ago. I kept
myself very busy, but I also boggled at how many games were going on that
didn't appear to be advertised, likewise my second year. In my third GenCon
(in Manchester) the layout had changed and I got to see stuff that I'd just
plain missed in the last two years. I then looked closer at the programme
and realised that it's there... it's just not tournemant. Last year, I got
involved in a game or two that wasn't advertised just by looking around.
However, going to Conception was a very very different feel. Sure, there
were games going on in the chalet's, but they tended to be friends getting
together, I felt. Conception is a very differnt feel, and it wasn't so hard
to just stroll up to people and sit down for a game of cards or something.

Although I've only been to two different types of convention, I think every
convention has its own feel, it's own circle of people that frequent it, and
it's own complexities. You might hate GenCon, but love Conception, and vise
versa. It's all a matter of taste.

Nimrod...
--
"I got head explody!" -- JTHM


Tim Ellis

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 4:01:53 PM2/19/02
to
Darrell Impey <dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk> has previously posted

>
>At Conception this year there were several dozen events for which
>tickets could be purchased on a first come, first served basis.
>

Hmm, that's not how the Critical Miss review seems to describe it. Did
you really have to but a ticket to play in a game starting at a
particular time without actually knowing what game you might end up
playing in (if at all, if the review is accurate). It seems a
particularly bizarre way of going about things both from a player and a
GM point of view.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Ellis EMail t...@timellis.demon.co.uk |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Darrell Impey

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 4:33:45 PM2/19/02
to
In article <psg17PAB...@timellis.demon.co.uk>, Tim Ellis
<t...@timellis.demon.co.uk> writes

>Hmm, that's not how the Critical Miss review seems to describe it. Did
>you really have to but a ticket to play in a game starting at a
>particular time without actually knowing what game you might end up
>playing in (if at all, if the review is accurate). It seems a
>particularly bizarre way of going about things both from a player and a
>GM point of view.


Well, I've read the review (thanks for the heads up Phil*), and the
simple answer is no you don't.

My experiences of the this year's event were in no way similar to those
who wrote the Critical Miss review. I found the Critical Mass's
experiences, and writing style for that matter, bizarre, to put it
mildly, and do not believe that they provide an accurate portrayal of
the convention. Please note however, that I'm not saying that the events
didn't happen, just that they were bizarre, and not those experienced by
the majority of attendees.

I'll predominantly leave it to Dave Moore to produce a full reply, as he
was one of the main organisers of the convention; but I will say that I
personally found it unusual for there to be a generic event ticket
produced for each time slot, rather than tickets for specific games,
which are usually done.

That said, I, and my family, will be returning Conception next year (God
willing), and urge other gamers to attend the event, even if only for
one day.

* For Phil's, and everybody else's, reference, I am no longer a point of
contact for the RPGA in London, having stepped down at the start of the
year, due to the pressures of a growing family. I am still more than
happy to help any London players in whatever way I can, even if it's
just passing them on to somebody else, but anybody who wants to contact
the RPGA direct should mail ra...@rpgauk.com

Thanks,
--
Darrell

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 4:52:15 PM2/19/02
to
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:01:53 +0000, Tim Ellis
<t...@timellis.demon.co.uk> scribed:

>Darrell Impey <dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk> has previously posted
>>
>>At Conception this year there were several dozen events for which
>>tickets could be purchased on a first come, first served basis.
>>
>
>Hmm, that's not how the Critical Miss review seems to describe it. Did
>you really have to but a ticket to play in a game starting at a
>particular time without actually knowing what game you might end up
>playing in (if at all, if the review is accurate). It seems a
>particularly bizarre way of going about things both from a player and a
>GM point of view.
>--

Well, player slots in a game were only limited to how many GMs there
were. In other words, if there were enough GMs and players, there
could be 10 tables of a particular game.

We also ran many "out-of-slot" games and repeated games as well if
people asked for them, as some scenarios had more players than GMs
available.

The generic tickets enable someone who if they can't get into their
first choice game to play their second choice game. And refunds were
*always* available, if asked for. Generic tickets also solve the
problem of people buying a ticket for a specific game and then not
turning up, leaving the GM stranded with no players.

I can't get into the specifics of the Critical Miss situation just yet
as we've been in contact with them (which has been constructive and
courteous so far on both sides) and will be issuing an "official" [2]
response soon (we'll probably post it here as well). Suffice to say
that, just as we made big improvements this year over last year, we
will be making more improvements for next year, some of which do
originate from the CM guys and others we identified ourselves.

Best Regards,
Dave

[1] Up until 2pm Sunday.

[2] As official as a response from three unpaid volunteers can get,
anyway.

Tim Ellis

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 7:39:47 PM2/19/02
to
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> has
previously posted

>Well, player slots in a game were only limited to how many GMs there
>were. In other words, if there were enough GMs and players, there
>could be 10 tables of a particular game.
>

That makes perfect sense, and (I think) was alluded to in the review

>We also ran many "out-of-slot" games and repeated games as well if
>people asked for them, as some scenarios had more players than GMs
>available.

That too makes a certain amount of sense, but the way of "booking in" to
games would appear to make it difficult to be certain what games were
most "in demand" - If you are advertising, say L5R, Vampire, CoC and D&D
in a slot and get 60 participants who do not actually get allocated to a
game until the start of the slot, how do you know how many of them have
settled for their second (or third?) choice when the first one was full?
What happens if 59 of the 60 all wanted to play CoC? You have one
person with no group and 3 (sets of) GMs with no players. If people
were booking for games rather than slots you would be aware of this up
front and could try and "actively" recruit players into the appropriate
slot(s) (All the Vampire players may be holding back to play in a
second vampire slot, when half of them will be disappointed since you
don't have enough GM's...)

>
>The generic tickets enable someone who if they can't get into their
>first choice game to play their second choice game.

but leave people unaware of whether or not they will get to play their
first choice game *at all*. I don't object in principle to paying to
play in a convention-sponsored game, particularly if it comes with
plenty of handouts and the like, providing I know that I will be playing
in a system or setting that I particularly like or intrigues me. I feel
much less sympathy with the idea of paying to end up making up numbers
in a game because there is no space in the game I wanted to be in...

> And refunds were
>*always* available, if asked for. Generic tickets also solve the
>problem of people buying a ticket for a specific game and then not
>turning up, leaving the GM stranded with no players.
>

Sell "reserve tickets" (not a problem if refunds are always available),
and/or sell tickets "on the door" to make up numbers? You'll always
have a potential problem with no-shows but if, half an hour before the
slot you still have no players signed up for a game (or less players
than GM's ready to run it) you can either try and "actively recruit"
players into the game or ask the gm('s) if they'll run a game for which
you have more potential players than you could otherwise accommodate.
Generic tickets mean you won't find out the situation until people turn
up.

Phil Masters

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 2:53:54 AM2/20/02
to
Morgoth's Cat wrote:
> Hi Phil, can you elaborate your reading of the review?

I read what it said... What sort of elaboration do you want?

(One thing I *have* noticed at events like GenCon UK, and which also
comes out of the review, is the sense that people on front desks don't
want to be there, don't give much of a toss about problems which people
bring to them, and don't see it as their job to actually react when a
member of the convention is standing there with some kind of question. I
would say that this is amateurish, except that I've been to amateur-run
events where the front desk assignees took their position seriously.)

Matthew Bloomer

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 5:56:27 AM2/20/02
to
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:31:03 +0000, Stephen Sangar
<cor...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote:

Have the Critical Miss people sent out the 'New Issue!' email yet
(that if they have I have not received) or are you one step ahead of
them?


--

Matthew Bloomer * mailto:maj...@btinternet.com
* * http://web.ukonline.co.uk/m.bloomer/ * *

David Damerell

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 7:25:04 AM2/20/02
to
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
><ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> scribed:

>>You probably need to read the review, I'm afraid, Darrell. It does *not*
>>reflect well on the con, for a lot of reasons. (And I'm afraid that the
>>impression of casual incompetence it gives does sound a bit like RPGA
>>events at their worst.)
>Hi Phil, can you elaborate your reading of the review?

"Point eyes at text. Track eyes in left-to-right pattern, down page.
Repeat until finished."

What _do_ you mean?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

David Damerell

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 7:32:09 AM2/20/02
to
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
><t...@timellis.demon.co.uk> scribed:

>>Hmm, that's not how the Critical Miss review seems to describe it. Did
>>you really have to but a ticket to play in a game starting at a
>>particular time without actually knowing what game you might end up
>>playing in (if at all, if the review is accurate). It seems a
>The generic tickets enable someone who if they can't get into their
>first choice game to play their second choice game.

So sell generic tickets if people can't get the specific tickets for the
game they want because they've all gone. That solves the problem of
no-shows, too, since the people with generic tickets can fill in any
unexpected gaps.

Better yet, charge a flat fee for the con, and don't have the absurdity of
charging people to play roleplaying games at a roleplaying games
convention.

David Damerell

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 7:29:31 AM2/20/02
to
Darrell Impey <dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><t...@timellis.demon.co.uk> writes

>>Did you really have to but a ticket to play in a game starting at a
>>particular time without actually knowing what game you might end up
>>playing in (if at all, if the review is accurate).
>Well, I've read the review (thanks for the heads up Phil*), and the
>simple answer is no you don't.
>I personally found it unusual for there to be a generic event ticket
>produced for each time slot, rather than tickets for specific games,
>which are usually done.

It seems to me that the simple answer would be "Yes, you did." If you have
a generic event ticket, you don't actually know which game you might end
up playing in.

So why are you telling us that it's "No"?

David Damerell

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 7:33:11 AM2/20/02
to
Phil Masters <ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I wasn't entirely sure of the wisdom when Rocococon started using "No
>Tournaments!" as a sales slogan - it was more of an accidental de facto
>policy at Baroquon - but these days, I think it might have some merit...

Well, since I attend exactly one British RPG convention, I can only agree.

Bubba

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 8:38:14 AM2/20/02
to
Darrell Impey <dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<NxOspHA5...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk>...

> In article <psg17PAB...@timellis.demon.co.uk>, Tim Ellis
> <t...@timellis.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Hmm, that's not how the Critical Miss review seems to describe it. Did
> >you really have to but a ticket to play in a game starting at a
> >particular time without actually knowing what game you might end up
> >playing in (if at all, if the review is accurate). It seems a
> >particularly bizarre way of going about things both from a player and a
> >GM point of view.

> Well, I've read the review (thanks for the heads up Phil*), and the
> simple answer is no you don't.

Excuse me? Are you saying that we could have got specific tickets for
specific games?

> I'll predominantly leave it to Dave Moore to produce a full reply, as he
> was one of the main organisers of the convention; but I will say that I
> personally found it unusual for there to be a generic event ticket
> produced for each time slot, rather than tickets for specific games,
> which are usually done.

Aren't you now contradicting yourself and agreeing with us? Now you
are saying that there were only generic tickets produced for each slot.
So shouldn't your answer to Tim's question: "Did you really have to but


a ticket to play in a game starting at a particular time without actually

knowing what game you might end up playing in?" have actually been something
like: "the simple answer is yes you do", not "no you don't".

What you thought was an "unusual" system we said was "f***ing stupid".
Looks like we both felt it was a strange way to do it, but we simply expressed
it in stronger terms.

Criticise our writing style, criticise our website but don't suggest we are
saying things that are not true. Dave had already mailed us and has said
that most of our criticisms are completely justified, his words not mine,
and we have already offered him the opportunity to write an article in
response to ours to be published in our next issue.

> My experiences of the this year's event were in no way similar to those
> who wrote the Critical Miss review. I found the Critical Mass's
> experiences, and writing style for that matter, bizarre, to put it
> mildly, and do not believe that they provide an accurate
> portrayal of the convention. Please note however, that I'm not saying
> that the events didn't happen, just that they were bizarre, and not those
> experienced by the majority of attendees.

I'm glad you had a good time at Conceptions, I hope that the majority of
people there had good times too, but from our experience I know that some of
the people there didn't have a good time. We only got the opportunity to
write about our experiences as we didn't get to talk to many of the other
Role players there, mainly because they were involved in their own RPGA
organised games.

Now I'm not the brains behind Critical Miss, Jonny has a way with words that
I don't even come close to, I'm more of a brute. So for these reasons I am
going to stop here before I cause unintended offence to anyone.

And by the was it's Critical Miss not Critical Mass...

Bubba

Webmaster @ Critical Miss

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 12:27:32 PM2/20/02
to
On 20 Feb 2002 12:32:09 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:

>Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
>><t...@timellis.demon.co.uk> scribed:
>>>Hmm, that's not how the Critical Miss review seems to describe it. Did
>>>you really have to but a ticket to play in a game starting at a
>>>particular time without actually knowing what game you might end up
>>>playing in (if at all, if the review is accurate). It seems a
>>The generic tickets enable someone who if they can't get into their
>>first choice game to play their second choice game.
>
>So sell generic tickets if people can't get the specific tickets for the
>game they want because they've all gone.
>That solves the problem of
>no-shows, too, since the people with generic tickets can fill in any
>unexpected gaps.

There were only something like a couple of occasions during the whole
con whenever there were not enough GMs to cover the available players.

We were also running out-of-slot games and games in additional slots
for those who didn't get in to their first choice slot.

This doesn't include the Living events, where demand almost always
seems to outstrip supply.

>
>Better yet, charge a flat fee for the con, and don't have the absurdity of
>charging people to play roleplaying games at a roleplaying games
>convention.
>--
>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

We do not charge any entry fee at all.

Best Regards,
Dave

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 12:36:52 PM2/20/02
to
On 20 Feb 2002 12:25:04 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:

>Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:

Phil is a, how can I say this without insulting him, veteran of
conventions and role-playing in general - I was asking him what he
thought, as an "expert witness" so to speak. Despite the fact that he
didn't attend, I would still value his thoughts.

The thing is, the complaints from CM were just about the only
complaints we had the whole weekend - my e-mail box is overflowing
with praise from other attendees.

This does not lessen in any way their criticisms and any valid ones
*will* be acted upon for the next Conception. Just as we completely
changed the accommodation booking system for this year due to feedback
we received last year. And the new system worked this year very well.

What we need, as convention organisers, and indeed, any other people
who organise or are thinking about organising is pertinent criticism
and feedback from both the likes of CM, or from the likes of Phil.

David Damerell

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 1:58:46 PM2/20/02
to
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:

>>So sell generic tickets if people can't get the specific tickets for the
>>game they want because they've all gone.
>There were only something like a couple of occasions during the whole
>con whenever there were not enough GMs to cover the available players.

How remarkable that the Critical Miss folks got bit by it every time!
Furthermore, I don't see how, from their account of things, how you would
necessarily become aware of such a difficulty, so I can't see how you can
say this with any confidence.

[More importantly; in which ways would my proposal make things worse?]

>>Better yet, charge a flat fee for the con, and don't have the absurdity of
>>charging people to play roleplaying games at a roleplaying games
>>convention.

>We do not charge any entry fee at all.

And this is arse about face, if you ask me. No entry fee is like an
invitation to thieves, and then you have per-game fees to actively
discourage people from playing them.

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 3:57:17 PM2/20/02
to
On 20 Feb 2002 18:58:46 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:

>Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:


>><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:
>>>So sell generic tickets if people can't get the specific tickets for the
>>>game they want because they've all gone.
>>There were only something like a couple of occasions during the whole
>>con whenever there were not enough GMs to cover the available players.
>
>How remarkable that the Critical Miss folks got bit by it every time!
>Furthermore, I don't see how, from their account of things, how you would
>necessarily become aware of such a difficulty, so I can't see how you can
>say this with any confidence.
>
>[More importantly; in which ways would my proposal make things worse?]

We're going to have a sit-down, myself and the other organisers,
tomorrow night at our normal gaming session - I'll bring this up.

Darrell Impey

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 4:12:05 PM2/20/02
to
In article <JIm*Qw...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes


Because, as I read the question and compared it with my experiences, it
was not the case.

You purchased a ticket for a game in a specific time slot, and attended
the main area at that time. If you were unable to play your chosen game,
for whatever reason, the ticket could be used to play in any other game
that slot in which there was space. This is not (imo) the circumstance
described in the question.

WRT the "generic" tickets I referred to, I meant that specific game
names were not printed on the tickets, as is usually the case when
Ratty/the RPGA produce those tickets. Dave has since said, in this
group, that this was because the convention organisers asked for this to
be the case.
--
Darrell

Darrell Impey

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 4:19:40 PM2/20/02
to
In article <d5716940.02022...@posting.google.com>, Bubba
<bu...@criticalmiss.com> writes

>Excuse me? Are you saying that we could have got specific tickets for
>specific games?

No, I was referring to the fact that the RPGA _usually_ produces
specific tickets, but in this case hadn't. This has since been shown to
be at the request of the event organisers.


>
>> I'll predominantly leave it to Dave Moore to produce a full reply, as he
>> was one of the main organisers of the convention; but I will say that I
>> personally found it unusual for there to be a generic event ticket
>> produced for each time slot, rather than tickets for specific games,
>> which are usually done.
>
>Aren't you now contradicting yourself and agreeing with us? Now you
>are saying that there were only generic tickets produced for each slot.
>So shouldn't your answer to Tim's question: "Did you really have to but
>a ticket to play in a game starting at a particular time without actually
>knowing what game you might end up playing in?" have actually been something
>like: "the simple answer is yes you do", not "no you don't".

Please see my reply to David Damerell for what I meant.

>Criticise our writing style, criticise our website but don't suggest we are
>saying things that are not true.

I made it _very_ specific that I was not saying this:

>Please note however, that I'm not saying
>that the events didn't happen, just that they were bizarre, and not those
>experienced by the majority of attendees.

> Dave had already mailed us and has said


>that most of our criticisms are completely justified, his words not mine,
>and we have already offered him the opportunity to write an article in
>response to ours to be published in our next issue.

That is his decision to do so, I am pleased you are willing to provide
him with the space to respond to your article.

>And by the was it's Critical Miss not Critical Mass...

A bad mistake on my part, I'm not the world's best typist, and this
would not have been caught by the spell-checker, my apologies.

--
Darrell

Tim Ellis

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 5:55:56 PM2/20/02
to
Darrell Impey <dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk> has previously posted
>>Excuse me? Are you saying that we could have got specific tickets for
>>specific games?
>
>No, I was referring to the fact that the RPGA _usually_ produces
>specific tickets, but in this case hadn't. This has since been shown to
>be at the request of the event organisers.
>>

So, as has been pointed out, the answer to my question "Did you really
have to buy a ticket for a game starting at a timer slot without knowing
what game you would end up playing" is indeed "Yes". You could sign up
for a game starting at 2pm, but not a game of "Warhammer FRP" starting
at 2pm.

John Dallman

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 6:43:00 PM2/20/02
to
In article <3C728C96...@philm.demon.co.uk>, ph...@philm.demon.co.uk
(Phil Masters) wrote:

> I wasn't entirely sure of the wisdom when Rocococon started using "No
> Tournaments!" as a sales slogan - it was more of an accidental de facto
> policy at Baroquon - but these days, I think it might have some merit...

You may have thought it was an accidental de facto. I regarded it as a
fundamental principle - it started at Conjunction, back in 1990. It would
have taken a vote of the committee to make it happen, and would have
produced my resignation instantly[1].

I read the Critical Mass review today, and concluded that having a site
with some kind of catering would have helped, and that the gaming combined
over- and under-organisation in a truly fascinating way.

[1] Please don't try to convince me of the merits of tournament RPGs -
it's a religious issue.

---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk

Darrell Impey

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 7:00:15 PM2/20/02
to
In article <memo.2002022...@jgd.compulink.co.uk>, John Dallman
<j...@cix.co.uk> writes

>I read the Critical Mass review today, and concluded that having a site
>with some kind of catering would have helped,

FWIW there was a food outlet in the main building, and a restaurant
which offered a very reasonably priced three course Sunday lunch.
--
Darrell

John Dallman

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 7:40:00 PM2/20/02
to
In article <2+ySqoAP...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk>,
dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk (Darrell Impey) wrote:
> John Dallman <j...@cix.co.uk> writes
> >I read the Critical Mass review today, and concluded that having a
> >site with some kind of catering would have helped,
>
> FWIW there was a food outlet in the main building, and a restaurant
> which offered a very reasonably priced three course Sunday lunch.

OK, I missed that if it was in the review.

---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk

Nimrod Jones

unread,
Feb 20, 2002, 7:52:13 PM2/20/02
to
John Dallman <j...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2002022...@jgd.compulink.co.uk...

I don't think it was mentioned. Has the reviewer pointed out, he was vegan.
I know how difficult it is to be vegan, and as a vegetarian it was pretty
hard going getting something to eat, but I could manage it. My sister, who
is vegan, has ingrained me with the little vegan on my shoulder that
sometimes makes me think, "If it's tough for *me* to get food, she would
starve!" It wasn't mentioned probably because the reviewer rarely (if at
all) used the on-site facilities in favour of using the selfcatering...

Nimrod...
--
"I have come to chew bubblegum and kick ass; and I'm all out of gum!" -
Johnny Nada, 'They Live!'


Killans - First And Last And Always

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 4:04:05 AM2/21/02
to
In article <memo.2002022...@jgd.compulink.co.uk>,

John Dallman <j...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I read the Critical Mass review today, and concluded that having a site
>with some kind of catering would have helped, and that the gaming combined
>over- and under-organisation in a truly fascinating way.

There was catering. There was hot food in the bar from some unearthly
hour of the morning through until 10pm each night, and there was also
a restaurant (which none of our group went into).

As for over- and under-organisation, well, it was a slightly odd system,
and I can see how with a bit of bad luck it could lead to people
missing out on games they'd like to play. I don't think that justifies
the invective and the downright nasty insults that the people in
the Critical Miss article spout, though.

At the end of the day, this was an event run by a handful of volunteers,
as a largely free occasion. There was no cost for entry, the
accomodation was so stupidly cheap that even had I not played a single
game it would still have been a fantastic bargain weekend away, and
it costed a negligible donation to charity (less than the cost of a pint)
for each game. Given all this, it's not surprising that there were
glitches in the system, and that some not everybody managed to get what
they wanted out of the weekend.

But the fact that so few people managed to arganize an event like this,
that so many people enjoyed, is something to be applauded, not sneered
at.

Mike

Killans - First And Last And Always

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 4:16:19 AM2/21/02
to
In article <3c72901d...@news.freeserve.net>,

Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
>
>Witness Fallcon last year, the RP side of things was almost entirely
>dominated by Living events.

There was an RP side of things at Fallcon? Could have fooled me...

:-)

Mike

Phil Masters

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 3:11:34 AM2/21/02
to
John Dallman wrote:
> You may have thought it was an accidental de facto. I regarded it as a
> fundamental principle - it started at Conjunction, back in 1990.

Well, I don't think any of us regarded the idea of "competitive RPGs" as
anything more than a bad joke. But I don't recall that we saw it as a
selling pitch, either.

"...and No Tournaments!" seems to have become a poster slogan as we and
the Rocococon crew realised that it *did* make us different from some.

DC

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 5:26:52 AM2/21/02
to
> The thing is, the complaints from CM were just about the only
> complaints we had the whole weekend - my e-mail box is overflowing
> with praise from other attendees.

What we all really want to know though is who were the people yelping
"Witchcraft,! Witchcraft!"

Luck,
--
_______________________________________________

DC

"You can not reason a man out of a position he did not reach through
reason"

"Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice."

Have you visited the hunger site today?
http://www.hungersite.com/index.html
Your visit donates grain to the United Nations world food program.

Phil Masters

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 7:21:28 AM2/21/02
to
Killans - First And Last And Always wrote:
> As for over- and under-organisation, well, it was a slightly odd system,
> and I can see how with a bit of bad luck it could lead to people
> missing out on games they'd like to play. I don't think that justifies
> the invective and the downright nasty insults that the people in
> the Critical Miss article spout, though.

They went to the con. They evidently had a crap time. A certain amount
of annoyance seems only natural in those circumstances.

The rest is, well, the Critical Miss house style. It's not entirely to
my taste either (sometimes the "I'm so kewl I swear a lot" thing gets on
my nerves too) but if that's how they choose to write, and if other
people are concerned about what they're saying, well, you have to read
past the style and look at the content.

> At the end of the day, this was an event run by a handful of volunteers,
> as a largely free occasion.

Bang. Wrong defence.

If you're causing people to spend their time and money going to a con
(and that article does point out how the costs mount up), then in my
book you're under a moral obligation to make it fun for them. Nobody's
perfect, but the fact that you're an amateur is no defence whatsoever.

(Yes, Baroquon had its odd glitches. I'll apologise for and discuss
those - just as the Conceptions people are, rightly, talking to the
authors of that article - but if I tried to pull the "It's an amateur
event" defence, other people would be entitled to yell at me.)

David Damerell

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 9:22:41 AM2/21/02
to
Darrell Impey <dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>>Darrell Impey <dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>><t...@timellis.demon.co.uk> writes
<>>>Did you really have to but a ticket to play in a game starting at a
<>>>particular time without actually knowing what game you might end up
<>>>playing in (if at all, if the review is accurate).
>>>simple answer is no you don't.
>>It seems to me that the simple answer would be "Yes, you did." If you have
>>a generic event ticket, you don't actually know which game you might end
>>up playing in.
>>So why are you telling us that it's "No"?
>Because, as I read the question and compared it with my experiences, it
>was not the case.
>You purchased a ticket for a game in a specific time slot, and attended
>the main area at that time. If you were unable to play your chosen game,
>for whatever reason, the ticket could be used to play in any other game
>that slot in which there was space.

I.e. you would buy a ticket "without actually knowing what game you might
end up playing in". Exactly the circumstance described in the question.

So why are you telling us that it's not?

David Damerell

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 9:25:56 AM2/21/02
to
Killans - First And Last And Always <mcol...@nyx.net> wrote:
>At the end of the day, this was an event run by a handful of volunteers,
>as a largely free occasion.

That's no excuse for screwing it up; and, yes, I do have some small amount
of (non-RPG) conrunning experience, as an unpaid volunteer.

Adam Canning

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 9:57:15 AM2/21/02
to
In article <7VOhVEA8...@timellis.demon.co.uk>,
t...@timellis.demon.co.uk says...

> Darrell Impey <dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk> has previously posted
> >>Excuse me? Are you saying that we could have got specific tickets for
> >>specific games?
> >
> >No, I was referring to the fact that the RPGA _usually_ produces
> >specific tickets, but in this case hadn't. This has since been shown to
> >be at the request of the event organisers.
> >>
>
> So, as has been pointed out, the answer to my question "Did you really
> have to buy a ticket for a game starting at a timer slot without knowing
> what game you would end up playing" is indeed "Yes". You could sign up
> for a game starting at 2pm, but not a game of "Warhammer FRP" starting
> at 2pm.

Except that the concept of printing times on the tickets was a mistake in
communication.

There were in effect only three tickets. Live Action, Living and
Classic and you could use them in any slot.

Adam

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 12:09:29 PM2/21/02
to
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 00:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), j...@cix.co.uk
(John Dallman) scribed:

Yes, it was open from 8.30am in the morning to 10.00pm at night,
serving hot food all day long. The chalets also have microwaves and
ovens, so self-catering is certainly an option.

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 12:13:42 PM2/21/02
to
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:21:28 +0000, Phil Masters
<ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> scribed:

>Killans - First And Last And Always wrote:
>> As for over- and under-organisation, well, it was a slightly odd system,
>> and I can see how with a bit of bad luck it could lead to people
>> missing out on games they'd like to play. I don't think that justifies
>> the invective and the downright nasty insults that the people in
>> the Critical Miss article spout, though.
>
>They went to the con. They evidently had a crap time. A certain amount
>of annoyance seems only natural in those circumstances.
>
>The rest is, well, the Critical Miss house style. It's not entirely to
>my taste either (sometimes the "I'm so kewl I swear a lot" thing gets on
>my nerves too) but if that's how they choose to write, and if other
>people are concerned about what they're saying, well, you have to read
>past the style and look at the content.
>
>> At the end of the day, this was an event run by a handful of volunteers,
>> as a largely free occasion.
>
>Bang. Wrong defence.
>
>If you're causing people to spend their time and money going to a con
>(and that article does point out how the costs mount up), then in my
>book you're under a moral obligation to make it fun for them. Nobody's
>perfect, but the fact that you're an amateur is no defence whatsoever.
>
>(Yes, Baroquon had its odd glitches. I'll apologise for and discuss
>those - just as the Conceptions people are, rightly, talking to the
>authors of that article - but if I tried to pull the "It's an amateur
>event" defence, other people would be entitled to yell at me.)

As I've said, any criticisms they have which are valid will be acted
upon, no questions asked. Some of them we identified ourselves before
CM mentioned them.

Yet I will say that something like 95% of the people there (about a
couple of hundred in total) had a good time. CM were very much the
exception as opposed to the rule. This does not make their concerns
any less valid and they will be addressed.

Best Regards,
Dave


>
>--
>Phil Masters * Home Page: http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/
>"Battle not with flamers, lest ye become a flamer; and stare not too
>deeply into the 'net, or you will find the 'net staring into you."
> -- Friedrich Nietzsche (loosely translated)

morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk * www.veilofnight.net

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 12:15:13 PM2/21/02
to
On 21 Feb 2002 14:25:56 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:

>Killans - First And Last And Always <mcol...@nyx.net> wrote:

I would argue that over all we didn't - judging by the reactions of
people there and since, apart from the CM guys just about everyone
else enjoyed themselves.

Best Regards,
Dave

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 12:16:37 PM2/21/02
to
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:26:52 +0000, DC <sws9...@met.rdg.ac.uk>
scribed:

>> The thing is, the complaints from CM were just about the only
>> complaints we had the whole weekend - my e-mail box is overflowing
>> with praise from other attendees.
>
>What we all really want to know though is who were the people yelping
>"Witchcraft,! Witchcraft!"
>
>Luck,
>--
>_______________________________________________
>
>DC

I know who they were. One of them posts here....

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 12:46:42 PM2/21/02
to
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:53:54 +0000, Phil Masters
<ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> scribed:

>Morgoth's Cat wrote:
>> Hi Phil, can you elaborate your reading of the review?
>

>I read what it said... What sort of elaboration do you want?
>
>(One thing I *have* noticed at events like GenCon UK, and which also
>comes out of the review, is the sense that people on front desks don't
>want to be there, don't give much of a toss about problems which people
>bring to them, and don't see it as their job to actually react when a
>member of the convention is standing there with some kind of question. I
>would say that this is amateurish, except that I've been to amateur-run
>events where the front desk assignees took their position seriously.)

That is the sort of thing we're after. Next?

>
>--
>Phil Masters * Home Page: http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/
>"Battle not with flamers, lest ye become a flamer; and stare not too
>deeply into the 'net, or you will find the 'net staring into you."
> -- Friedrich Nietzsche (loosely translated)

I know that it has oft been mooted to write a convention-organising
FAQ - I would be willing to contribute what we've learned to do and
not to do....how about anyone else?

Phil Masters

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 1:04:29 PM2/21/02
to
Morgoth's Cat wrote:
> I know that it has oft been mooted to write a convention-organising
> FAQ - I would be willing to contribute what we've learned to do and
> not to do....how about anyone else?

It's not a proper FAQ, but it seemed like a good start at the time:

http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/RPGs/ConOrganising.txt

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 1:22:18 PM2/21/02
to
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:04:29 +0000, Phil Masters
<ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> scribed:

>Morgoth's Cat wrote:

Thanks Phil....

Jonny Nexus

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 2:02:48 PM2/21/02
to
Matthew Bloomer <mjb...@nospam.york.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<k4077uggdnjtesd4q...@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:31:03 +0000, Stephen Sangar
> <cor...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >(*For the complete article, see
> >http://www.criticalmiss.com/current/conception20021.html)
>
> Have the Critical Miss people sent out the 'New Issue!' email yet
> (that if they have I have not received) or are you one step ahead of
> them?

Yes, we sent it out on Monday evening.

If you have subscribed, but have not received the mail, then it is due
to two things:

a) There might have been a technical problem at our end (possible, I'm
afraid).

b) You might have made a mistake entering in the email address. (There
were a number of mails that could not be sent because the account
didn't exist. This is either because the account has since been
deleted, or the person made a typo entering it. We usually delete
these. We could try to "correct" them, but that seems dangerous,
because you might end up with a valid address for a different person.)

The upshot is that if you resubscribe you will be added to the mailing
list and get a mail next time. Sorry you didn't get the mail this
time, and double sorry if it's our fault.

Jonny Nexus, Editor, Critical Miss Magazine

Jonny Nexus

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 2:09:12 PM2/21/02
to
Adam Canning <da...@dahak.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.16df1b25d...@news.cis.dfn.de>...

> Except that the concept of printing times on the tickets was a mistake in
> communication.
>
> There were in effect only three tickets. Live Action, Living and
> Classic and you could use them in any slot.

That would certainly be a better way of doing things
(after we failed to get into the game on Saturday evening
we wouldn't have needed to purchase more tickets for
Sunday morning, we could just have reused the old tickets).

But could I point out that this is the first anyone has
mentioned this. I'm sure that when the system was
explained to us, it was along the lines of "you buy a
ticket for the slot you want". In fact, when we went to
buy tickets one time, and the bloke happened to give
us the wrong tickets (i.e. for the wrong slot) he noticed,
took them back, and give us the correct ones.

If, as you appear to be saying, that having different tickets
for each slot was basically just a printing error, then why
didn't the organisers just tell everyone to ignore the slot
number printed on the ticket?

Jonny Nexus

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 2:16:59 PM2/21/02
to
mcol...@nyx.net (Killans - First And Last And Always) wrote in message news:<10142822...@irys.nyx.net>...


> At the end of the day, this was an event run by a handful of volunteers,
> as a largely free occasion.

I'm not sure whether it is appropriate at this
point to refer people to a separate article in
our latest issue, but since it seems *very*
relevant to this part of the discussion, and
since many of you might have missed it, may
I. You can find it at:

http://www.criticalmiss.com/current/reviewmotivations1.html

This article was linked to from the end of the main
review. I basically wanted to explain what my
motivations were in writing the review, and what
responsibilites I felt that the Conception
organisers had had to us (basically it covers
the whole issue of volunteers doing stuff for
free). It explains my views more coherently
than I could in a few paragraphs here.

You might still disagree with me after reading
it, but I would appreciate it if you would
have a glance over it.

Thanks.

Darrell Impey

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 2:21:18 PM2/21/02
to
In article <3c752b46...@news.freeserve.net>, Morgoth's Cat
<mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> writes

>I know who they were. One of them posts here....

Not me, just in case anyone was wondering. :)

If they were who I suspect they were, I have to say that I find it a
tedious too.
--
Darrell

Jonny Nexus

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 2:26:47 PM2/21/02
to
Darrell Impey <dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2+ySqoAP...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk>...

Sorry, I did fail to mention the catering (as someone
else has pointed out, I didn't use it because I'm a
vegan). I think I did say in the review that "It's a
great site for a convention" which I meant to mean
that the actual site, i.e. the bar, the eating facilities,
the chalets, the main hall etc. were a very good place
to host a convetion.

I'm afraid I didn't go into details there, which I should
have done, but not having used them, I forgot. Sorry if
I gave a misleading impression.

As a secondary issue, the reason I mentioned the cost of
food wasn't to imply that this was a failing of the
convention for not providing something. It was to illustrate
the fact that because you go away, certain costs start
to mount up. We ended up paying more for food than we would
have done if we'd stayed at home because we didn't know
how much we'd need, didn't want to have to make another trip
to the supermarket (which would have caused us to miss
another session) and ended up buying too much.

It all starts to add up.

But combined with my not mentioning the food facilities, it
did give the wrong impression, so sorry for that.

Jonny Nexus, Editor, Critical Miss Magazine

P.S. Demonic and Evil G were having their breakfasts at the
bar eating counter thingy, and I believe they both enjoyed
them.

TC

unread,
Feb 19, 2002, 6:01:58 PM2/19/02
to
Just to add to my earlier post . . .

The cliquiness of Conception 2002? We didn't come across it. There was
only myself and a one mate that went and we didn't know anyone else
there. We both had a great time. The 'problem' of going in groups, I
would suggest, is that you all want to get into the same game at the
same time. Tricky if there's a car load of you?

Although I was very surprised to find the RPGA 'running' the event - I
am NOT a big fan of the RPGA and find them VERY cliquey. (In fact had I
know that the RPGA where running it, then I would not have gone - and
thus would have made a HUGE mistake, since it was such a great event.)

I don't think the reviewer of the article can talk of his travel / booze
costs as a negative aspect of the event. Nice guys, one and all I am
sure his friends are: but if they want to spend Ł200 on vodka and bread
from Sainsbury's that's their prerogative, not a reflection on the
event. Nor is the cost of flight tickets or car hire.

I do have to say that the actual venue itself wasn't the easiest to find
and we drove by the site too!!!

All in all a great convention with excellent accommodation which I can
wholeheartedly recommend - unlike last year's GenCon that I found
cliquey, expensive, badly organised, 'first come, first served' was the
order of the day when trying to get into games, the delegate organised
games were few and far between and, frankly, if it hadn't been for the
corking chaps in BITS, the event would have been beyond a nightmare.

Anyway, if my brief overview of my experience at GenCon seems familiar,
then you obviously haven't read the Critical Miss article, reviewing
Conception 2002:-)

http://www.criticalmiss.com/current/conception20021.html

Seriously, I'm really sorry to read that some folk had such a bad time,
and I hope that your next convention is a better one, but our experience
of the event are so far removed from one another the only conclusion I
can draw is that, luck, attitude, expectation and the size of the group
must have a some effect on your level of enjoyment.

Toby
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net

Sheila Thomas

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 2:28:43 PM2/21/02
to
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 a message arrived from DC (DC

<sws9...@met.rdg.ac.uk>) concerning Conception 2002, who wrote:
>> The thing is, the complaints from CM were just about the only
>> complaints we had the whole weekend - my e-mail box is overflowing
>> with praise from other attendees.
>
>What we all really want to know though is who were the people yelping
>"Witchcraft,! Witchcraft!"

Perhaps, people wishing to play a game of C J Carella's 'Witchcraft' RPG
(Eden Studios)?

... no doubt that answer is too easy to be correct ...
--
Sheila Thomas
mal...@granta.demon.co.uk http://www.granta.demon.co.uk
Conjuration 2003 - http://www.conjuration.info


Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 6:02:04 PM2/21/02
to
On 21 Feb 2002 11:09:12 -0800, edi...@criticalmiss.com (Jonny Nexus)
scribed:

When I was on the desk I did. But I can't speak for others of course.

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 6:02:45 PM2/21/02
to
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:21:18 +0000, Darrell Impey
<dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk> scribed:

Well, some people are naturally boisterous...though I keep my
boisterousness for when I'm GMing...

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 6:03:50 PM2/21/02
to
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:28:43 +0000, Sheila Thomas
<mal...@granta.demon.co.uk> scribed:

We ran five tables of it in all, including one on Sunday Afternoon
which lasted *8.25* hours (it's a three hour scenario and ran on both
Thursday night and Friday morning in just over three hours).

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 6:13:34 PM2/21/02
to
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 23:01:58 -0000, TC <t...@hotmail.com> scribed:

>Just to add to my earlier post . . .
>
>The cliquiness of Conception 2002? We didn't come across it. There was
>only myself and a one mate that went and we didn't know anyone else
>there. We both had a great time. The 'problem' of going in groups, I
>would suggest, is that you all want to get into the same game at the
>same time. Tricky if there's a car load of you?
>
>Although I was very surprised to find the RPGA 'running' the event - I
>am NOT a big fan of the RPGA and find them VERY cliquey. (In fact had I
>know that the RPGA where running it, then I would not have gone - and
>thus would have made a HUGE mistake, since it was such a great event.)

I am aware of how some people can see this, but in my experience it's
mainly down to the fact that the RPGA people know each other...In the
case of Conception, the RPGA offer each year to do some admin for us
and we agree because they do do a good job [1]. Any organisational
problems are the organisers fault, i.e. ours.

>
>I don't think the reviewer of the article can talk of his travel / booze
>costs as a negative aspect of the event. Nice guys, one and all I am
>sure his friends are: but if they want to spend Ł200 on vodka and bread
>from Sainsbury's that's their prerogative, not a reflection on the
>event. Nor is the cost of flight tickets or car hire.
>
>I do have to say that the actual venue itself wasn't the easiest to find
>and we drove by the site too!!!

Yes, as webmaster, all I can say is mea culpa. Next year there will be
directions and photographs of the site entrance as well as maps.

One other thing that came up is that we're going to have a crib sheet
with phone numbers of local doctors etc, maps and addresses of local
banks, supermarkets etc. The site itself had these apparently but
their desk closed down early each evening.

We're currently looking at the whole ticking issue and expect to reach
a decision on the system we will use next year quite soon.

The marshalling we've already agreed to change (this was before the CM
review came out), and I think next year people will be pleasantly
surprised.

Best Regards,
Dave

[1]Disclaimer: I'm actually an RPGA Area Coordinator, but Conception
itself is organised and run independently of any gaming organisation
or company.

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 6:19:58 PM2/21/02
to
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:02:04 GMT,
mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet (Morgoth's Cat)
scribed:

Quick note: this is not an attempt to absolve myself of blame. We
should have had it printed up in big letters so that we did not need
to tell people.

Next year, if we go down the wholly generic route, we will make sure,
by hook or by crook, that it is crystal clear that tickets can be used
in any slot.

David Damerell

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 7:03:33 PM2/21/02
to
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
>On 21 Feb 2002 14:25:56 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
>>That's no excuse for screwing it up; and, yes, I do have some small amount
>>of (non-RPG) conrunning experience, as an unpaid volunteer.
>I would argue that over all we didn't - judging by the reactions of
>people there and since, apart from the CM guys just about everyone
>else enjoyed themselves.

You can't know that. The majority of people at cons don't say _anything_;
the people who comment at all are necessarily a minority.

Furthermore, even if it only afflicts a few people (which I'm not sure I
believe), a system as utterly perverse as this slot/ticket one is screwed
up, full stop.

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 7:14:04 PM2/21/02
to
On 22 Feb 2002 00:03:33 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:

>Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:


>>On 21 Feb 2002 14:25:56 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
>>>That's no excuse for screwing it up; and, yes, I do have some small amount
>>>of (non-RPG) conrunning experience, as an unpaid volunteer.
>>I would argue that over all we didn't - judging by the reactions of
>>people there and since, apart from the CM guys just about everyone
>>else enjoyed themselves.
>
>You can't know that. The majority of people at cons don't say _anything_;
>the people who comment at all are necessarily a minority.

I personally spoke to a majority of the people there.

>
>Furthermore, even if it only afflicts a few people (which I'm not sure I
>believe), a system as utterly perverse as this slot/ticket one is screwed
>up, full stop.
>--

But it's not. Generic tickets do work. Sure we had a problem in that
people didn't realise that they could be used in any slot (that's a
mea culpa on our behalf). but as a system they do work.

The only limitation we had in place was the obvious one - the number
of GMs. If 80 people wanted to play a particular game and there were
enough GMs those 80 people would have played.

And if people couldn't get into a particular game they wanted to play
because say, there were only two players, they could play in something
else that slot and then play in the game they wanted in a later slot.

Best Regards,
Dave

>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

Tim Ellis

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 7:48:40 PM2/21/02
to
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> has
previously posted

>
>And if people couldn't get into a particular game they wanted to play
>because say, there were only two players, they could play in something
>else that slot and then play in the game they wanted in a later slot.
>

If people had signed up for a specific game at a specific time then they
would have known before hand whether it was going to run or not, and so
would the organisers. If a particular system was extremely popular then
the organisers would have been able to try and arrange extra GM's/
Sessions from the start. If a particular game was particularly
unpopular then some of the GM's could have been redirected into other
games with enough time to actually prepare. What is the problem with
this?
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Ellis EMail t...@timellis.demon.co.uk |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Stephen Pettifer

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 7:50:32 PM2/21/02
to
Ok I will
I take it you weren't there
like a lot of the opionions here
I am no fan of the RPGA and their points mean prizes and desperate need to
know who's won
and if I had known it was being run by them I might not have gone
but I and my 3 mates had a great time
we got all the games we wanted though I admit it wasn't the best system ever
and the con organisers have stated here over and over that they will rethink
that
I found people generally friendly and it was clear to us we could swap our
tickets for slots (which we did)
Cost wise i spent £35 for 4 nights acommodation
£10 towards petrol
and £90 on beer and food
which I thought was good value
but hey, what do I know
I was only there

David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:nUp*1k...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

Stephen Pettifer

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 7:54:19 PM2/21/02
to
Oh
And we didn't play the PIMP game because it sounded shite
not because we were cliqueing about

cheers

Stephen Pettifer <ste...@nospamspettifer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a544m8$fvc$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

Nimrod Jones

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 8:17:51 PM2/21/02
to
DC <sws9...@met.rdg.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3C74CB6C...@met.rdg.ac.uk...

> > The thing is, the complaints from CM were just about the only
> > complaints we had the whole weekend - my e-mail box is overflowing
> > with praise from other attendees.
>
> What we all really want to know though is who were the people yelping
> "Witchcraft,! Witchcraft!"

Okay, I'll come clean because I have a bit of a bone to pick about the
review. I was in that group and it grossly misrepresents what actually
happened. It makes out that the "other group" were all chanting this in some
bizarro fashion. This was not the case, I certainly don't remember it as
such. Maybe one of the guys I was standing with started saying something in
jest or whatever, I honestly can't remember, I was too busy concentrating on
trying to find out how many players we had and trying to talk to these
"other players" [the Critical Miss guys it turns out] and find out what they
were doing. As I remember we had *too many* players because the scenario was
designed for four players and we had about seven standing there. I think
someone might have expressed their eagerness in not dropping out of the game
(because no one else seemed inclined to make up their minds). Then one of
them [the CM guys] turns around and suddenly says, "I'm not playing with
them" which to be honest I took to be just as clique-y as anything they are
accusing people of being. Because there wasn't any apparent group stepping
forward the game was cancelled (because there were no GMs), but I remember
Dave was quite willing to give up his Live Action game to GM us... *We*
turned him down so that he could play and I just assumed that these "other
players" had just decided not to play because they were hanging back. [Yes.
I got a refund because I asked for it. I know it's charity, but I'm broke.
Really. I'm financially screwed as I write this. A lot of things have
suddenly caught up with me. Besides it went back into the raffle tickets.]

We then went to the bar and had a bloody good time playing Lunch Money, Flux
and then Apples after everyone had finished the Live Action. They could have
come and joined us at the table but their *own* prejudice got in the way ...
and they whine about being isolated?

Sorry, Jonny, but you whine about the "underdog", waxing lyrical about your
childhood. Well, I'm one of those guys wandering around on my own. I'm one
of those guys that comes to conventions by myself because none of my other
friends are either interested or can afford it. I get by fine by actually
bothering to talk to people. Sure, it can appear clique-y at first. That was
my first impression of GenCon. I wandered from game to game having a good
time, and then I would chase up players in the bar and try to chat to them.
Usually I got on with most of them. Then in the Manchester GenCon I
discovered that there was way, way, way more going on than I at first
realised.... Clique-y I'll be buggered! How do I get into *these* games?
Last GenCon I took the time to find out.

Conception was completely different. It was a smaller venue and you couldn't
have been in the surrounding of a nicer bunch of guys. Everyone is very
approachable, and usually if you see a non-organised game going on (like a
game of cards on the side) you can just stroll up, sit down, and learn how
to play.

Frankly, I think that the whole Witchcraft anecdote is a little blown out of
proportion for the sake of seperating them as "normal" and the "other
players" as freaks. Wake up, we're all freaks! Everyone on this group is a
freak to those who don't know us. If they'd bothered to come up to us in the
bar they probabaly would have found us to be friendly enough towards them.
Sure, there *are* some people out there that even when you get to know them
you wanna stand back and say, "Whoa! You're freakin' me out!" But oftentimes
people who appear to be as such are quite the opposite, in the same way that
people who appear to be "normal" are the worst freaks. Save me from
normality! It's a bloody scary place to be! [Face it, we wouldn't be
roleplayers if we were "normal".]

Now, some of the points I will agree with, but most of these have already
been commented on, however, most of the review read like some kind of
incidental nightmare experience which they let tarnish their view of the
convention. Hell, if I take my ordeal getting down there I should have
turned back before I started. I got out the front door and my back split on
me. I could barely walk. Thankfully, someone I knew helped me out and sorted
my back for me before I had to go catch the train. The train left from
Cardiff at 3:30pm and the journey should have lasted around 3 hours. It took
me nearly two hours to complete the 45 minute journey to Bristol due to
works on the tunnel, then there was a landslide at Keynsham which delayed
things further. While I was waiting at Southampton Central I should have
been arriving at New Milton. Delerious with hunger and feeling pretty damned
exhausted from the extended train journey, I failed to notice that the guard
didn't announce New Milton and I was end of the line in Poole before I
realised this. Now 9:30pm I had a choice between waiting for the next train
back and getting to the venue at probably nearly 11pm or catching a taxi
(which cost me more than my return ticket) and getting there in about 30
minutes. We even had to stop and ask directions (on the bloody meter!). Now
this could well have tainted my experience big time. I'd recieved two court
summons just earlier that week and spent the previous day running around
trying to sort the bloody mess out.

However, _these_were_complete_unrelated_to_the_event! As were the reviewers'
own journey, expenditure in the supermarket and many other "petty problems"
that were raised as major issues. I sympathise with the food situation with
regards to his being vegan, as a vegetarian I found the menu lacking, as a
vegan there was practically no way I could have eaten there.

The reviewer talks about games you can't get into... the games in the
chalets? How is this any different from their own D&D games? I suspect that
many people were doing this, or variations thereof.

It's very easy to, with a few misrepresented words, twist things into
something they were not. "...a bizarre high pitched voice"???? If that
happened it must have been fleeting because I don't remember it and I was
standing next to them. If I did notice it, it was clearly something I didn't
bother taking to heart. It certainly wasn't "chanting", it certainly wasn't
"yelping", it was more likely a momentary, as Dave puts it, act of
boistrousness. At most I put it down to someone just getting impatient with
the indecisiveness which was coming as much from the CM guys as it was
anyone else.

My reading of much of the review is tainted by the interpretation of that
single event. If that event is misrepresented in that way, then I'm inclined
to take other accounts with a pinch of interpretation!

Nuff said.

Nimrod...
"Bitchcraft! Bitchcraft! Bitchcraft!"


Nimrod Jones

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 8:21:16 PM2/21/02
to
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote in
message news:3c757ca...@news.freeserve.net...

>
> We ran five tables of it in all, including one on Sunday Afternoon
> which lasted *8.25* hours (it's a three hour scenario and ran on both
> Thursday night and Friday morning in just over three hours).

And I'll add to my prior post that having turned down Witchcraft the first
time, I'm glad I did because I was in that corker of a game. The game in
which I have not seen one person roll so many 10s on a d10 in a single game,
and had the best line to end a game on... However, as I'm writing this still
reeling from the other long post I'm not feeling in a particularly sharing
mood. Oh, and it's late so I'm tired...

Nimrod...
--
"I got head explody!" -- JTHM


Nimrod Jones

unread,
Feb 21, 2002, 8:26:16 PM2/21/02
to
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote in
message news:3c75804b...@news.freeserve.net...

> >
> >When I was on the desk I did. But I can't speak for others of course.
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >Dave
>
> Quick note: this is not an attempt to absolve myself of blame. We
> should have had it printed up in big letters so that we did not need
> to tell people.
>
> Next year, if we go down the wholly generic route, we will make sure,
> by hook or by crook, that it is crystal clear that tickets can be used
> in any slot.

This didn't pose a problem for me. As I understood it you could just
exchange the tickets for another slot if you wished or if you missed one. I
even started a game without a ticket and then rushed off to get one while we
were reading our characters...

Nimrod...
--
"It's not stupid - it's *advanced*." -- Almighty Tallest, 'Invader Zim'


Phil Masters

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 3:19:02 AM2/22/02
to
Jonny Nexus wrote:
> But could I point out that this is the first anyone has
> mentioned this. I'm sure that when the system was
> explained to us, it was along the lines of "you buy a
> ticket for the slot you want". ...

That's a basic type of problem I think crops up at RPGA events quite a
bit. The volunteers assume that everyone knows how the system is
supposed to work (because *they've* been to loads of RPGA events
before), so they can't be bothered to be clear.

Add to this the basic problem that too many RPGA event volunteers seem
to be complacent and inefficient - or maybe, to be charitable and shift
the blame, badly briefed - and trying to sort out minor problems gets to
be a nightmare of "dunno ask Fred" idiocy.

I should add that this isn't inherent in the RPGA as such - other cons
which are part of big series tend the same way - but because the RPGA
does get involved in a lot of conventions, they get more chance to build
up the attitude. And I think they maybe need to take the line with
volunteers that if they've volunteered to help, they are morally
obligated to ****ing well *help*, and if that's too much like work, then
**** off.

--
Phil Masters * Home Page: http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/

TC

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 4:08:18 AM2/22/02
to
In article <3C75FEF6...@philm.demon.co.uk>, ph...@philm.demon.co.uk
says...

> Jonny Nexus wrote:
> > But could I point out that this is the first anyone has
> > mentioned this. I'm sure that when the system was
> > explained to us, it was along the lines of "you buy a
> > ticket for the slot you want". ...
>
> That's a basic type of problem I think crops up at RPGA events quite a
> bit. The volunteers assume that everyone knows how the system is
> supposed to work (because *they've* been to loads of RPGA events
> before), so they can't be bothered to be clear.

I TOTALLY (sorry for shouting) agree with you here. The way that GenCon
was organised you actually had to seek out the desk where you could sign
up for games. If been to a load of cons, but had always avoided playing
in RPGA events - I hate the idea of 'scoring' etc. - and GenCon was the
worst example of "being part of the 'in' crowd to get along". This is an
issue that I think that the RPGA need to address - no matter how much
they say otherwise: they are NOT newbie friendly at all. It's who you
know that gets you along most of the time.

> Add to this the basic problem that too many RPGA event volunteers seem
> to be complacent and inefficient - or maybe, to be charitable and shift
> the blame, badly briefed - and trying to sort out minor problems gets to
> be a nightmare of "dunno ask Fred" idiocy.

I have to agree here too. OK . . . sorry Dave (and all who organised
Conception . . . the organisation, although everything seemed fairly
straightforward, was not overly helpful. The whole 'classic' ticket
thing - what's a 'classic ticket'? - was not well explained. It was a
lottery whether you got into your game of choice (or not).

Although I had read the website (which could have been clearer on a
number of points), I was disappointed to discover that delegates
received nothing, no information, as part of a welcome pack.

Suggestions (and that's all these are):

o All conference 'staff' wear t-shirts, or badges or some other means of
identifying them.

o Assuming that it was known in advance that the RPGA were running the
show and everything was to be 'marked' (like being back at school), I
would have liked to have been told that it was an RPGA event. Granted, I
would not have attended the con, but I would have had an informed
choice! :-) Solution: slap an RPGA logo on the website's home page and
point out this fact.

o Charge people for the event, but not by ticket to each game they get
involved in. (I realise that ALL the money from slots sales went to
charity.) I found the £140 for four night's accommodation for five
people (only two of us could make it in the end) the most incredibly
cheap few days' break away from work that I have ever had. If I recall I
paid out £18 for 'slot tickets' (I.e. 9 slots @ £2 per slot). Personally
I would have rather forked out £20 in advance and actually, truly,
physically 'signed up' for a particular game.

o The Lottery (Or how we actually got into the game of our choice).
Rather than having someone shout out "Anyone for the D&D? I need six
people (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); that's it, there's no more room. I need six
players for <insert game>". Repeat. We preferred the approach used a
couple of times: "Players for D&D, please stand over over there. Players
for <insert game>, over in that corner." Repeat. It gave the player (fee
paying customers) the opportunity to see who/what!/how many s/he was
playing with, and it gave the DM a similar choice. The barrack-room
shouting - almost bullying approach - adopted at GENCON especially,
presumably preferred by the RPGA, was clearly in evidence at Conception,
but to a much lesser degree. There has to be a better way or organising
people into games than by shouting at them and picking the folk who were
fastest of foot and had thus made their way through a narrow doorway the
quickest? Rather than focus on the players, why not focus on the DMs?
I.e. "In the left-hand corner is the D&D DM. Players for that game,
stand over there, please." Repeat. Much nicer. Of course some RPGA
organisers (at GenCon, not at Conception I must add) revelled in the
'power' that they had, so I am sure that they would be reluctant to
relinquish this control over their minions.

o Encourage Delegate Organised Games (DOGs) in advance. OK, so it's an
RPGA event, but I like the idea of being able to run a game of Traveller
without having to run the gauntlet of the RPGA. I'm happy to request a
table, and a time and book it, and have the organisers deal with the
bookings. If no-one books for the game (or you have 2 players and you
need 6) then everyone can be informed in advance that the game will NOT
take place.

Just my 2p worth.

I still loved Conception, and without doubt it was the best convention
that I have attended in (Gawd) twenty years of gaming. I thank the
organisers unreservedly.

<snip>

Bubba

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 6:00:01 AM2/22/02
to
Reply to Stephen Pettifer on behalf of Jonny Nexus...

>Oh
>And we didn't play the PIMP game because it sounded shite
>not because we were cliqueing about

It's fair enough that you thought it sounded shite (we'd
hardly defend its artistic integrety). But in the in the
article it said:

Now the truth here is probably that no-one at the convention
wanted to play the game. But I can't help thinking that it
might also have been because:

a) The board that our notice was up on wasn't very noticeable; and

b) He'd read out all the other games, one after the other. Someone
listening to this would have had no way of knowing if we were there
are not. Would you - owning a generic Ł2 ticket to a game - pass on
all the games that were on offer, in the hope that the game advertise
on a scrappy poster was actually on? If he'd told everyone that our
game was on offer at the start, some of them might have thought: "Hey
that sounds like a laugh!"

Didn't blame people for being cliquey. Just pointed out that there
wasn't much support for delegate organised games.

DC

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 6:01:09 AM2/22/02
to
Sheila Thomas wrote:

> >What we all really want to know though is who were the people yelping
> >"Witchcraft,! Witchcraft!"
>
> Perhaps, people wishing to play a game of C J Carella's 'Witchcraft' RPG
> (Eden Studios)?
>
> ... no doubt that answer is too easy to be correct ...

The answer IS often in the question. ;-)

--
_______________________________________________

DC

"You can not reason a man out of a position he did not reach through
reason"

"Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice."

Have you visited the hunger site today?
http://www.hungersite.com/index.html
Your visit donates grain to the United Nations world food program.

Bubba

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 6:24:40 AM2/22/02
to
Reply to Nimrod Jones on behalf of Jonny Nexus

> Okay, I'll come clean because I have a bit of a bone to pick about the
> review. I was in that group and it grossly misrepresents what actually
> happened. It makes out that the "other group" were all chanting this in some
> bizarro fashion. This was not the case, I certainly don't remember it as
> such. Maybe one of the guys I was standing with started saying something in
> jest or whatever, I honestly can't remember, I was too busy concentrating on
> trying to find out how many players we had and trying to talk to these
> "other players" [the Critical Miss guys it turns out] and find out what they
> were doing.

Firstly, the article stated:

What actually happened was that one of them started to chant:
"Witchcraft! Witchcraft! Witchcraft!" over and over again, in a
really bizarre high-pitched voice."

(Note that it says "one of them")

You said:

Maybe one of the guys I was standing with started saying
something in jest or whatever

Is there a big contradiction between those two statements?

Maybe we shouldn't put it in because it is a bit personal. But don't
say it didn't happen.

You say you were trying to talk to us. No you didn't.

The organiser asked you guys what you wanted to play. You said
"Witchcraft".

I would have expected him to then ask us the same question, and then
start trying to work things out, but he started talking to you. We
waited. We couldn't quite hear what was being said but it seemed to be
along the lines of there being some kind of problem.

We didn't walk away while he was still talking to you. If we had, we'd
have assumed that you went into the game. But we stayed until you guys
walked away. (We then assumed that the game was cancelled). The
organiser then walked off.

At no point did anyone say anything to us, or make any attempt to talk
to us.

> As I remember we had *too many* players because the scenario was
> designed for four players and we had about seven standing there. I think
> someone might have expressed their eagerness in not dropping out of the game
> (because no one else seemed inclined to make up their minds). Then one of
> them [the CM guys] turns around and suddenly says, "I'm not playing with
> them" which to be honest I took to be just as clique-y as anything they are
> accusing people of being.

Okay:

1) The comment was directed to us, not said to your group, and was
made so quietly that half of our group didn't hear it.

> Because there wasn't any apparent group stepping
> forward the game was cancelled (because there were no GMs), but I remember
> Dave was quite willing to give up his Live Action game to GM us...

> *We* turned him down so that he could play and I just assumed that these
> "other players" had just decided not to play because they were hanging back.

No, we were waiting patiently for him to talk to us. It's called
queuing. He had gone over to *your* group to talk to you about the
Witchcraft.

Given that we were in the area that was used exclusively for people to
wait to get into games, at the time when you were supposed to wait for
games, and holding game tickets... we assumed that it was obvious that
we were patiently waiting our turn to talk to the marshaller.

If he'd has asked us, we'd have accepted. Bog Boy massively wanted to
play Witchcraft. Two of us *would* have dropped out. To be honest,
it's a bit of a pisser now to find out that it hadn't been cancelled,
but you guys turned it down and it wasn't then offered to us.

> [Yes.
> I got a refund because I asked for it. I know it's charity, but I'm broke.
> Really. I'm financially screwed as I write this. A lot of things have
> suddenly caught up with me. Besides it went back into the raffle tickets.]

> We then went to the bar and had a bloody good time playing Lunch Money, Flux
> and then Apples after everyone had finished the Live Action. They could have
> come and joined us at the table but their *own* prejudice got in the way...
> and they whine about being isolated?

> Sorry, Jonny, but you whine about the "underdog", waxing lyrical about your
> childhood. Well, I'm one of those guys wandering around on my own. I'm one
> of those guys that comes to conventions by myself because none of my other
> friends are either interested or can afford it. I get by fine by actually
> bothering to talk to people. Sure, it can appear clique-y at first. That was
> my first impression of GenCon. I wandered from game to game having a good
> time, and then I would chase up players in the bar and try to chat to them.
> Usually I got on with most of them. Then in the Manchester GenCon I
> discovered that there was way, way, way more going on than I at first
> realised.... Clique-y I'll be buggered! How do I get into *these* games?
> Last GenCon I took the time to find out.

The review included stuff that reflected badly on the organisers (the
general game marshalled situation and so on) and stuff that reflected
badly on *us* (the stuff about us not wanting to talk to people
because they'd chanted stuff).

Doesn't that just mean it's an honest account of what happened.

> Conception was completely different. It was a smaller venue and you couldn't
> have been in the surrounding of a nicer bunch of guys. Everyone is very
> approachable, and usually if you see a non-organised game going on (like a
> game of cards on the side) you can just stroll up, sit down, and learn how
> to play.

> Frankly, I think that the whole Witchcraft anecdote is a little blown out of
> proportion for the sake of seperating them as "normal" and the "other
> players" as freaks. Wake up, we're all freaks! Everyone on this group is a
> freak to those who don't know us.

It wasn't intended as a major thing to prove a point. It was just
detail.

When did I say that the food situation was a major problem?

I never expected there to be vegan food available. That's why I bought
my own.

> The reviewer talks about games you can't get into... the games in the
> chalets? How is this any different from their own D&D games? I suspect that
> many people were doing this, or variations thereof.

We didn't complain that we couldn't get into those games. We did say
that it worried us that perhaps some of those people were in the same
situation as us: Wanted to get into organised games, couldn't, so
amused themselves.

> It's very easy to, with a few misrepresented words, twist things into
> something they were not. "...a bizarre high pitched voice"???? If that
> happened it must have been fleeting because I don't remember it and I was
> standing next to them. If I did notice it, it was clearly something I didn't
> bother taking to heart. It certainly wasn't "chanting", it certainly wasn't
> "yelping", it was more likely a momentary, as Dave puts it, act of
> boistrousness. At most I put it down to someone just getting impatient with
> the indecisiveness which was coming as much from the CM guys as it was
> anyone else.

We were queuing patiently, waiting for the marshaller to speak to us.

If he'd happened to choose us as the group to speak to first, instead
of you guys, would you have waited patiently while he dealt with us,
or would you have barged in?

> My reading of much of the review is tainted by the interpretation of that
> single event. If that event is misrepresented in that way, then I'm inclined
> to take other accounts with a pinch of interpretation!

We pretty well put everything in, even the stuff that reflected badly
on us.

Jonny

Stephen Pettifer

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 7:06:54 AM2/22/02
to
Ok, you have a point there
I just assumed that if the RPGA couldn't score it and file it
there would be little publicity for it
maybe next year there should be a seperate DOG board with all the slots on

cheers


Bubba <bu...@criticalmiss.com> wrote in message
news:d5716940.02022...@posting.google.com...

Bubba

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 7:47:42 AM2/22/02
to
Stephen Pettifer wrote:

> I am no fan of the RPGA and their points mean prizes and
> desperate need to know who's won and if I had known it was
> being run by them I might not have gone but I and my 3
> mates had a great time we got all the games we wanted though
> I admit it wasn't the best system ever and the con organisers
> have stated here over and over that they will rethink that
> I found people generally friendly and it was clear to us we
> could swap our tickets for slots (which we did)

Sounds like you had fun but like us think that the game
allocation system was flawed. Until this event I had no
real opinion on RPGA events. From my experience at this
one I can't say I really like their style but it won't
stop me going to other events.

> Cost wise i spent £35 for 4 nights acommodation
> £10 towards petrol
> and £90 on beer and food
> which I thought was good value

Ok so you spent a total of £135 (£35 + £10 + £90) and you
thought it was good value. Would you have thought the same
if you had not had a good time?

We only spent £111.47 per person (£668.79 / 6) so our weekend
was actually cheaper then yours. But unlike you we did not
have a good time.

> but hey, what do I know
> I was only there

So was I.

Bubba

Webmaster, Critical Miss

Nimrod Jones

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 7:48:13 AM2/22/02
to
Bubba <bu...@criticalmiss.com> wrote in message
news:d5716940.02022...@posting.google.com...
> Reply to Nimrod Jones on behalf of Jonny Nexus
>
> Firstly, the article stated:
>
> What actually happened was that one of them started to chant:
> "Witchcraft! Witchcraft! Witchcraft!" over and over again, in a
> really bizarre high-pitched voice."
>
> (Note that it says "one of them")
>
> You said:
>
> Maybe one of the guys I was standing with started saying
> something in jest or whatever
>
> Is there a big contradiction between those two statements?
>
> Maybe we shouldn't put it in because it is a bit personal. But don't
> say it didn't happen.

Sure, but somewhere along the ways the fact that it was one person seems to
be getting lost. This particular point was a clarification for others as
well as you. Additionally, I would *not* call it anywhere in the same
playing field as "chanting" (although in honesty I can't even remember it
happening -- that's how insignificant it was)

> You say you were trying to talk to us. No you didn't.

Yes, I did, and I was being promptly ignored. I'd managed to get one
person's attention for long enough to know that you guys were playing
Witchcraft also; when the person marshalling asked who was playing
Witchcraft I even pointed you guys out to him so he knew how many there
were. When he talked, he actually explained the situation that there would
have to be two groups, one of 4 and one of 3, we just had to decide how to
split it. You guys were busy talking and this is where I didn't want to go
barging in... especially as I could see some other players approaching who
wanted to play Witchcraft. We then had one too many for two groups and the
one guy dropped out.

> The organiser asked you guys what you wanted to play. You said
> "Witchcraft".

You may ave not seen it because you were busy talking among yourselves, but
I also pointed you guys out as players so he knew that there was more than
one group.

> I would have expected him to then ask us the same question, and then
> start trying to work things out, but he started talking to you. We
> waited. We couldn't quite hear what was being said but it seemed to be
> along the lines of there being some kind of problem.

I've already stated above what those problems were.

> We didn't walk away while he was still talking to you. If we had, we'd
> have assumed that you went into the game. But we stayed until you guys
> walked away. (We then assumed that the game was cancelled). The
> organiser then walked off.
>
> At no point did anyone say anything to us, or make any attempt to talk
> to us.

Well, perhaps you weren't making it known enough that you were still
interested. To be honest, even I thought that you'd given up wanting to play
because you certainly weren't making it known that you guys still wanted to
play. Once you had determined that no-one wanted to be in our group, one of
you should have at least let the Marshall know that you were a group of
players. After all, he *was* trying to find out what people were playing and
unless you say something they're not mind-readers....

> Okay:
>
> 1) The comment was directed to us, not said to your group, and was
> made so quietly that half of our group didn't hear it.

Clearly not quiet enough because *I* heard it, and I read the body language
clearer than that.

> No, we were waiting patiently for him to talk to us. It's called
> queuing. He had gone over to *your* group to talk to you about the
> Witchcraft.
>
> Given that we were in the area that was used exclusively for people to
> wait to get into games, at the time when you were supposed to wait for
> games, and holding game tickets... we assumed that it was obvious that
> we were patiently waiting our turn to talk to the marshaller.
>
> If he'd has asked us, we'd have accepted. Bog Boy massively wanted to
> play Witchcraft. Two of us *would* have dropped out. To be honest,
> it's a bit of a pisser now to find out that it hadn't been cancelled,
> but you guys turned it down and it wasn't then offered to us.

Because you did not make it clear that you were still interested. The way
you guys were huddled together you could well have been deciding your
alternatives. If I can think that I don't blame the marshaller for doing the
same. Sure, it may not have been right. Perhaps he should have come up and
checked, but also you probably should have collared the marshaller and let
him know that you were also interested in playing Witchcraft.

There were no GMs, and we turned it down so that Dave could go play Cthulhu
Live it was as simple as that. By that time, most of us thought that you
weren't interested anymore because you weren't making any fuss about
anything...

> The review included stuff that reflected badly on the organisers (the
> general game marshalled situation and so on) and stuff that reflected
> badly on *us* (the stuff about us not wanting to talk to people
> because they'd chanted stuff).
>
> Doesn't that just mean it's an honest account of what happened.

I don't dispute the honesty, what I'm disputing is the presentation of these
accounts. Wording is the key. It misrepresents you (to a lesser degree), but
it also misrepresents others. Sure, sure. Positioning. It was *your* point
of view. Fine, but at least have the decency to have enough objectivity to
not come across as judgemental. This is a major beef with me. I *hate*
judgementalism. I try to avoid it as much as possible. If I had been on the
other side of the fence, and had witnessed someone in another group
"chanting" like that, I'd probably have similar thoughts to you. The
difference is that I immediately disregard them because they have little
validity as to that individual's personality. In fact, I *was* witness to
this, because unlike you I was *not* with a bunch of friends that I'd come
to the convention with (I didn't even know one of the guys to talk to, he
was just someone else who was wanting to play). I probably had similar
thoughts, but they must have been so fleeting as to be insignificant.

It's a matter of clarification. The way you present it makes no distinction
between your own unrelated misfortunates and bad luck with the convention,
and it reads so that the two are crossed over to appear as though you take
out your unhappiness with circumstances on the unfortunate encounters with
the convention. It may be an honest account of why you were pissed off, but
it is not an honest criticism of the convention.

<snip>


>
> We didn't complain that we couldn't get into those games. We did say
> that it worried us that perhaps some of those people were in the same
> situation as us: Wanted to get into organised games, couldn't, so
> amused themselves.

And what's so bad about that? I know at least one person who originally
didn't enter a single organised game. I think he was in Cthulhu Live in the
end as an NPC, not sure if that counts... The most that I'd laughed was in
playing Apples, a card game...

> We were queuing patiently, waiting for the marshaller to speak to us.
>
> If he'd happened to choose us as the group to speak to first, instead
> of you guys, would you have waited patiently while he dealt with us,
> or would you have barged in?

I wouldn't have necessarily barged in, but I would have made my presence a
little more obvious and I would have certainly collared him afterwards or at
any moment that he stopped talking with you guys, even if only to let him
know that I (or "we" if others in the group weren't being forthcoming) also
wanted to play.

> We pretty well put everything in, even the stuff that reflected badly
> on us.

See my earlier reply to this point, but I repeat again. You cannot expect to
present an honest criticism of a convention if you present a subjective
account of why you were pissed off.

Nimrod...


Bubba

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 7:53:34 AM2/22/02
to
mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet (Morgoth's
Cat) wrote in message news:<3c73dc0...@news.freeserve.net>...
> >So sell generic tickets if people can't get the specific
> >tickets for the game they want because they've all gone.
> >That solves the problem of no-shows, too, since the people
> >with generic tickets can fill in any unexpected gaps.
>
> There were only something like a couple of occasions during
> the whole con whenever there were not enough GMs to cover the
> available players.

From my experience this happened more then a couple of times.

When we were playing the game we did get into (again kudos to
the GM for a great game) I noticed some of the people who had been
queuing with us for games earlier, heading into the bar and
ordering drinks. As far as I could see, they had not got into a game.

Also when we tried to run PIMP there were people who did not
get into games who again wondered into the bar. Fair enough they
did not want to play PIMP but I didn't see any of the organisers
trying to fit them into any games.

And of course there were the occasions where we did not get
into games as you have read in the article.

> We were also running out-of-slot games and games in additional slots
> for those who didn't get in to their first choice slot.

That makes sense, but we were never offered that choice.

What I would like to know is how many tickets were sold in
comparison to how many tickets were actually used. Thanx to
the RPGA's Big Brother approach, that shouldn't be difficult
to work out and would be the biggest indicator to how many
people purchased tickets that they ended up not using to get
into a game, either by choice, or because they couldn't.

Bubba

Webmaster, Critical Miss

Nimrod Jones

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 8:11:52 AM2/22/02
to
TC <t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16e01adf9...@mammoth.usenet-access.com...

>
> I TOTALLY (sorry for shouting) agree with you here. The way that GenCon
> was organised you actually had to seek out the desk where you could sign
> up for games. If been to a load of cons, but had always avoided playing
> in RPGA events - I hate the idea of 'scoring' etc. - and GenCon was the
> worst example of "being part of the 'in' crowd to get along". This is an
> issue that I think that the RPGA need to address - no matter how much
> they say otherwise: they are NOT newbie friendly at all. It's who you
> know that gets you along most of the time.

Don't quite see that myself. First con I went to was a GenCon. I got into
all the games I wanted to get into because I'd just grab someone and say
"where do I sign up?" and went from there. I only got to know people within
the RPGA after about the second or third GenCon, and mostly because I was
mug enough to offer to run scenarios cold when there were no more (or none
to begin with in some cases) GMs for a game I wanted to play...

> I have to agree here too. OK . . . sorry Dave (and all who organised
> Conception . . . the organisation, although everything seemed fairly
> straightforward, was not overly helpful. The whole 'classic' ticket
> thing - what's a 'classic ticket'? - was not well explained. It was a
> lottery whether you got into your game of choice (or not).

Okay, at first it was a little confusing, but not really. It's just
generics. So far as getting into your games, I think this could have been
organised better. GenCon's got it pretty much sorted to the degree that they
find out how many GMs they have and for what slots, so that they know what's
available. This is perhaps something that was lacking in Conception and I'm
sure is one of the issues that Dave and the rest will be addressing for next
year.

> Although I had read the website (which could have been clearer on a
> number of points), I was disappointed to discover that delegates
> received nothing, no information, as part of a welcome pack.

I wasn't. The venue wasn't huge, it was run for charity so why go to the
expense of printing out information that's going to waste money that could
be going to charity? Unless you're going to start charging for the
information packs and then you'd be having more complaints than not having
them. The venue was small so there wasn't that much to get lost or confused
about (unlike the huge GenCon venues). Okay, there may have been some
information that was lacking, but this could have been done with better use
of the noticeboards, etc.

> o All conference 'staff' wear t-shirts, or badges or some other means of
> identifying them.

I'll second this. If Conception had been my first convention then who were
members of "staff" would certainly have confused me. The way I made my way
around my first GenCon was by collaring the guys wearing the GenCon
T-Shirts.

> o Assuming that it was known in advance that the RPGA were running the
> show and everything was to be 'marked' (like being back at school), I
> would have liked to have been told that it was an RPGA event. Granted, I
> would not have attended the con, but I would have had an informed
> choice! :-) Solution: slap an RPGA logo on the website's home page and
> point out this fact.

In all of the games that I played, we didn't bother with scoring (mostly
because everyone was so good that it probably would have been impossible
anyway). If everyone on the table agrees, it's possible to play the game for
kicks and not worry about scoring. The only thing is, if someone really
really wants to be scored. Also, unlike something like GenCon, there were no
prizes for "winning" a game, they were just there for RPGA members who want
to put up their scores, etc. For a convention like GenCon where there are
prizes given out, it becomes more of an issue. I think an RPGA logo would
misrepresent the convention. I did not find that it was competetive because
at the end of the games the only people we scored were the GMs and I think
that even if you don't score each other, the GMs deserve it if for no other
reason than to know any weak points they may have, or as an indicator as to
how much everyone enjoyed their GMing...

> o Charge people for the event, but not by ticket to each game they get
> involved in. (I realise that ALL the money from slots sales went to
> charity.) I found the £140 for four night's accommodation for five
> people (only two of us could make it in the end) the most incredibly
> cheap few days' break away from work that I have ever had. If I recall I
> paid out £18 for 'slot tickets' (I.e. 9 slots @ £2 per slot). Personally
> I would have rather forked out £20 in advance and actually, truly,
> physically 'signed up' for a particular game.

And what of people who may not want to play in every slot? What about people
who might just want to meet up with friends, get into the odd unofficial
game or two? I probably wouldn't have been able to go if there had been any
more cost than travel, accomodation and tickets. I bought less than 9 slots
worth of tickets, so paying £20 up front would have lost me money and I
would have felt "bad" for missing a slot. As it happened, I could afford to
miss or sit out of a few slots because I hadn't paid for them and felt fine
about myself...

> o The Lottery (Or how we actually got into the game of our choice).
> Rather than having someone shout out "Anyone for the D&D? I need six
> people (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); that's it, there's no more room. I need six
> players for <insert game>". Repeat. We preferred the approach used a
> couple of times: "Players for D&D, please stand over over there. Players
> for <insert game>, over in that corner." Repeat. It gave the player (fee
> paying customers) the opportunity to see who/what!/how many s/he was
> playing with, and it gave the DM a similar choice.

<snip>

Okay, the marshalling left something to be desired. Last year's GenCon
nearly had it licked. They moved people for each game aside, they knew what
GMs had turned up and which hadn't. They knew before they started counting
how many players for a game they had vs. how many GMs they had so could make
a call for extra GMs before they even started counting people off.

The Conception marshalling suffered from the problems faced by the first
GenCons I went to. However, I'm forgiving because I had a great time anyway
and I was lucky enough to get into all the games I wanted to play...

Bubba

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 8:55:41 AM2/22/02
to
Reply to Nimrod Jones on behalf of Jonny Nexus

==================================

Nimrod Jones wrote:

> Okay, I'll come clean because I have a bit of a bone to pick about the
> review. I was in that group and it grossly misrepresents what actually
> happened. It makes out that the "other group" were all chanting this in some
> bizarro fashion. This was not the case, I certainly don't remember it as
> such. Maybe one of the guys I was standing with started saying something in

> jest or whatever, I honestly can't remember [snip]

If that is so, why, when DC asked:

> What we all really want to know though is who were the people yelping
> "Witchcraft,! Witchcraft!"

did Morgoth's Cat (a.k.a. Dave the organiser) reply:

> I know who they were. One of them posts here....

He can apparently remember the incident quite clearly. Surely if, like you,
he felt that we had grossly misrepresented the situation, he would have
said something like: "I know who it is they're referring to, but I think
they presented a really distorted account" not "I know who they were".

Maybe it was unfair to mention the chant in the review.

But don't imply that we made it up.

And before either you, or someone else suggests that I am paying far to
much attention to a trivial point, can I quote another extract from your
mail:

Nimrod Jones wrote:

> My reading of much of the review is tainted by the interpretation of that
> single event. If that event is misrepresented in that way, then I'm inclined
> to take other accounts with a pinch of interpretation!

In other words, you are presenting this (trivial) incident as evidence of
our lack of journalistic integrity, and using it to cast doubt on other
events described in the review.

I think therefore it is fair for me to attempt to refute it.

Jonny

David Damerell

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 10:20:39 AM2/22/02
to
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:

>>Furthermore, even if it only afflicts a few people (which I'm not sure I
>>believe), a system as utterly perverse as this slot/ticket one is screwed
>>up, full stop.
>But it's not. Generic tickets do work.

For definitions of 'work' that don't include being able to book into a
game you want to play.

David Damerell

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 10:24:19 AM2/22/02
to
TC <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Suggestions (and that's all these are):
>o All conference 'staff' wear t-shirts, or badges or some other means of
>identifying them.

God! It would never have occurred to me that a con might be organised any
other way. Were they really not?

Nimrod Jones

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 11:34:25 AM2/22/02
to
Bubba <bu...@criticalmiss.com> wrote in message
news:d5716940.02022...@posting.google.com...
>
> If that is so, why, when DC asked:
>
> > What we all really want to know though is who were the people yelping
> > "Witchcraft,! Witchcraft!"

Because he was (mis)interpreting and responding from the review you wrote,
not necessarily because he also witnessed the incident.

> did Morgoth's Cat (a.k.a. Dave the organiser) reply:
>
> > I know who they were. One of them posts here....
>
> He can apparently remember the incident quite clearly. Surely if, like
you,
> he felt that we had grossly misrepresented the situation, he would have
> said something like: "I know who it is they're referring to, but I think
> they presented a really distorted account" not "I know who they were".

He also wrote:

>Well, some people are naturally boisterous...though I keep my
>boisterousness for when I'm GMing...

He knew who the group was (especially since I had previously played on both
his Cthulhu games), which is not to say that he also witnessed the incident.
He is welcome to refute this if he wishes...

> Maybe it was unfair to mention the chant in the review.
>
> But don't imply that we made it up.

I'm not implying that you made it up. I don't believe I ever said as such. I
simply indicated that I didn't remember it happening in the manner that you
describe, and if it did it was clearly nothing that lasted nearly long
enough to have any kind of affect on me, and therefore is a trivial point
that has been made an issue of, not once but twice in the review.

> And before either you, or someone else suggests that I am paying far to
> much attention to a trivial point, can I quote another extract from your
> mail:
>
> Nimrod Jones wrote:
>
> > My reading of much of the review is tainted by the interpretation of
that
> > single event. If that event is misrepresented in that way, then I'm
inclined
> > to take other accounts with a pinch of interpretation!
>
> In other words, you are presenting this (trivial) incident as evidence of
> our lack of journalistic integrity, and using it to cast doubt on other
> events described in the review.
>
> I think therefore it is fair for me to attempt to refute it.

I don't refuse you your right to refute it, however, I *do* question your
journalistic integrity when you allow non-related and trivial events to
cloud your ability to give fair and just criticism to a convention. The key
to (good) journalism is objectivity, none of which came across in your
review, with very poor attempts at disclaimers, not making any clear
distinction between "I am reporting this as a personal, subjective
experience" and "I'm presenting this as objective criticism"...

If you accuse me of blowing a small "trivial" moment out of proportion I
could say the same for your review, and I present it not to cast doubt to
other events, but that I cannot fully appreciate your review when I see how
subjectively you have presented an event to which I was party to. You *do*
bring up some valid points in your review, but the review has been presented
in such a manner that these are presented as "digs at" rather than
"constructive criticism of". I appreciate that you did attempt to offer
advice and such as to how things could be improved. But the general tone was
one of "this convention is so shit I recommend everyone stay well away
because they're all bastards!" [1] which I think is both unfair on those who
took the effort to organise it and your remarks about other players can be
read as offensive, arrogant and presented with a superior attitude which is
highly unbecoming of anyone.

If I had not gone to this convention and I had read your review I might have
decided that the whole place was shit and filled with wierdos, while the
majority of people appeared to have a great time. Having been to the
convention I read your review as verging on deflamatory [2], and found it
seriously lacking much journalistic merit.

Nimrod...
[1] And before you say it, I know you didn't write this explicitly anywhere,
I am summarising the tone of the article from my own reading of it.
[2] Please note that I am not accusing it of as much, but if the convention
were a person, your review would be just that...


Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 12:05:06 PM2/22/02
to
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:08:18 -0000, TC <t...@hotmail.com> scribed:

Will be done for next year.

>
>o Assuming that it was known in advance that the RPGA were running the
>show and everything was to be 'marked' (like being back at school), I
>would have liked to have been told that it was an RPGA event. Granted, I
>would not have attended the con, but I would have had an informed
>choice! :-) Solution: slap an RPGA logo on the website's home page and
>point out this fact.
>

The RPGA were *not* running the event. We were. Yes, they were scoring
the events. They offered to do admin and we accepted their offer. But
most of the events the players refused to score each other (and to be
honest, rightly so).

>o Charge people for the event, but not by ticket to each game they get
>involved in. (I realise that ALL the money from slots sales went to
>charity.) I found the £140 for four night's accommodation for five
>people (only two of us could make it in the end) the most incredibly
>cheap few days' break away from work that I have ever had. If I recall I
>paid out £18 for 'slot tickets' (I.e. 9 slots @ £2 per slot). Personally
>I would have rather forked out £20 in advance and actually, truly,
>physically 'signed up' for a particular game.

We're actually considering this.

>
>o The Lottery (Or how we actually got into the game of our choice).
>Rather than having someone shout out "Anyone for the D&D? I need six
>people (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); that's it, there's no more room. I need six
>players for <insert game>". Repeat. We preferred the approach used a
>couple of times: "Players for D&D, please stand over over there. Players
>for <insert game>, over in that corner." Repeat. It gave the player (fee
>paying customers) the opportunity to see who/what!/how many s/he was
>playing with, and it gave the DM a similar choice. The barrack-room
>shouting - almost bullying approach - adopted at GENCON especially,
>presumably preferred by the RPGA, was clearly in evidence at Conception,
>but to a much lesser degree. There has to be a better way or organising
>people into games than by shouting at them and picking the folk who were
>fastest of foot and had thus made their way through a narrow doorway the
>quickest? Rather than focus on the players, why not focus on the DMs?
>I.e. "In the left-hand corner is the D&D DM. Players for that game,
>stand over there, please." Repeat. Much nicer. Of course some RPGA
>organisers (at GenCon, not at Conception I must add) revelled in the
>'power' that they had, so I am sure that they would be reluctant to
>relinquish this control over their minions.

Yes, we're looking at that sort of system for next year.

>
>o Encourage Delegate Organised Games (DOGs) in advance. OK, so it's an
>RPGA event, but I like the idea of being able to run a game of Traveller
>without having to run the gauntlet of the RPGA. I'm happy to request a
>table, and a time and book it, and have the organisers deal with the
>bookings. If no-one books for the game (or you have 2 players and you
>need 6) then everyone can be informed in advance that the game will NOT
>take place.

We did. It was stated clearly on the website and in the brochures that
if people wanted to run games all they had to do was to tell us. Fully
a third of all games run at Conception were "DoGs" - except that we do
not differ between "offical" games and "DoGs" - all were considered
offical, and treated equally.

>
>Just my 2p worth.
>
>I still loved Conception, and without doubt it was the best convention
>that I have attended in (Gawd) twenty years of gaming. I thank the
>organisers unreservedly.
>
><snip>

Thank you. We will try and improve on nezt year however.

Best Regards,
Dave

>
>Toby
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net

morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk * www.veilofnight.net

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 12:06:01 PM2/22/02
to
On 22 Feb 2002 15:24:19 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:

>TC <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:

We had actually considered it - but ran out of time because there was
so much else to organise.

We are getting t-shirts printed in the next month for next year.

Best Regards,
Dave

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 12:08:21 PM2/22/02
to
On 22 Feb 2002 03:00:01 -0800, bu...@criticalmiss.com (Bubba) scribed:

Fully a third of games run were DoG. The Spycraft, the D20 Weird Wars,
the Ars Magica, the DnD Witchfire, to name a few.

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 12:10:02 PM2/22/02
to
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:06:54 -0000, "Stephen Pettifer"
<ste...@nospamspettifer.freeserve.co.uk> scribed:

>Ok, you have a point there
>I just assumed that if the RPGA couldn't score it and file it
>there would be little publicity for it
>maybe next year there should be a seperate DOG board with all the slots on
>
>cheers
>

The procedure for DoGs, which a lot of people followed was to go to
the desk and ask, and then the desk people would put it down on the
main sheet.

If this didn't happen in entirety this year we will make damn sure
that it will, next year.

Best Regards,
Dave

>


>Bubba <bu...@criticalmiss.com> wrote in message
>news:d5716940.02022...@posting.google.com...
>> Reply to Stephen Pettifer on behalf of Jonny Nexus...
>>
>> >Oh
>> >And we didn't play the PIMP game because it sounded shite
>> >not because we were cliqueing about
>>
>> It's fair enough that you thought it sounded shite (we'd
>> hardly defend its artistic integrety). But in the in the
>> article it said:
>>
>> Now the truth here is probably that no-one at the convention
>> wanted to play the game. But I can't help thinking that it
>> might also have been because:
>>
>> a) The board that our notice was up on wasn't very noticeable; and
>>
>> b) He'd read out all the other games, one after the other. Someone
>> listening to this would have had no way of knowing if we were there

>> are not. Would you - owning a generic £2 ticket to a game - pass on


>> all the games that were on offer, in the hope that the game advertise
>> on a scrappy poster was actually on? If he'd told everyone that our
>> game was on offer at the start, some of them might have thought: "Hey
>> that sounds like a laugh!"
>>
>> Didn't blame people for being cliquey. Just pointed out that there
>> wasn't much support for delegate organised games.
>
>

morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk * www.veilofnight.net

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 12:11:24 PM2/22/02
to
On 22 Feb 2002 04:53:34 -0800, bu...@criticalmiss.com (Bubba) scribed:

I'll get in touch with Ratty and find out.

However, it may be skewed by what happened with one of the LARPs,
where only half the people actually turned up for it that bought
tickets.

Best Regards,
Dave

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 12:19:39 PM2/22/02
to
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:34:25 -0000, "Nimrod Jones"
<Nim...@doleos.demon.co.uk> scribed:

>Bubba <bu...@criticalmiss.com> wrote in message
>news:d5716940.02022...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> If that is so, why, when DC asked:
>>
>> > What we all really want to know though is who were the people yelping
>> > "Witchcraft,! Witchcraft!"
>
>Because he was (mis)interpreting and responding from the review you wrote,
>not necessarily because he also witnessed the incident.
>
>> did Morgoth's Cat (a.k.a. Dave the organiser) reply:
>>
>> > I know who they were. One of them posts here....
>>
>> He can apparently remember the incident quite clearly. Surely if, like
>you,
>> he felt that we had grossly misrepresented the situation, he would have
>> said something like: "I know who it is they're referring to, but I think
>> they presented a really distorted account" not "I know who they were".
>
>He also wrote:
>
>>Well, some people are naturally boisterous...though I keep my
>>boisterousness for when I'm GMing...
>
>He knew who the group was (especially since I had previously played on both
>his Cthulhu games), which is not to say that he also witnessed the incident.
>He is welcome to refute this if he wishes...

I witnessed the incident. I thought nothing of it personally since I
put it down to enthusiam. People chanting "Witchcraft" when there's a
witchcraft game about to be called is no different from people
chanting "Cthulhu" or making "wibbly" noiseswhenever there's a Cthulhu
game about to be called out. And I've seen that countless times at
many conventions.

What happened was that I asked who wanted to play Witchcraft. Nimrod's
group said yes - but that there were other people. I asked again, and
the only replies I got was Nimrod's group. Seeing that, they shuffled
me off to play in the Cthulhu Live.

If I had known that other people wanted to play, I would have GMed it.
Simple as that.

David Damerell

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 12:42:08 PM2/22/02
to
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
>On 22 Feb 2002 15:24:19 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
>>TC <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Suggestions (and that's all these are):
>>>o All conference 'staff' wear t-shirts, or badges or some other means of
>>
>>God! It would never have occurred to me that a con might be organised any
>>other way. Were they really not?
>We had actually considered it - but ran out of time because there was
>so much else to organise.

The answer to not having time to print t-shirts isn't not to identify
staff. At AnimeCon 2001 we cut up a big sheet of coloured cloth into
armbands, which consumed about a minute.

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 1:26:27 PM2/22/02
to
On 22 Feb 2002 17:42:08 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:

>Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:

That is a fair point, but I would ask - is it so hard to go to the
desk (which was manned all the time) and ASK?

Jonny Nexus

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 2:43:54 PM2/22/02
to
"Nimrod Jones" <Nim...@doleos.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<i6rd8.14068$Ah1.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>...

> Bubba <bu...@criticalmiss.com> wrote in message
> news:d5716940.02022...@posting.google.com...
> > Reply to Nimrod Jones on behalf of Jonny Nexus
> >
> > Firstly, the article stated:
> >
> > What actually happened was that one of them started to chant:
> > "Witchcraft! Witchcraft! Witchcraft!" over and over again, in a
> > really bizarre high-pitched voice."
> >
> > (Note that it says "one of them")
> >
> > You said:
> >
> > Maybe one of the guys I was standing with started saying
> > something in jest or whatever
> >
> > Is there a big contradiction between those two statements?
> >
> > Maybe we shouldn't put it in because it is a bit personal. But don't
> > say it didn't happen.
>
> Sure, but somewhere along the ways the fact that it was one person seems to
> be getting lost.

Not by me. I never said it was a group, as the quoted text
from my article makes clear.

> This particular point was a clarification for others as
> well as you.

I didn't need any clarification, because I never said it. And
when you said it, you weren't addressing it to other people,
but to me. You were saying it was something that I had said,
and you were critising me for saying it.

You could at least just admit that you accidently misquoted
me.

> > You say you were trying to talk to us. No you didn't.
>
> Yes, I did, and I was being promptly ignored. I'd managed to get one
> person's attention for long enough to know that you guys were playing
> Witchcraft also; when the person marshalling asked who was playing
> Witchcraft I even pointed you guys out to him so he knew how many there
> were. When he talked, he actually explained the situation that there would
> have to be two groups, one of 4 and one of 3, we just had to decide how to
> split it. You guys were busy talking and this is where I didn't want to go
> barging in... especially as I could see some other players approaching who
> wanted to play Witchcraft. We then had one too many for two groups and the
> one guy dropped out.

Well if you did speak to someone then it wasn't me. But since I
don't know absolutely what happened to the others I'm not going
to comment on this until I get a chance to talk to them.

But I think the main point here is not whether we talked to you
or you talked to us. It wasn't your job, as a fellow player, to
do the marshalling.

We weren't ignoring you. But then we weren't expecting you to
speak to us. We were waiting for the marshaller to speak to us.

> > The organiser asked you guys what you wanted to play. You said
> > "Witchcraft".
>
> You may ave not seen it because you were busy talking among yourselves, but
> I also pointed you guys out as players so he knew that there was more than
> one group.

Fair enought. You might have pointed. We might not have noticed. Again,
we were waiting for the marshaller.

> > I would have expected him to then ask us the same question, and then
> > start trying to work things out, but he started talking to you. We
> > waited. We couldn't quite hear what was being said but it seemed to be
> > along the lines of there being some kind of problem.
>
> I've already stated above what those problems were.
>
> > We didn't walk away while he was still talking to you. If we had, we'd
> > have assumed that you went into the game. But we stayed until you guys
> > walked away. (We then assumed that the game was cancelled). The
> > organiser then walked off.
> >
> > At no point did anyone say anything to us, or make any attempt to talk
> > to us.
>
> Well, perhaps you weren't making it known enough that you were still
> interested. To be honest, even I thought that you'd given up wanting to play
> because you certainly weren't making it known that you guys still wanted to
> play. Once you had determined that no-one wanted to be in our group, one of
> you should have at least let the Marshall know that you were a group of
> players. After all, he *was* trying to find out what people were playing and
> unless you say something they're not mind-readers....

He doesn't need to be a mind reader.

This is an foyer area that usually contains nothing. It is the bit in between
the main bar / hall area and the front door. People just walk straight
through there.

But three times a day, at 9:30, 2:30 and 7:30, the organisers go into
the bar / hall area and shout "all players over here" and point through
the doors to the foyer area.

They presumably chose the foyer area because nothing else ever
happens there, so they can easily distingish players from non-players.

Basically, if six people are standing in a group, in the foyer at 7:30
clutching tickets - what else are they going to be except players?

> > Okay:
> >
> > 1) The comment was directed to us, not said to your group, and was
> > made so quietly that half of our group didn't hear it.
>
> Clearly not quiet enough because *I* heard it, and I read the body language
> clearer than that.

Well then maybe it was an inappropriate comment, but it was made on
the spur of the moment, as a reaction to a particular happening. I
don't think it invalidates any of our criticisms of the marshalling
process.

> Because you did not make it clear that you were still interested. The way
> you guys were huddled together you could well have been deciding your
> alternatives. If I can think that I don't blame the marshaller for doing the
> same. Sure, it may not have been right. Perhaps he should have come up and
> checked, but also you probably should have collared the marshaller and let
> him know that you were also interested in playing Witchcraft.

Well yeah we were discussing alternatives, in the light of the fact that
all the games seemed to have passed us by. It would have been nice if
the marshaller had come over and offered us some alternatives.

> There were no GMs, and we turned it down so that Dave could go play Cthulhu
> Live it was as simple as that. By that time, most of us thought that you
> weren't interested anymore because you weren't making any fuss about
> anything...

I think the daftness of this general situation is that we are now
discussing the body language of various groups of players in relation
to the game allocation process.

There should be a system.

It shouldn't come down to: "your body language confused the organisers
into thinking that you no longer wished to play a game".

> > The review included stuff that reflected badly on the organisers (the
> > general game marshalled situation and so on) and stuff that reflected
> > badly on *us* (the stuff about us not wanting to talk to people
> > because they'd chanted stuff).
> >
> > Doesn't that just mean it's an honest account of what happened.
>
> I don't dispute the honesty, what I'm disputing is the presentation of these
> accounts. Wording is the key. It misrepresents you (to a lesser degree), but
> it also misrepresents others. Sure, sure. Positioning. It was *your* point
> of view. Fine, but at least have the decency to have enough objectivity to
> not come across as judgemental. This is a major beef with me. I *hate*
> judgementalism. I try to avoid it as much as possible. If I had been on the
> other side of the fence, and had witnessed someone in another group
> "chanting" like that, I'd probably have similar thoughts to you. The
> difference is that I immediately disregard them because they have little
> validity as to that individual's personality. In fact, I *was* witness to
> this, because unlike you I was *not* with a bunch of friends that I'd come
> to the convention with (I didn't even know one of the guys to talk to, he
> was just someone else who was wanting to play). I probably had similar
> thoughts, but they must have been so fleeting as to be insignificant.

All I can say is that I just wrote a diary of what had happened to us, and
how it made us feel. I never claimed that it was more than that.

> It's a matter of clarification. The way you present it makes no distinction
> between your own unrelated misfortunates and bad luck with the convention,
> and it reads so that the two are crossed over to appear as though you take
> out your unhappiness with circumstances on the unfortunate encounters with
> the convention. It may be an honest account of why you were pissed off, but
> it is not an honest criticism of the convention.

What's wrong with an honest account of why we were pissed off, as long
as we discribe each "piss-off" reason in enough detail that readers can
make their own judgement as to whose fault it is (if anyone is at fault).



> > We were queuing patiently, waiting for the marshaller to speak to us.
> >
> > If he'd happened to choose us as the group to speak to first, instead
> > of you guys, would you have waited patiently while he dealt with us,
> > or would you have barged in?
>
> I wouldn't have necessarily barged in, but I would have made my presence a
> little more obvious and I would have certainly collared him afterwards or at
> any moment that he stopped talking with you guys, even if only to let him
> know that I (or "we" if others in the group weren't being forthcoming) also
> wanted to play.

We didn't think we had to. We were in the game marshalling area. We thought
the marshallers "job" was to circulate around all the gamers waiting there,
sorting them out with games.

We didn't realise we had to present the right body language.

> > We pretty well put everything in, even the stuff that reflected badly
> > on us.
>
> See my earlier reply to this point, but I repeat again. You cannot expect to
> present an honest criticism of a convention if you present a subjective
> account of why you were pissed off.

It's an account of what happened to us when we went to the convention, plus
a few (hopefully suggestions) that occured to us.

Nothing more.

Jonny

Jonny Nexus

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 3:29:00 PM2/22/02
to
Adam Canning <da...@dahak.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.16df1b25d...@news.cis.dfn.de>...

> Except that the concept of printing times on the tickets was a mistake in
> communication.

Okay, I've been thinking about this whole question
about whether the tickets were for specific slots
or not and its been bugging me...

People involved with Conception now seem to be saying
that the tickets were not for specifc slots (as we had
thought) but were in fact for any slot (and that this
simply wasn't explained as well as it should have been).

I'm sorry, but based on our dealings with the organisers
when we were there, this is simply *not* the case.

FACT 1

There were different tickets for each slot, which clearly
had something like "Slot 3" written across in big letters.
It was the most prominent thing on the tickets.

If it is true that this was simply a printing error, then
surely the organisers should have done one of the following:

a) Reprinted them.

b) Gone through them with a biro scrubbing out the slot
number (a few of hundred tickets would have taken one person
an hour max).

c) Told everyone who way buying a ticket to ignore the slot
number.

Personally I'd have done b. It's both cheap and effective,
and who cares if the tickets look a little scrappy as long
as the system works.

But to simply leave the slot numbers on there is asking for
confusion, if it was the case that the slot numbers were
irrelevant. (It will also lead to people thowing still-valid
tickets away in the mistaken belief that they have expired).

FACT 2

When we arrived on Thursday night, and asked the organiser on
the desk how we booked for games, we were told, quite clearly,
that we had to buy a ticket for a specific slot.

FACT 3 (Already mentioned in previous post)

We once were handed tickets for the wrong slot (I think we
wanted to buy 7 and were handed 6). When we pointed this
out to the organiser, he apologised, took the tickets back
and handed us replacements.

FACT 4

I asked the guys (via email) for their recollections on this
issue, and got the following from Demonic:

"When I was purchasing tickets for G they asked which slot
it was for, I said, I don't know what game it's for but its
the Saturday evening slot. Right they said, here is your
slot 7 ticket."

FACT 5

Every other time we purchased tickets we stated clearly
which slot we wanted tickets for and were given tickets
for that slot. No-one ever said that we didn't need to
specify the slot.

FACT 6

Our article was published on Monday 18th. The hoohah on
this thread started on Tuesday 19th. I also got some emails
(very cordial) from one of the organisers, and there were
various posts. Various people said things like "you should
have asked for refunds."

It wasn't until the afternoon of Thursday 21st February that
someone (Adam Canning) indicated that the tickets were
supposed to be for all slots, and follow up posts indicated
that this was the case, and suggested that poor communication
and signage might have led to us "misunderstanding".

But if was the case, then why were people saying "you should
have asked for refunds?" Why didn't they instead ask "why
didn't you just use the tickets in a later slot?"

CONCLUSION

(Sorry that my construction of the "case" is a bit anal).

I'm sure that Dave is telling the truth when he says that
he personally told people that the tickets could be used
for any slot.

But as far as the organisation as a whole is concerned,
the tickets were being sold for specific slots and being
presented as only being valid for single slots.

I can't see how any other conclusion can possibly be valid.

Morgoth's Cat

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 3:58:54 PM2/22/02
to
On 22 Feb 2002 12:29:00 -0800, edi...@criticalmiss.com (Jonny Nexus)
scribed:

>Adam Canning <da...@dahak.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.16df1b25d...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>
>> Except that the concept of printing times on the tickets was a mistake in
>> communication.
>
>Okay, I've been thinking about this whole question
>about whether the tickets were for specific slots
>or not and its been bugging me...
>
>People involved with Conception now seem to be saying
>that the tickets were not for specifc slots (as we had
>thought) but were in fact for any slot (and that this
>simply wasn't explained as well as it should have been).
>
>I'm sorry, but based on our dealings with the organisers
>when we were there, this is simply *not* the case.
>
>FACT 1
>
>There were different tickets for each slot, which clearly
>had something like "Slot 3" written across in big letters.
>It was the most prominent thing on the tickets.
>
>If it is true that this was simply a printing error, then
>surely the organisers should have done one of the following:
>
>a) Reprinted them.

We didn't know about the slots on them until we arrived.

>
>b) Gone through them with a biro scrubbing out the slot
>number (a few of hundred tickets would have taken one person
>an hour max).
>

Erm, there were a lot more than a few hundred tickets. There were
approximately 120 per slot printed up IIRC.

In total something like well over 500, if not 600 tickets were *used*
- that much I can tell - though I can get the exact figures from
Ratty.

>c) Told everyone who way buying a ticket to ignore the slot
>number.
>

I told a hell of a lot of people this.

>Personally I'd have done b. It's both cheap and effective,
>and who cares if the tickets look a little scrappy as long
>as the system works.
>
>But to simply leave the slot numbers on there is asking for
>confusion, if it was the case that the slot numbers were
>irrelevant. (It will also lead to people thowing still-valid
>tickets away in the mistaken belief that they have expired).
>

It was printed up in big type on several places that refunds were
freely available at any time before 2pm Sunday. Anyone who asked for a
refund got it.

>FACT 2
>
>When we arrived on Thursday night, and asked the organiser on
>the desk how we booked for games, we were told, quite clearly,
>that we had to buy a ticket for a specific slot.
>

Can you get in touch and describe this person/when it took place and
so on? Whoever it was gave out wrong information.

At any rate, next year, to avoid *any* possibility of confusion at
all, it will be made obvious to everyone via as many ways as possible
- even if we have to transmit messages into people's skulls... ;-)

Jonny Nexus

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 6:01:27 PM2/22/02
to
mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet (Morgoth's Cat) wrote in message news:<3c767c7e...@news.freeserve.net>...

> What happened was that I asked who wanted to play Witchcraft. Nimrod's
> group said yes - but that there were other people. I asked again, and
> the only replies I got was Nimrod's group. Seeing that, they shuffled
> me off to play in the Cthulhu Live.
>
> If I had known that other people wanted to play, I would have GMed it.
> Simple as that.

I'm sorry but that is *not* what happened.

In fact, just to make sure that I wasn't imagining
things, or going senile, I've just phoned two of
the others who were there and got them to confirm
what actually happened.

Which was this:

You read through to the end of your list. By this
point, there were only two groups left, us and
Nimrod's group (as you said.) Then you looked up
and asked: "Which game do you want to play?"

My preception was that you aimed the question at
the other group, who were nearer to you (we were
slightly away and to the side) but being totally
honest, I can't be sure of this.

Anyhow, they immediately answered: "Witchcraft! Witchcraft!
Witchcraft!" and you went over to them and began to talk
to them.

(Demonic thinks he overheard you saying something
like: "How much do you *really* want to play Witchcraft?")

We waited, in the assumption that after you had dealt
with them, you would ask us: "Which game do you want
to play?"

You did *not* ask "who wants to play Witchcraft?"

If you had:

1) We would have said "yes". After all, we had been planning
on playing that game since the previous afternoon. Why on
Earth would we have stayed silent?

2) The bloke in the other group would have chanted "Us! Us! Us!"

(Why would someone chant "Witchcraft! Witchcraft! Witchcraft!"
is response to a question of: "who wants to play Witchcraft"?
It wouldn't make sense).

You didn't even ask that question once, let alone twice.

If you'd have said any kind of general, addressed to the
whole room question like: "Does anyone want to play
Witchcraft?" we'd have answered.

Sorry, if this is getting really annoying to the rest of the
inhabitants of this newsgroup, but I feel that I have to
defend the truthfulness of the article I wrote. It might have
been rude. It might have been subjective. Some people might
believe that it was unfair. But it is a truthful, if subjective
account of what happened to us.

Nimrod Jones

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 7:47:21 PM2/22/02
to
Jonny Nexus <edi...@criticalmiss.com> wrote in message
news:599ae0a1.020...@posting.google.com...
<snip>

> I didn't need any clarification, because I never said it. And
> when you said it, you weren't addressing it to other people,
> but to me. You were saying it was something that I had said,
> and you were critising me for saying it.
>
> You could at least just admit that you accidently misquoted
> me.

Okay, I'll admit that I misrepresented my arguement a little, I was as much
putting the record straight with other people that there was only one
person, but was also addressing the issue with you at the same time, which
was probably where the miscommunique comes. I'll admit that I the comment
was badly phrased as it was both directed at you and directed at those who
were misquoting it in the first place. This does not invalidate much of what
I said, it simply clarifies which parts were directed at who...

<snip>


> He doesn't need to be a mind reader.
>
> This is an foyer area that usually contains nothing. It is the bit in
between
> the main bar / hall area and the front door. People just walk straight
> through there.
>
> But three times a day, at 9:30, 2:30 and 7:30, the organisers go into
> the bar / hall area and shout "all players over here" and point through
> the doors to the foyer area.
>
> They presumably chose the foyer area because nothing else ever
> happens there, so they can easily distingish players from non-players.
>
> Basically, if six people are standing in a group, in the foyer at 7:30
> clutching tickets - what else are they going to be except players?

People who hadn't got into a game and were discussing their options? Look,
I'm not disputing that the marshalling system could hahve been handled
better. I'm disputing the way that you were presenting it. For the record, I
think it sucks that you didn't get to play, and had I known that you guys
were still eager to play, then I would have made sure everyone was aware.
Sure, it isn't *my* job, but that's me...

<snip>

> Well yeah we were discussing alternatives, in the light of the fact that
> all the games seemed to have passed us by. It would have been nice if
> the marshaller had come over and offered us some alternatives.

Sure it would have been nice, but you can't blame him for thinking that you
had resigned yourself from playing an organised game in that slot.

<snip>

> All I can say is that I just wrote a diary of what had happened to us, and
> how it made us feel. I never claimed that it was more than that.

Then it should be presented as a *diary* and not a review. They are two very
different things. In a diary you are allowed to be as subjective as you
like, people expect it. In a review they expect objectivity and are more
likely to take things to heart as "well, he said it shit so it must be",
rather than aa diary presenting "well, they thought it was shit, but then
they had a bad time anyway"... A subtle but important difference. Sure,
people should be able to read beyond the crap and make up their own minds,
but there are a lot of people out there who just read something and have the
"well he said..." mentality. It should be made clear.

> What's wrong with an honest account of why we were pissed off, as long
> as we discribe each "piss-off" reason in enough detail that readers can
> make their own judgement as to whose fault it is (if anyone is at fault).

Sure, but as I said, if it is a review a degree of objectivity is expected.
Yes, it is presented in a day-by-day diary style, but you call it a review
when it isn't.

<snip>

>It's an account of what happened to us when we went to the convention, plus
> a few (hopefully suggestions) that occured to us.

And once more, this is a diary and not a review and should be clearly
presented to the reader as such.

Anyway, I believe this point is beginning to take on far more attention than
even I intended it to take....

Nimrod...
--
"I got head explody!" -- JTHM


Nimrod Jones

unread,
Feb 22, 2002, 7:58:05 PM2/22/02
to
Jonny Nexus <edi...@criticalmiss.com> wrote in message
news:599ae0a1.02022...@posting.google.com...

>
> I'm sorry but that is *not* what happened.
>
> In fact, just to make sure that I wasn't imagining
> things, or going senile, I've just phoned two of
> the others who were there and got them to confirm
> what actually happened.
>
> Which was this:
>
> You read through to the end of your list. By this
> point, there were only two groups left, us and
> Nimrod's group (as you said.) Then you looked up
> and asked: "Which game do you want to play?"

Hmm. You may be confusing two different people. As I remember it (and in
this I admit that I may be mistaken) Dave was not at the heart of the
marshalling because he was busy preparing for Cthulhu Live. As I remember it
someone else (sorry, I honestly can't remember who it was) was asking that
question and then going off trying to find any Witchcraft players. *Then*
Dave came up to us and asked us, by then I think we were actually standing
as two distinct groups, Dave had come up to us and said that he would GM for
us and was going off to print a copy. No other GMs, and really no other
group [sorry, again] was immediately evident. When we turned it down we just
went back into the bar area, told him to go to CL and we went to sit down.

<snip>


> (Demonic thinks he overheard you saying something
> like: "How much do you *really* want to play Witchcraft?")

At this point this was because there were too many players and the marshall
was looking for people to drop out. I think it was at this point that the
comment about not wanting to play with "them" was made and we began to
seperate out.

<snip>


> Sorry, if this is getting really annoying to the rest of the
> inhabitants of this newsgroup, but I feel that I have to
> defend the truthfulness of the article I wrote. It might have
> been rude. It might have been subjective. Some people might
> believe that it was unfair. But it is a truthful, if subjective
> account of what happened to us.

Yes, from your point of view I don't doubt what you say. All that I'm really
doing here is trying to explain what actually happened. As you say it is
subjective, and so is anything said in relation to this. Truth be told, this
arguement will never be wholly satisfied without the aid of a time machine.
As one of these is not forthcoming I think we should all either agree to
disagree, or agree that it was a misunderstanding and leave it at that.

Nimrod...


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages