Paying for organised games at Cons
Bigfutrpga
games reared its head.
As an organiser of a Convention I must ask the following:
How do we cover the cost of photocopying the scenario and characters for the
organised games. How do we cover the remuneration to the scanrio writer for
their time and effort in writing the scenario and how do we remunerate the GM
of the organised game.
Now if you are coming to run a DOG then you do that of your own volition.
However, many gamers expect organised games to be available, this costs money.
We can do this in one of two ways.
Charge a small individual fee per game to cover these costs, so you only pay
towards the game you play in,
or
Build everything into the entrance fee. This would mean every delegate
contributes to the costs of the organised games, whether they play in them or
not.
I must point out that the daily entry fee charged for a con usually gets eaten
up by the costs of the venue, advertising and other general costs. Unless you
get hundreds of traders like at Salute do the traders fees cover the venue
cost.
Obviously, we would never object to an individual writing a scenario, running
off 10 copies of the scenario and arranging for 10 gamemasters to run this
scenario at our event for fun. But before you agree to do this, I suggest you
look at the time taken to write a scenario so that someone else can run it, the
costs of paper and toner if you use your own printer, and then gathering 10
GM's. Its not as easy as you may think.
Regards
Steve Turner
Organiser Dudley Bug Ball 1996 to 2002
TC
bigfu...@aol.com says...
> During the discussion about Conception the subject pf paying for Organised
> games reared its head.
>
> As an organiser of a Convention I must ask the following:
>
> How do we cover the cost of photocopying the scenario and characters for the
> organised games. How do we cover the remuneration to the scanrio writer for
> their time and effort in writing the scenario and how do we remunerate the GM
> of the organised game.
I think the system of accommodation discount (Conception) is the way to
go. Although considering all the money went to charity, I wouldn't have
taken the Ł15 discount anyway; but that's a personal opinion.
Contrary to popular belief, not everyone drinks, so beer vouchers are
not necessarily the way to go!
>
> Now if you are coming to run a DOG then you do that of your own volition.
> However, many gamers expect organised games to be available, this costs money.
>
> We can do this in one of two ways.
>
> Charge a small individual fee per game to cover these costs, so you only pay
> towards the game you play in,
No.
> or
> Build everything into the entrance fee. This would mean every delegate
> contributes to the costs of the organised games, whether they play in them or
> not.
Yes.
I paid less than Ł20 for the slots at Conception, I'd be happy to have
paid it up front - and dump the RPGA scoring system to boot!
<SNIP>
Toby
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
Phil Masters
> During the discussion about Conception the subject pf paying for
> Organised games reared its head.
>
> As an organiser of a Convention I must ask the following:
>
> How do we cover the cost of photocopying the scenario and characters for
> the organised games. How do we cover the remuneration to the scanrio
> writer for their time and effort in writing the scenario and how do we
> remunerate the GM of the organised game.
I have run large numbers of scenarios at conventions.
I have always paid for my own photocopying, printer paper, et cetera. I
have *never* been remunerated by a convention for running games. It
would never occur to me to demand to be paid for doing what I
voluntarily go to conventions to do.
(Footnote: I've occasionally had guest status at cons, and had things
like travel or accommodation paid for. This is a different issue, I
think. I've also been rewarded - in products, not cash - by Steve
Jackson Games and one or two others for demo'ing their games. That's
them being high-minded and running a PR budget, and nothing to do with
the cons as such.)
I know that some people seem to find the RPGA/Irish con approach of
massive organisation and dozens of GMs running the same game in parallel
somehow desirable, but to me, it just seems weird and faintly
authoritarian.
--
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's Cat
>In article <20020224031217...@mb-bg.aol.com>,
>bigfu...@aol.com says...
>> During the discussion about Conception the subject pf paying for Organised
>> games reared its head.
>>
>> As an organiser of a Convention I must ask the following:
>>
>> How do we cover the cost of photocopying the scenario and characters for the
>> organised games. How do we cover the remuneration to the scanrio writer for
>> their time and effort in writing the scenario and how do we remunerate the GM
>> of the organised game.
>
>I think the system of accommodation discount (Conception) is the way to
>go. Although considering all the money went to charity, I wouldn't have
>taken the £15 discount anyway; but that's a personal opinion.
>
Speaking of which, we will be contacting anyone who didn't take up
their £15 discount for this year's Conception to offer them the same
discount next year.
>Contrary to popular belief, not everyone drinks, so beer vouchers are
>not necessarily the way to go!
>
>>
>> Now if you are coming to run a DOG then you do that of your own volition.
>> However, many gamers expect organised games to be available, this costs money.
>>
>> We can do this in one of two ways.
>>
>> Charge a small individual fee per game to cover these costs, so you only pay
>> towards the game you play in,
>
>No.
>
>> or
>> Build everything into the entrance fee. This would mean every delegate
>> contributes to the costs of the organised games, whether they play in them or
>> not.
>
>Yes.
>
>I paid less than £20 for the slots at Conception, I'd be happy to have
>paid it up front - and dump the RPGA scoring system to boot!
>
><SNIP>
>
>Toby
The one problem with that is that what if some people only want to
play two or three games at a Con?
Maybe a combination of the two systems?
Best Regards,
Dave
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
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
dpmcalister
<SNIP>
> Charge a small individual fee per game to cover these costs, so you only
pay
> towards the game you play in,
This is my preferred option. But only because I don't play in every slot (in
fact I GM in most).
dpmcalister
Bigfutrpga
Do we go the wargaming route of all space being taken by traders so that the
venu costs can be covered??
If the tickets are charged around GBP 20 each per day to cover the venue costs,
how would people feel if there were no games organised.
Would you be happy paying GBP 20 per day as long as you had an empty hall full
of tables and chairs.
Steve
Nimrod Jones
message news:3c78ec12...@news.freeserve.net...
<snip>
> The one problem with that is that what if some people only want to
> play two or three games at a Con?
>
> Maybe a combination of the two systems?
I have to admit that I prefer to pay on a game by game basis. This gives me
the option to "save money" (especially if I'm skint) by playing less games
and just chilling out/exploring for the other slots. If I've paid up front
for all the slots, I almost feel obliged to play in everything...
Nimrod...
--
"I have come to chew bubblegum and kick ass; and I'm all out of gum!" -
Johnny Nada, 'They Live!'
Nimrod Jones
news:20020224114616...@mb-mm.aol.com...
??? What *nothing* organised? I dunno, that runs the risk of excluding
people further. I mean, if everyone is just busy organising their own games
there's always the possibility of someone just not getting into a game,
whereas if they know that such-and-such game is happening at such-and-such
time then they know (or can reasonably expect) to get into a game.
Nimrod...
--
"It's not stupid - it's *advanced*." -- Almighty Tallest, 'Invader Zim'
Morgoth's Cat
Personally I feel the small fee per organsied game is the least worst
option.
Best Regards,
Dave
Nick Eden
Of course not. But surely you'd expect to have a crowded hall full of
people, some of whom you know, some of whom you didn't, a real ale bar
and plenty of those people wandering about it games they'd just bought
looking for people to play them with.
Some roleplaying games with organised sign ups might be nice, but it's
hardly what I go to a con for.
Freeforms on the other hand I will go for, and people don't seem to
have any trouble with the idea of playing a fiver for the props and
handouts.
-----------------------------------------------------
Hero Wars Resources, fonts, breifings, cults soon
http://www.pheasnt.demon.co.uk/HeroWars/HeroWars.html
Tim Ellis
>
>Freeforms on the other hand I will go for, and people don't seem to
>have any trouble with the idea of playing a fiver for the props and
>handouts.
I don't think many people would object to paying a small fee to cover
"props and handouts", providing it didn't seem excessive. OTOH paying
just to play in someone's game (I get the impression from the Conception
review/discussion that had I wanted to play "Munchkin" for example, I
would have had to pay, even if it was my own game to start with...
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Ellis EMail t...@timellis.demon.co.uk |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tim Ellis
>
>I have always paid for my own photocopying, printer paper, et cetera. I
>have *never* been remunerated by a convention for running games. It
>would never occur to me to demand to be paid for doing what I
>voluntarily go to conventions to do.
>
Dragonmeet 2 years ago offered me a discounted entrance fee (I can't
remember how much) for running a HW demo game, but as I had already
bought my ticket, I did it for free...
Convulsions 2K gave me a free drinks voucher for running a HW game that
someone else had written as part of their organised program.
Rocococon didn't give me anything for running HW games as delegate
organised events, and I didn't expect them too, either!
Tim Ellis
>
>Charge a small individual fee per game to cover these costs, so you only pay
>towards the game you play in,
>
This works fine, if you actually get to play the game you've paid for.
If you've paid because you want to play "Witchcraft" and end up playing
D&D because there are no free places in a witchcraft game, or nothing at
all, then you might be entitled to feel a little upset...
>or
>
>Build everything into the entrance fee. This would mean every delegate
>contributes to the costs of the organised games, whether they play in them or
>not.
>
This works for me. I expect to pay to get into the Con anyway - It's
nice to know that all the money I bring in with me can be spent on
buying games, food or beer, regardless of whether I play in organised
games or not. It also helps to remove the distinction of "Organised"
games, and those run by people unconnected with the Con. After all, if
the Con has a CoC tournament and gm X is running CoC, why is one "Free"
and the other charging an entrance fee? - Or if following the
Conception route - why is one paying for the GM's time and materials,
and the other just a charitable donation?
Marcus L. Rowland
<ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> writes
>I have run large numbers of scenarios at conventions.
>
>I have always paid for my own photocopying, printer paper, et cetera. I
>have *never* been remunerated by a convention for running games. It
>would never occur to me to demand to be paid for doing what I
>voluntarily go to conventions to do.
>
Seconded
>(Footnote: I've occasionally had guest status at cons, and had things
>like travel or accommodation paid for. This is a different issue, I
>think. I've also been rewarded - in products, not cash - by Steve
>Jackson Games and one or two others for demo'ing their games. That's
>them being high-minded and running a PR budget, and nothing to do with
>the cons as such.)
>
>I know that some people seem to find the RPGA/Irish con approach of
>massive organisation and dozens of GMs running the same game in parallel
>somehow desirable, but to me, it just seems weird and faintly
>authoritarian.
Agreed - the only time I've done this, at GenCon USA, I was told that if
I didn't my games wouldn't go into the programme. Since they then got
most of the details wrong I was left wondering what the point was. I
don't think I ever did anything with the tickets I took from players,
but I had to take them since some had booked seats, and would have
probably been annoyed if I let others sit in for nothing.
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.ffutures.demon.co.uk/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
"He put his hand into his waistcoat and pulled out his heart. It
was fat and pink, and the Princess did not like the look of it."
- E. Nesbit: The Magician's Heart
Killans - First And Last And Always
TC <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I paid less than £20 for the slots at Conception, I'd be happy to have
Um, in all the games I played at Conception, we did dump the RPGA
scoring. Except for the GMs, who *wanted* the feedback.
Mike
Phil Masters
> No one has yet answered the question of funding the venue itself.
>
> Do we go the wargaming route of all space being taken by traders so that
> the venu costs can be covered??
Getting enough traders to show up and pay to cover the entire cost might
sometimes be a problem in the RPG world.
> If the tickets are charged around GBP 20 each per day to cover the venue
> costs, how would people feel if there were no games organised.
20 quid a day sounds exorbitant outside London.
The BRS/New Hall cons up in Cambridge charge not much more than that for
two and a half days' use of a lot of college rooms and halls - and
they're probably at the expensive end of the scale. Convulsions charge
around the same.
> Would you be happy paying GBP 20 per day as long as you had an empty
> hall full of tables and chairs.
The BRS cons and Convulsions effectively charge for a weekend's use of
rooms (large and small), discussion panels, and small trade halls (often
just one or two dealers, if that).
Phil Masters
> ??? What *nothing* organised? I dunno, that runs the risk of excluding
> people further. I mean, if everyone is just busy organising their own
> games there's always the possibility of someone just not getting into a
> game, whereas if they know that such-and-such game is happening at
> such-and-such time then they know (or can reasonably expect) to get into
> a game.
Observation; at Rocococon, there were more spaces in voluntarily
organised, totally unpaid games than there were players.
In other words, the con had disappointed would-be GMs, not disappointed
would-be players.
Phil Masters
> Freeforms on the other hand I will go for, and people don't seem to
> have any trouble with the idea of playing a fiver for the props and
> handouts.
Entirely agreed, by the way.
Though actually, most freeforms/LARPs I've played in at large cons
haven't charged a penny. Still, there is a slightly higher level of
possible cost involved.
James Wallis
<bigfu...@aol.com> writes
>No one has yet answered the question of funding the venue itself.
>
>Do we go the wargaming route of all space being taken by traders so that the
>venu costs can be covered??
>
>If the tickets are charged around GBP 20 each per day to cover the venue costs,
>how would people feel if there were no games organised.
Dragonmeet (www.dragonmeet.com) is able to make a profit by charging a
£6 entry fee on the door, and devoting less than half of the convention
space to traders. The convention has a full programme of organised
games, all of which are free to enter -- and as Tim Ellis mentioned,
anyone running an organised game gets entry at a reduced rate. We also
provide open tables for people to play games they've brought along.
Dragonmeet is at Kensington Town Hall, a prime location in central
London, so our venue costs aren't cheap.
(I chair Dragonmeet so I'm biased, but this is a financial model that
games conventions have used since the early 1980s, and it still works
fine.)
--
James Wallis
Director of Hogshead Publishing Ltd (ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
Posting this from his home address (ja...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk)
David Damerell
>Bigfutrpga wrote:
>>How do we cover the cost of photocopying the scenario and characters for
>>the organised games. How do we cover the remuneration to the scanrio
>>writer for their time and effort in writing the scenario and how do we
>>remunerate the GM of the organised game.
In the entrance fee for the con. Yes, people who don't play subsidise
those who do; that's too bad. It _is_ an RPG con. At anime conventions
people who don't watch the video programme subsidise those who do. At SF
cons people who don't meet the guest authors subsidise those who do. At
beer festivals, non-drinkers' entry fees subsidises drinkers.
I don't think this is a bad thing.
>I have always paid for my own photocopying, printer paper, et cetera. I
>have *never* been remunerated by a convention for running games. It
>would never occur to me to demand to be paid for doing what I
>voluntarily go to conventions to do.
I think paying GMs is a consequence of having multiple GMs run the same
scenario, which they may not have any attachment to. You would presumably
expect to run a scenario you wrote or at least bought and hacked about
yourself.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Nick Brooke
> Though actually, most freeforms/LARPs I've played in at large cons
> haven't charged a penny. Still, there is a slightly higher level of
> possible cost involved.
At past Convulsions, one of the reasons for charging for freeform
games has been to ensure the people who sign up for them actually
participate on the day. Putting down a fiver makes people more
committed, and having a full cast list makes the games more fun.
(There is of course a component/props/admin cost to cover, but frankly
I don't think that's the major issue. If con-goers could put their
names on the list but then drop out on the day -- letting the
organisers down -- at zero cost, they'd be more likely to do so, in my
jaded former-con-organising opinion).
Cheers,
Nick Brooke
Sheila Thomas
<goo...@etyries.com>) concerning Paying for organised games at Cons, who
wrote:
>(There is of course a component/props/admin cost to cover, but frankly
>I don't think that's the major issue. If con-goers could put their
>names on the list but then drop out on the day -- letting the
>organisers down -- at zero cost, they'd be more likely to do so, in my
>jaded former-con-organising opinion).
I have a great deal of sympathy for people who put a lot of work into
setting up a game of any sort and are let down by players. I have seen
some very skilful GMs work magic to salvage a game at the last minute
because a crucial player failed to appear, and felt very sorry for them.
However, I don't think that people are going to be made significantly
more reliable just because they have paid a (relatively small) fee.
--
Sheila Thomas
mal...@granta.demon.co.uk http://www.granta.demon.co.uk
Conjuration 2003 - http://www.conjuration.info
Morgoth's Cat
Last And Always) scribed:
As some who mainly GMs, feedback is, IMHO, essential. Players scoring
each other - well, in the five games I GMed at Conception, only one
lot scored each other. I could live (both as a GM and a player)
without the scoring system.
Morgoth's Cat
<Nim...@doleos.demon.co.uk> scribed:
Is that a bad thing? ;-)
Best Regards,
Dave
Morgoth's Cat
<t...@timellis.demon.co.uk> scribed:
>Nick Eden <ni...@pheasntDOTdemon.co.uk> has previously posted
>>
>>Freeforms on the other hand I will go for, and people don't seem to
>>have any trouble with the idea of playing a fiver for the props and
>>handouts.
>
>I don't think many people would object to paying a small fee to cover
>"props and handouts", providing it didn't seem excessive. OTOH paying
>just to play in someone's game (I get the impression from the Conception
>review/discussion that had I wanted to play "Munchkin" for example, I
>would have had to pay, even if it was my own game to start with...
>--
If we had have known that it was not an fully organised tabletop RPG,
then no fee would have been charged. In fact, there were drunken games
of Lunch Money happening all over the place.
We'll make it clearer next year so that there will be no possibility
of confusion.
Morgoth's Cat
<ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> scribed:
>Nick Eden wrote:
>> Freeforms on the other hand I will go for, and people don't seem to
>> have any trouble with the idea of playing a fiver for the props and
>> handouts.
>
>Entirely agreed, by the way.
>
>Though actually, most freeforms/LARPs I've played in at large cons
>haven't charged a penny. Still, there is a slightly higher level of
>possible cost involved.
>
>--
I think people normally expect to pay slightly more for LARPs since
there is the perceived idea that you're doing more.
Incidentally at Conception this year we gave a proportion of the
ticket price to LARP organisers in recognition of the high costs
involved.
Killans - First And Last And Always
Nick Eden <ni...@pheasntDOTdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 24 Feb 2002 16:46:16 GMT, bigfu...@aol.com (Bigfutrpga) wrote:
>
>>No one has yet answered the question of funding the venue itself.
>>
>>Do we go the wargaming route of all space being taken by traders so that the
>>venu costs can be covered??
>>
>>If the tickets are charged around GBP 20 each per day to cover the venue
>>costs, how would people feel if there were no games organised.
>>
>>Would you be happy paying GBP 20 per day as long as you had an empty hall full
>>of tables and chairs.
>
>Of course not. But surely you'd expect to have a crowded hall full of
>people, some of whom you know, some of whom you didn't, a real ale bar
>and plenty of those people wandering about it games they'd just bought
>looking for people to play them with.
I've been to cons like that (mentioning no names, because I'd prefer to
keep this about general principles), and it sucks. Unless you happen to
be standing by a table as a game is formed, you have naff all chance of
getting into one. At these cons, it seemed like almost all the games
were being played by existing groups who come along as a unit and play
their games as a unit.
>Some roleplaying games with organised sign ups might be nice, but it's
>hardly what I go to a con for.
Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. For me, getting to play well-prepared
RPG's with GMs and players other than my usual group. I love my regular
group, and I love the guys in it, but I really do appreciate the chance
to play with other people, and some of the very best RPG sessions I've ever
had have been at the few cons I've attended.
And having them organized means I can actually get into a game, and means
I know when and where I need to be to play it. Otherwise, it'd just be
dependent on knowing lots of other people and finding out who was playing
what and when and whether I could join in by word of mouth alone. In
other words, organized sign-ups *help* the person who (like me) isn't
part of the Super-Secret Ultra-Elite UK RPG Cabal.
>Freeforms on the other hand I will go for, and people don't seem to
>have any trouble with the idea of playing a fiver for the props and
>handouts.
Fair enough. I don't object to paying a small (and, for me, 2 quid is
small, although I know that's not the case for some people) for an
RPG, either. Paying upfront in the entry fee or paying per-game makes
no difference to me.
Mike
Killans - First And Last And Always
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
>
>As some who mainly GMs, feedback is, IMHO, essential. Players scoring
>each other - well, in the five games I GMed at Conception, only one
>lot scored each other. I could live (both as a GM and a player)
>without the scoring system.
I don't like scoring other players, and I don't particularly like the
whole idea of RPG being turned into something competitive. Personally,
I just ignore the whole "competition" angle and just play to have
fun.
I didn't even know the Conception scenarios were being run as
competitions until the winners got announced on Sunday lunchtime!
Mike
Killans - First And Last And Always
- Professor Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:00:03 +0000, David Damerell wrote
>(in message <-nq*Cr...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>):
>
>> I think paying GMs is a consequence of having multiple GMs run the same
>> scenario, which they may not have any attachment to. You would presumably
>> expect to run a scenario you wrote or at least bought and hacked about
>> yourself.
>
>else wrote at a con somewhat bizarre and, as has been said elsewhere,
>think the whole idea of loads of tables running the same scenario
>slightly weird and sinister.
How is it any more "weird and sinister" than running a scenario someone
else has written - e.g. a professionally published scenario - for
your own gaming group? Presumably, people do it for much the same
reasons - they don't always have time to write their own scenarios
for a con, but have time to prepare and run one written for them.
I don't see how there's anything wrong with that - a GM who can
contribute to a con by running someone else's scenario is making
more of a contribution than someone who hasn't got time to write one
and won't GM someone else's and hence doesn't GM anything.
Mike
Marcus L. Rowland
<mal...@granta.demon.co.uk> writes
>I don't think that people are going to be made significantly
>more reliable just because they have paid a (relatively small) fee.
Agreed entirely - the one time I've pulled out of a freeform at a con it
was because I was feeling fairly ill; I'd paid the fee, but there was no
way I was up to playing.
Phil Masters
> As some who mainly GMs, feedback is, IMHO, essential.
Indeed it is. I find that looking round the table to see happy smiling
faces - or noticing that they've all torn up their character sheets and
gone off to the bar to complain about me - is the best form.
Certainly, I *think* that my GM'ing has improved over the years because
I eventually learned to pay attention to this sort of thing, and work
out what caused what reaction.
I'm not sure that I'd trust anything written on an official form much,
though. Far too much chance for waffly politeness, gratuitous rudeness,
and borderline illiteracy to get in the way.
Phil Masters
> >Of course not. But surely you'd expect to have a crowded hall full of
> >people, some of whom you know, some of whom you didn't, a real ale bar
> >and plenty of those people wandering about it games they'd just bought
> >looking for people to play them with.
>
> I've been to cons like that (mentioning no names, because I'd prefer to
> keep this about general principles), and it sucks. Unless you happen to
> be standing by a table as a game is formed, you have naff all chance of
> getting into one. At these cons, it seemed like almost all the games
> were being played by existing groups who come along as a unit and play
> their games as a unit.
Then you've been very unlucky - though I admit that I've seen similar
things happening and a few less successful cons.
You should try turning up to StabCon some time. It hasn't run twice a
year for a decade without being a hell of a lot of fun (even without
real ale).
> ... Otherwise, it'd just be
> dependent on knowing lots of other people and finding out who was
> playing what and when and whether I could join in by word of mouth
> alone.
Actually, the most important thing at the sort of conventions which I
like is the presence of a large cork noticeboard, plenty of drawing
pins, and some pre-printed blank game announcement forms. This lets
people who've brought games to run link up with people who want to play
in them.
No secret passwords needed.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say that any con which can't organise a
decent noticeboard is being run by blithering idiots.
Karim C Kronfli
>each other - well, in the five games I GMed at Conception, only one
>lot scored each other. I could live (both as a GM and a player)
>without the scoring system.
Hi Dave and everyone.
Here I am going to pipe up a little after reading with interest what a
lot of people have said.
1: You the players asked for the RPGA to stop scoring.
So while still supporting those players who want to score, we also have
now set it up that if a table doesn't want to score they don't have to.
We also have the living environment games Sabreenar, Greyhawk and Force
where individual scoring doesn't exist, and these are incredibly
popular.
You asked, we listened, we acted. And STILL some people complain, but
then that's life I suppose.
2: The RPGA's overriding remit to organise more and better games for
everyone.
One way in which it was decided to achieve this was the GM's sanctioning
program, for which the GM's scoring is an essential element.
And during the time it has been running the average scores increase for
GM's who have been through the sanctioning process is 25%.
Consider it a training program, sharing of ideas from a GM's perspective
etc.
At the end of the days we get better GM's and therefore better games
experiences for all the players and GM's alike. Which as far as I am
concerned can only be a good thing.
All the best
--
Karim C Kronfli
RPGA Live Action Games Co-ordinator
Please remove NOSPAM from E-mail address. You know what to do!
David Damerell
>- Professor Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> wrote:
>>That's a good point. I find the idea of running a scenario someone
>>else wrote at a con somewhat bizarre and, as has been said elsewhere,
>>think the whole idea of loads of tables running the same scenario
>>slightly weird and sinister.
>How is it any more "weird and sinister" than running a scenario someone
>else has written - e.g. a professionally published scenario - for
>your own gaming group?
At least in that situation you don't have the spectre of scoring
discouraging you from bending it into a shape that suits you better - and,
to boot, at least you know _you_ like it.
Nimrod Jones
> >
> >I have to admit that I prefer to pay on a game by game basis. This gives
me
> >the option to "save money" (especially if I'm skint) by playing less
games
> >and just chilling out/exploring for the other slots. If I've paid up
front
> >for all the slots, I almost feel obliged to play in everything...
> >
> >Nimrod...
>
It is if it means I have to get up in the bloody morning after a late
session and have to miss out on my beauty sleep. Heavens knows I'm no oil
painting so I think I need it... ;-) It also minimises the risk of guilt by
not playing in something when I'm thinking I should be...
Nimrod...
--
"Invader blood marches through my veins like giant radioactive rubber pants!
The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins." -- Invader Zim
Morgoth's Cat
<ka...@kronfli.demon.co.NOSPAMuk> scribed:
>>As some who mainly GMs, feedback is, IMHO, essential. Players scoring
>>each other - well, in the five games I GMed at Conception, only one
>>lot scored each other. I could live (both as a GM and a player)
>>without the scoring system.
>
>Hi Dave and everyone.
>
>Here I am going to pipe up a little after reading with interest what a
>lot of people have said.
>
>1: You the players asked for the RPGA to stop scoring.
>So while still supporting those players who want to score, we also have
>now set it up that if a table doesn't want to score they don't have to.
>We also have the living environment games Sabreenar, Greyhawk and Force
>where individual scoring doesn't exist, and these are incredibly
>popular.
>You asked, we listened, we acted. And STILL some people complain, but
>then that's life I suppose.
Well, you can't make everyone happy.....
>
>2: The RPGA's overriding remit to organise more and better games for
>everyone.
>One way in which it was decided to achieve this was the GM's sanctioning
>program, for which the GM's scoring is an essential element.
>And during the time it has been running the average scores increase for
>GM's who have been through the sanctioning process is 25%.
>Consider it a training program, sharing of ideas from a GM's perspective
>etc.
>At the end of the days we get better GM's and therefore better games
>experiences for all the players and GM's alike. Which as far as I am
>concerned can only be a good thing.
>
>All the best
Yes, and you'll find no stronger defender of the GM's sanctioning
program than me [1]
I'm just waiting for the scenario authoring program mind you.
Best Regards,
Dave
[1] This is not just because I've been though it - it s really useful
and I would recommend it thoroughly.
>
>--
>
>Karim C Kronfli
>RPGA Live Action Games Co-ordinator
>Please remove NOSPAM from E-mail address. You know what to do!
morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk * www.veilofnight.net
Morgoth's Cat
Last And Always) scribed:
>In article <3c7a7cc...@news.freeserve.net>,
Scoring was (and should be) secondary.
Whilst I appreciate the feedback as a GM, as a *player* I have little
use for scoring.
Morgoth's Cat
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:
Any good GM worth his salt will bend a scenario into whatever shape is
necessary for it to run well regardless of scoring or not - after all,
the players don't know the contents of the scenario now do they? -
hell, I've ran enough Living Greyhawk scenarios to know this to be the
case.
Morgoth's Cat
scribed:
Doesn't always work - we charged £3 a head for the LARPs at Conception
and one of them didn't run twice because only half the people booked
turned up (and it was rescheduled twice)
Morgoth's Cat
<LaaaaA...@mice.com> scribed:
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 8:12:17 +0000, Bigfutrpga wrote
>(in message <20020224031217...@mb-bg.aol.com>):
>
>> During the discussion about Conception the subject pf paying for Organised
>> games reared its head.
>
> What I found remarkable is that they were charging people for
>playing in non-organised games.
>
a) Anyone running a Tabletop RPG was requested to fit into the slot
structure, basically because of the charity aspect. Anyone could run a
CCG or wargame without paying etc.
b) we did not differientate between "organised" and "non-organised"
games - we treated them all the same. They all got the same billing.
>
>> How do we cover the cost of photocopying the scenario and characters for the
>> organised games. How do we cover the remuneration to the scanrio writer for
>> their time and effort in writing the scenario and how do we remunerate the GM
>> of the organised game.
>
> Well, how do these things sort themselves out in usual gaming
>circles?
>
>
>> Charge a small individual fee per game to cover these costs, so you only pay
>> towards the game you play in,
>
> No... you pay to get in and you shouldn't have to pay again. If
>some people play more than others then so be it... they obviously
>organised themselves better about getting into games.
Then what should the entry fee be?
What about people who come in and only wander about, or come in for
the traders?
Stephen Pettifer
Karim C Kronfli <ka...@kronfli.demon.co.NOSPAMuk> wrote in message
news:U1FLyIAX...@kronfli.demon.co.uk...
> >As some who mainly GMs, feedback is, IMHO, essential. Players scoring
> >each other - well, in the five games I GMed at Conception, only one
> >lot scored each other. I could live (both as a GM and a player)
> >without the scoring system.
>
> Hi Dave and everyone.
>
> Here I am going to pipe up a little after reading with interest what a
> lot of people have said.
>
> 1: You the players asked for the RPGA to stop scoring.
> So while still supporting those players who want to score, we also have
> now set it up that if a table doesn't want to score they don't have to.
> We also have the living environment games Sabreenar, Greyhawk and Force
> where individual scoring doesn't exist, and these are incredibly
> popular.
> You asked, we listened, we acted. And STILL some people complain, but
> then that's life I suppose.
>
At Conception (which I really enjoyed by the way) there was no opportunity
to say anything about scoring before the scenarios began, and nothing was
said by Gms or players about it. I was quite surprised at my first session
when I was presented with a form I was supposed to add scores to. The first
time I just crossed it out. Then, whenever I mentioned it, everyone said no
problem. Yet it was always at the end of the session. Then on the Sunday
"Winners" were announced. So if any poor munchkin was desperate to win and
played in one of my games I probably cost them a win.
dpmcalister
> Whilst I appreciate the feedback as a GM, as a *player* I have little
> use for scoring.
I agree with this. As a GM I appreciate any feedback the players have,
although sometimes the score sheets that the RPGA use seem to actually stop
full feedback.
By this I mean that, because there are numbers on the back, the players will
(especially if they want to go somewhere else after the game - food,
bathroom, drink, another game, etc) just quickly tick through the boxes and
leave without putting any written comments. By the same token of course, if
the player wants to rush off, they're not really going to write a lot!
The solution, IMHO, is for individual GMs to take a few minutes at the end
of each session and actually ask for the feedback verbally (this also gets
round the "problem" that Phil Masters (IIRC) mentioned about crude and,
potentially, inappropraite comments).
Just my 2p worth...
dpmcalister
dpmcalister
> Any good GM worth his salt will bend a scenario into whatever shape is
> necessary for it to run well regardless of scoring or not - after all,
> the players don't know the contents of the scenario now do they? -
> hell, I've ran enough Living Greyhawk scenarios to know this to be the
> case.
I have a phrase that I've learnt to live by, I think it's appropraite for
this topic:
No scenario ever survives contact with the player
(I know I've misquoted someone (Paton? "No battleplan ever survives contact
with the enemy" ??))
dpmcalister
dpmcalister
> What I found remarkable is that they were charging people for
> playing in non-organised games.
While I would agree with you under normal circumstances, it was announced
from the very beginning that Conception was being run for charity, so I've
no problem with that (and none of the players I GM'd in my 2 demos did
either or, at least, they didn't complain when I asked them to get
tickets...)
dpmcalister
dpmcalister
<SNIP>
> Then on the Sunday "Winners" were announced.
I've got to admit, I didn't know that there were going to be/were any
"winners"
Dave, are you going to update the Conception website with the winners
details? I'd be interested to see who "won" my Top Secret/S.I. game... ;)
dpmcalister
TC
dpmca...@NOSPAMntlworld.com says...
And I would not.
One of my girl friends dropped me off at a long-game on Sunday. Her
parting words were: "Hope you win!" She said this with a smile because,
as everyone knows: you can't 'win' at role-playing. You can have the
best 'role-player' and the best person at 'keeping the players
together', maybe 'focusing the players' or 'solving the puzzles' or even
'achieving the goal laid out in the scenario'.
You can't 'win' something as abstract as role-playing.
Toby
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
dpmcalister
> One of my girl friends dropped me off at a long-game on Sunday. Her
> parting words were: "Hope you win!" She said this with a smile because,
> as everyone knows: you can't 'win' at role-playing. You can have the
> best 'role-player' and the best person at 'keeping the players
> together', maybe 'focusing the players' or 'solving the puzzles' or even
> 'achieving the goal laid out in the scenario'.
>
> You can't 'win' something as abstract as role-playing.
I know, my own comment was rather tongue in cheek, sorry if it wasn't
obvious.
BTW, my wife's favourite quote whenever I return from my local club is "did
you win" and we've been married for almost 10 years - I've given up telling
her that you cannot win :(
dpmcalister
TC
dpmca...@NOSPAMntlworld.com says...
All I can say, then, is 'great minds' think alike. :-)
Killans - First And Last And Always
Phil Masters <ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Killans - First And Last And Always wrote:
>
>You should try turning up to StabCon some time. It hasn't run twice a
>year for a decade without being a hell of a lot of fun (even without
>real ale).
Thanks. As a recent convert to the whole con thing, I'm still in my initial
flush of enthusiasm for them! Although Manchester is a substantial distance
from where I live, so it's a little impractical. After all, you wouldn't want
me writing an online review saying how terrible the con was because
I had to spend lots of time and money getting there, now, would you? :-)
>> ... Otherwise, it'd just be
>> dependent on knowing lots of other people and finding out who was
>> playing what and when and whether I could join in by word of mouth
>> alone.
>
>Actually, the most important thing at the sort of conventions which I
>like is the presence of a large cork noticeboard, plenty of drawing
>pins, and some pre-printed blank game announcement forms. This lets
>people who've brought games to run link up with people who want to play
>in them.
Yep. That falls on the correct side of the "organized/not-organized" line
for me :-)
>In fact, I'll go so far as to say that any con which can't organise a
>decent noticeboard is being run by blithering idiots.
And a hearty "Amen!" from me. It would be rude of me to point any fingers...
Mike
Killans - First And Last And Always
So it's the competitive scoring thing that's weird and sinister, not
the idea of running a scenario someone else has written. I feel
exactly the same, in that case. As I've already said, the only time
I've ever felt comfortable scoring in RPG's is purely for giving
feedback to a GM.
Mike
David Damerell
>>At least in that situation you don't have the spectre of scoring
>>discouraging you from bending it into a shape that suits you better - and,
>>to boot, at least you know _you_ like it.
>necessary for it to run well regardless of scoring or not - after all,
>the players don't know the contents of the scenario now do they?
So, since you acknowledge that competitive scoring is a farce, why not
abandon it altogether?
Killans - First And Last And Always
>Always wrote
>(in message <10146831...@irys.nyx.net>):
>
>
>> How is it any more "weird and sinister" than running a scenario someone
>> else has written - e.g. a professionally published scenario - for
>> your own gaming group?
>
>go into a shop, you look at all the different scenarios for all the
>different games you could run next weekend and you choose one
>particular one and take it home. then you make changes to it if you
>want to and run it.
>
> the key difference is choice.
I have no idea how the system works at, for example, the RPGA. I don't
know whether, at any specific con, a GM has the choice of which scenario
they run. But then, I wasn't commenting on that. I was commenting on
what I quoted - that there was nothing sinister or weird about the idea
of playing a scenario you didn't write.
>> I don't see how there's anything wrong with that - a GM who can
>> contribute to a con by running someone else's scenario is making
>> more of a contribution than someone who hasn't got time to write one
>> and won't GM someone else's and hence doesn't GM anything.
>
> I think this is a bit of a misnomer. what kind of person agrees to
>run a game at a convention wiuth the knowledge that he doesn't have
>time to write something but only to read, learn and understand
>something that something else is written.
>
> A) I would deny that preparing to run a new scenario for a con
>takes substantially less time than writing one's own one from
>scratch.
As someone who's done both in my time (in my own group, never for a con),
I disagree. Obviously some people are good at churning out scenarios at
speed, but others of us aren't.
> B) Even if it did, what are you doing agreeing to run stuff at a
>convention with loads of people depending upon you when you're
>strapped for time?
Making a contribution to the con? Giving people a chance to play a game
they wouldn't have been able to play otherwise? Making most efficient use
of your time?
Mike
Phil Masters
> So, since you acknowledge that competitive scoring is a farce, why not
> abandon it altogether?
We've been there. I think that the last time I asked, *one* person
eventually popped up and admitted to liking playing RPGs competitively.
Everyone else denied that this was the thing they wanted to do, but
claimed that there was a demand for it.
I think that the conclusion was that it helped the RPGA explain what
they were doing when they asked to run games in schools, or something.
Of course, Usenet posters are also a fairly atypical group anyway, so
there may be more competitive types elsewhere.
David Damerell
>>No... you pay to get in and you shouldn't have to pay again. If
>>some people play more than others then so be it... they obviously
>>organised themselves better about getting into games.
>Then what should the entry fee be?
What do you need to break even? To give a little money to charity? If you
can perform an estimate both of the number of attendees and the number of
slot tickets you will sell, it must be easier to budget needing only to
estimate the number of attendees.
>What about people who come in and only wander about, or come in for
>the traders?
They pay the entry fee. This is not prohibitive, because the entry fee
will be dwarfed in any case by the travel and accomodation costs, which
they are willing to pay to just wander around.
Morgoth's Cat
<LaaaaA...@mice.com> scribed:
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:56:03 +0000, Morgoth's Cat wrote
>(in message <3c7bd9a6...@news.freeserve.net>):
>
>> a) Anyone running a Tabletop RPG was requested to fit into the slot
>> structure, basically because of the charity aspect. Anyone could run a
>> CCG or wargame without paying etc.
>
> well I think it's a bit of a swizz really. On a couple of ocasions
>I've run "pirate" games at conventions and would have been mightiliy
>pissed off if someone came along and demanded money.
Erm, we would probably have not "demanded" money. We would have
requested that the next game they run would be ticketed.
>
> the charity thing isn't really an excuse. Surely it should be up
>to individual GM's whether or not they want to help you lot make
>money for charity? (depending upon the charity, the GM may not think
>it worth giving money to)
We're careful with our charities. Last year it was McMillan Cancer
Relief. This year it was Round Table Children's Wish.
> They are already contributing to charity
>indirectly by maing the convention more enjopyable for attendees and
>therefore encouraging more people to stay longer (if over a few days)
>and return the following year.
That is a fair point. We do give GMs discounts however.
Morgoth's Cat
<LaaaaA...@mice.com> scribed:
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:23:15 +0000, dpmcalister wrote
>(in message <i%Se8.52524$Ah1.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>):
>
>> While I would agree with you under normal circumstances, it was announced
>> from the very beginning that Conception was being run for charity, so I've
>> no problem with that (and none of the players I GM'd in my 2 demos did
>> either or, at least, they didn't complain when I asked them to get
>> tickets...)
>
> the points I made elsewhere stand though... surely it should be up
>to the pirate GM to decide whether or not he wants to donate his game
>to charity?
>
> What charity was it anyway? It wasn't something grotesque like
>guide dogs for the blind or sending kiddies to disneyland?
>
Round Table Children's Wish (www.rtcw.org)
Best Regards,
Dave
>
>--
>
>Professor Yaffle,
>
> Cynicism and Bombast on Demand.
Morgoth's Cat
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:
>Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
But there are always some players who always want to score.
I'm primarily interested, as a GM, in feedback and scoring on me.
Best Regards,
Dave
>--
>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk * www.veilofnight.net
Morgoth's Cat
Last And Always) scribed:
>In article <01HW.B8A1AAED0...@news.clara.net>,
>- Professor Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 0:25:28 +0000, Killans - First And Last And
>>Always wrote
>>(in message <10146831...@irys.nyx.net>):
>>
>>
>>> How is it any more "weird and sinister" than running a scenario someone
>>> else has written - e.g. a professionally published scenario - for
>>> your own gaming group?
>>
>> Because when you run a pre-written scenario with your own group you
>>go into a shop, you look at all the different scenarios for all the
>>different games you could run next weekend and you choose one
>>particular one and take it home. then you make changes to it if you
>>want to and run it.
>>
>> the key difference is choice.
>
>I have no idea how the system works at, for example, the RPGA. I don't
>know whether, at any specific con, a GM has the choice of which scenario
>they run.
Yes.
Best Regards,
Dave
Morgoth's Cat
<dpmca...@NOSPAMntlworld.com> scribed:
Basically, No. We did not get the permission of the people involved to
display their names on the website, and there are Data Protection Act
ramifications to consider as well.
David Damerell
><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:
>>Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
>>>Any good GM worth his salt will bend a scenario into whatever shape is
>>>necessary for it to run well regardless of scoring or not - after all,
>>>the players don't know the contents of the scenario now do they?
>>So, since you acknowledge that competitive scoring is a farce, why not
>>abandon it altogether?
>But there are always some players who always want to score.
Even though they may be being scored against players playing a
significantly different scenario. How strange.
Darrell Impey
Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> writes
> What charity was it anyway? It wasn't something grotesque like
>guide dogs for the blind or sending kiddies to disneyland?
Just out of curiosity, why would either of these be "grotesque"?
--
Darrell
ed
Cat) spake on the day of Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:05:29 GMT:
>
>But there are always some players who always want to score.
>
>I'm primarily interested, as a GM, in feedback and scoring on me.
>
Given the male/female ratio at gaming cons, where females are usually
part of a relationship then surely mainstream SF or Trek cons would be a
better bet?
ed
--
edh...@equus.demon.co.uk | Dragons Rescued | _////
http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/ | Maidens Slain | o_/o ///
For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGs, | Quests P.O.A. | __\ ///__
Science-Fiction and other stuff | | <*>
ed
day of Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:13:45 +0000:
Guide Dogs for the blind is an iffy charity because they have more money
than they can use. They restrict the guide dogs and who gets them and
the guide dogs are all they do. A far better bet is the RNIB who do a
lot more in the way of work for the blind, inc talking books.
Guide dogs get a lot of money at cash raising events cos of those cute
dogs, photos of reeducation courses for the blind don't quite have the
earning power.
Perhaps having an RPG made into a talking book would be a nice link up.
Morgoth's Cat
scribed:
>The noble Darrell Impey <dar...@shadowdale.demon.co.uk> spake on the
>day of Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:13:45 +0000:
>
>>In article <01HW.B8A2913C0...@news.clara.net>, - Professor
>>Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> writes
>>> What charity was it anyway? It wasn't something grotesque like
>>>guide dogs for the blind or sending kiddies to disneyland?
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, why would either of these be "grotesque"?
>
>Guide Dogs for the blind is an iffy charity because they have more money
>than they can use. They restrict the guide dogs and who gets them and
>the guide dogs are all they do. A far better bet is the RNIB who do a
>lot more in the way of work for the blind, inc talking books.
>
>Guide dogs get a lot of money at cash raising events cos of those cute
>dogs, photos of reeducation courses for the blind don't quite have the
>earning power.
>
>Perhaps having an RPG made into a talking book would be a nice link up.
>
>ed
>--
I have heard that the RNLI is absolutely wallowing in cash as well.
£200 million at the last count.
Morgoth's Cat
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:
>Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
>><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:
>>>Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote:
>>>>Any good GM worth his salt will bend a scenario into whatever shape is
>>>>necessary for it to run well regardless of scoring or not - after all,
>>>>the players don't know the contents of the scenario now do they?
>>>So, since you acknowledge that competitive scoring is a farce, why not
>>>abandon it altogether?
>>But there are always some players who always want to score.
>
>Even though they may be being scored against players playing a
>significantly different scenario. How strange.
Yes.
That's why I was pleased to see that in the majority of games at
Conception, people agreed not to score each other.
Best Regards,
Dave
>--
>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk * www.veilofnight.net
Stephen Pettifer
Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote in
message news:3c7d122...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:27:10 -0000, "dpmcalister"
> <dpmca...@NOSPAMntlworld.com> scribed:
>
> >Stephen Pettifer wrote
> ><SNIP>
> >> Then on the Sunday "Winners" were announced.
> >
> >I've got to admit, I didn't know that there were going to be/were any
> >"winners"
> >
> >Dave, are you going to update the Conception website with the winners
> >details? I'd be interested to see who "won" my Top Secret/S.I. game... ;)
> >
> >dpmcalister
> >
> >
>
> Basically, No. We did not get the permission of the people involved to
> display their names on the website, and there are Data Protection Act
> ramifications to consider as well.
I don't recall giving my permission for the RPGA to put my name on their
database, I have never been a member or asked them to do so.
I assume it was as the forms had my name printed with a number next to it.
To be honest this is something that has irritated me more since the con.
There, got it off my chest.
Stephen Pettifer
- Professor Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> wrote in message
news:01HW.B8A2B17F0...@news.clara.net...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:04:58 +0000, Killans - First And Last And
> Always wrote
> (in message <10148078...@irys.nyx.net>):
>
> > I have no idea how the system works at, for example, the RPGA. I don't
> > know whether, at any specific con, a GM has the choice of which scenario
> > they run. But then, I wasn't commenting on that. I was commenting on
> > what I quoted - that there was nothing sinister or weird about the idea
> > of playing a scenario you didn't write.
>
> and then, within a few days you get a kit with books, some fold out
> maps and an exercise plan and you becoma a twat.
>
> You then run adventures at different conventions and play things
> and you can become a higher-level twat. I seem to remember that
> really high-level twats get discounts on books aimed at twats and
> written by twats but I forget.
>
>
<snip>
Is there a Grand Twat? With powers of Roleplaying we can only guess at?
At RPGA Cons do people sidle up and say the Grand Twat has arrived in an awe
struck whisper?
I am not worthy.
Morgoth's Cat
<LaaaaA...@mice.com> scribed:
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:50:52 +0000, Morgoth's Cat wrote
>(in message <3c7d468...@news.freeserve.net>):
>
>> I have heard that the RNLI is absolutely wallowing in cash as well.
>> £200 million at the last count.
>
> Another Blue Peter Charity. It's also astonishing as surely this
>is the type of thing that our taxes should pay for ANYWAAY.
Agreed.
ed
>>Perhaps having an RPG made into a talking book would be a nice link up.
>>
>>ed
>>--
>
>I have heard that the RNLI is absolutely wallowing in cash as well.
>£200 million at the last count.
>
Groovy for the RNLI. Perhaps they should fund the stations recently
cloesed in the North of Scotland or donate it to another charity, e.g.
RNIB or MacMillan nurses
Karim C Kronfli
>and then, within a few days you get a kit with books, some fold out
>maps and an exercise plan and you becoma a twat.
Well, I am glad we have an informed and sensible viewpoint coming across
here.
>
> You then run adventures at different conventions and play things
>and you can become a higher-level twat. I seem to remember that
>really high-level twats get discounts on books aimed at twats and
>written by twats but I forget.
>
>
> If you WERE talking about running things written by someone else IN
>GENERAL, then you were making an irrelevant point. In the context of
>the discussion we were talking about conventions where you run
>approved scenarios and usually in conjunction with lots of other
>people also running the same scenario.
The RPGA in the UK at least exists to run games for players, and provide
an improving gaming experience as time goes by.
The levels system is being readjusted.
I am going to post a complete review of what the RPGA does shortly on
the newsgroup as there is an awful lot of misunderstanding and
unwarranted prejudice as had been shown by this posting.
There are people who give up a lot of their spare time to develop and
push the hobby in general.
We listen, we adapt, we change, and a lot of people enjoy what we do. We
run more and more games each year at GenCon and other conventions such
as Conception.
If you have specific points I will be happy to address them.
--
Karim C Kronfli
RPGA Live Action Games Co-ordinator
Please remove NOSPAM from E-mail address. You know what to do!
Phil Masters
> Perhaps having an RPG made into a talking book would be a nice link up.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/braille.html
Killans - First And Last And Always
>Always wrote
>(in message <10148078...@irys.nyx.net>):
>
>> I have no idea how the system works at, for example, the RPGA. I don't
>> know whether, at any specific con, a GM has the choice of which scenario
>> they run. But then, I wasn't commenting on that. I was commenting on
>> what I quoted - that there was nothing sinister or weird about the idea
>> of playing a scenario you didn't write.
>
>and then, within a few days you get a kit with books, some fold out
>maps and an exercise plan and you becoma a twat.
>
>and you can become a higher-level twat. I seem to remember that
>really high-level twats get discounts on books aimed at twats and
>written by twats but I forget.
Ah, I see. This is just a chance for you to vent your spleen at someone
you dislike. How productive.
> If you WERE talking about running things written by someone else IN
>GENERAL, then you were making an irrelevant point. In the context of
>the discussion we were talking about conventions where you run
>approved scenarios and usually in conjunction with lots of other
>people also running the same scenario.
No. Somebody made the general point that running someone else's scenario
at a con is "weird and sinister". That's all. It's obvious from your first
two paragraphs that you're bringing some emotional baggage of your own to
the debate. Thanks for sharing, I guess.
Mike
Hari Krishna
>
> ed wrote:
> > Perhaps having an RPG made into a talking book would be a nice link up.
>
> http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/braille.html
>
Wow, I didn't know that you could get an RPG in Braille, I suppose well
done to SJG for thinking about it. But just out of interest what do for
for dice throwing, ... sorry scrap that, I suspect big dice with deep
number holes.
So there you go Ed, For your next mission if you choose to accept it....
C&S E in braille [And I suspect that if you take your card idea and
substitute Braille cards in {I know you can get playing cards with
braille) for the card draw idea, you could run with it, unless you can
get braille D20s]
Hari
ed
28 Feb 2002 07:32:46 +0000:
>ed wrote:
>> Perhaps having an RPG made into a talking book would be a nice link up.
>
> http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/braille.html
I know about this, but I was thinking about something other than GURPS.
Stop trying to keep upping your royalties
Phil Masters
> Stop trying to keep upping your royalties
Don't think they've ever turned any of my stuff into braille or talking
books, actually. I've certainly never had any royalties for it if they
have.
David Damerell
>Professor Yaffle:
>>The system in the RPGA is clear. you send away your membership fee
>>and then, within a few days you get a kit with books, some fold out
>>maps and an exercise plan and you becoma a twat.
>Well, I am glad we have an informed and sensible viewpoint coming across
>here.
It's vigorously worded, but I think it's a fairly close assumption to how
I feel about the idea that you can rise up through 'levels' by playing
roleplaying games. Who cares, eh?
ed
>ed wrote:
>> Stop trying to keep upping your royalties
>
>Don't think they've ever turned any of my stuff into braille or talking
>books, actually. I've certainly never had any royalties for it if they
>have.
I doubt that Mr. Jackson seeks anything over cost for his cassette and
Braille works. He's too nice a guy to try and profiteer like that.
Morgoth's Cat
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:
>Karim C Kronfli <ka...@kronfli.demon.co.NOSPAMuk> wrote:
The "levels" thing always struck me as an Americanism
Adam Canning
ste...@nospamspettifer.freeserve.co.uk says...
>
> Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote in
> message news:3c7d122...@news.freeserve.net...
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:27:10 -0000, "dpmcalister"
> > <dpmca...@NOSPAMntlworld.com> scribed:
> >
>
> database, I have never been a member or asked them to do so.
> I assume it was as the forms had my name printed with a number next to it.
> To be honest this is something that has irritated me more since the con.
> There, got it off my chest.
Playing in an RPGA organised game makes you a non-paying member of the UK
RPGA. For which you get your scores recorded and certain of the comitteee
resist all attempts for your details to be used for anything other than
keeping your scores [The purpose of taking the information] and possibly
for letting you know about conventions and the like [It was an intention
at one point but I'm not sure its done.]. [The US RPGA hates this and is
trying to find ways round the Data Protection act. I suspect this is so
they can use you as part of a marketing list].
The number next to the name is your membership number and can be used
with your post code to get to the members only bit of the Website.
Adam
Adam Canning
mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet says...
> On 28 Feb 2002 15:17:10 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
> <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:
>
> >Karim C Kronfli <ka...@kronfli.demon.co.NOSPAMuk> wrote:
> >>Professor Yaffle:
> >>>The system in the RPGA is clear. you send away your membership fee
> >>>and then, within a few days you get a kit with books, some fold out
> >>>maps and an exercise plan and you becoma a twat.
> >>Well, I am glad we have an informed and sensible viewpoint coming across
> >>here.
> >
> >It's vigorously worded, but I think it's a fairly close assumption to how
> >I feel about the idea that you can rise up through 'levels' by playing
> >roleplaying games. Who cares, eh?
> >--
> >David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
>
> The "levels" thing always struck me as an Americanism
It is, I've been arguing for a converging averages system, similar to the
Swiss chess one for years, but the Americans think they get better
positive reward effects out of levels.
Adam
Phil Masters
> There are people who devote their spare time to holocaust denial
> too.
Ping. Godwin's Law invoked. Thank you for playing.
Robin Low
Yaffle - <LaaaaA...@mice.com> writes
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:50:52 +0000, Morgoth's Cat wrote
>(in message <3c7d468...@news.freeserve.net>):
>
>> £200 million at the last count.
>
>is the type of thing that our taxes should pay for ANYWAAY.
Yeah, along with everything else.
Regards
Robin
--
Robin Low
John Dallman
LaaaaA...@mice.com (- Professor Yaffle -) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:09:36 +0000, Phil Masters wrote
> > Ping. Godwin's Law invoked. Thank you for playing.
>
> lasts the higher the probability that the nazis will be invoked?
No, it's the one that says once they have been, all pretense at sensible
discussion has ended.
---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk
James Wallis
<ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> writes
>- Professor Yaffle - wrote:
>> There are people who devote their spare time to holocaust denial
>> too.
>
>Ping. Godwin's Law invoked. Thank you for playing.
Godwin's Law states that "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
It doesn't say anything about the debate being over or lost as soon as
someone mentions Mr Nasty-Moustache or his friends.
--
James Wallis
Director of Hogshead Publishing Ltd (ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
Posting this from his home address (ja...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk)
dpmcalister
So the point you're making is that, by agreeing to play in an RPGA organised
game, they get to put your details on a database? That is TOTALLY illegal
(breaks numerous aspects of the UK Data Protection Act (DPA)).
As for your second point, the members only area of the website isn't really
all that much to shout about! Hmm, I can get a listing of my player, GM and
Service Points (oh, but I can't spend my Service Points...) I can see what
scenarios scored what, what scenarios I've played or GM'd. Details of what
slots I volunteered for at last year's Gen Con UK and the listing of clubs
and shops across the country.
I can honestly say that NONE of that is of any use to me, and before anyone
says want about the clubs and shops in my local area - the information is
wrong and has been for years (regardless of the number of times I've tried
to get it changed).
Rant over (for the moment...)
dpmcalister
dpmcalister
<SNIP the silly stuff away...>
> The RPGA in the UK at least exists to run games for players, and provide
> an improving gaming experience as time goes by.
Therein lies the problem - the RPGA in the UK no longer exists! There is no
WotC employed RPGA representative in this country and, regardless of how
hard the volunteers push (see your comment below), WotC will not listen to
you.
> The levels system is being readjusted.
It doesn't need readjusted, just deleted.
> I am going to post a complete review of what the RPGA does shortly on
> the newsgroup as there is an awful lot of misunderstanding and
> unwarranted prejudice as had been shown by this posting.
I think you should rephrase that to "what British volunteers do" - like I
said, the RPGA doesn't exist here anymore
> There are people who give up a lot of their spare time to develop and
> push the hobby in general.
I know, I'm one of them
> We listen, we adapt, we change, and a lot of people enjoy what we do. We
> run more and more games each year at GenCon and other conventions such
> as Conception.
The volunteers might try, but the RPGA has obviously decided it can't be
bothered. For years people have asked for confirmation of Gen Con UK
eariler so that plans can be made - this year the RPGA can't even be
bothered to announce that it's not going to happen (and I dare you to reply
that it is - who's going to organise it? Remember, there's no RPGA rep in
this country anymore).
> If you have specific points I will be happy to address them.
The ones above do :)
dpmcalister
Killans - First And Last And Always
Adam Canning <da...@dahak.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <a5jj1o$v1g$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>ste...@nospamspettifer.freeserve.co.uk says...
>>
>> Morgoth's Cat <mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet> wrote in
>> message news:3c7d122...@news.freeserve.net...
>> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:27:10 -0000, "dpmcalister"
>> > <dpmca...@NOSPAMntlworld.com> scribed:
>> >
>>
>> I don't recall giving my permission for the RPGA to put my name on their
>> database, I have never been a member or asked them to do so.
>> I assume it was as the forms had my name printed with a number next to it.
>> To be honest this is something that has irritated me more since the con.
>> There, got it off my chest.
>
>Playing in an RPGA organised game makes you a non-paying member of the UK
>RPGA.
Nobody told me that at either of the two RPGA-run games I played at
GenCon. When Dave told me during "Dark Planet" that I had become a
non-paying member of RPGA, I was totally surprised. At no point during the
games I played at GenCon - which, apparantly, were how I became a
"member" - was my permission explicitly or implicitly given for the RPGA
to hold my name and info on their database.
Now, it doesn't particularly bother me - it's a bit of a liberty, but
I doubt it's ever going to affect me. But it obviously does botherr
some people, and RPGA personnel are obviously being *very* remiss
in their responsibilities.
Mike
Killans - First And Last And Always
>Always wrote
>(in message <10148280...@irys.nyx.net>):
>
>> No. Somebody made the general point that running someone else's scenario
>> at a con is "weird and sinister". That's all. It's obvious from your first
>> two paragraphs that you're bringing some emotional baggage of your own to
>> the debate. Thanks for sharing, I guess.
>
>that comment about.
You may know what you *meant* to say, but what you actually typed
didn't say it. Remember, nobody here can read your mind - we have
only the words you actually type to go on.
Mike
Phil Masters
> > > Ping. Godwin's Law invoked. Thank you for playing.
> >
> > Is this the law that states that the longer a discussion on the net
> > lasts the higher the probability that the nazis will be invoked?
>
> No, it's the one that says once they have been, all pretense at sensible
> discussion has ended.
I ran into Godwin's original statement a while back, and actually, it
does seem to have been merely about probabilities. These days, though,
the term is usually taken to relate to the end of sensible debate.
Phil Masters
> Godwin's Law states that "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
> probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
> It doesn't say anything about the debate being over or lost as soon as
> someone mentions Mr Nasty-Moustache or his friends.
Actually, I suspect that you're right.
I must do a Google Groups search some time to work out when popular use
of the term shifted from a statement of probabilities to implying that
all sense fled at that point.
Phil Masters
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Aug18.215029.19421%40eff.org
and will note that even then, the implication was that the thread had
gone on "too long".
Stephen Sangar
>
> Dedicated pedants
Would it be pedantic of me, to ask if there were any other types of
pedants?
--
Stephen Sangar
Coventry University
http://www.coventry.ac.uk
Phil Masters
> > Dedicated pedants
>
> Would it be pedantic of me, to ask if there were any other types of
> pedants?
Yes. And also misleading.
I type as a casual and intermittent hobbyist pedant.
Morgoth's Cat
Last And Always) scribed:
From my reading of the DPA, personal data can be held by an
organisation if it is used purely for organisational purposes.
I'm not sure if the RPGA usage is legal or not. However, if people are
concerned about it, I'll knock up a flyer for handout at Conception
next year letting people know.
That is why we cannot put anyone's names onto the Conception website,
even if we wanted to.
The only information we, the organisers of Conception hold is the
names and addresses and e-mails of people who booked accommodation.
And that goes no where.
Phil Masters
>
> - Talk actually of the nazis
> - Talk of attempted genocide
> - Talk of authoritarian government
Invariably excluded in more detailed discussions of Godwin's Law. (And
you forgot the obvious smart-arse line; "Discussions of Godwin's Law".)
> Or, as in this case :
>
> - I don't know what the hell you're talking about, does it have
> anything to do with holocaust denial?
Comparing someone to a holocaust denier is as close to comparing them to
the Nazis as makes no difference. (Some people might say it was worse;
it's less obviously hyperbolic.) At that point, whatever the formal
statement of Godwin's Law or the weasel words employed in the post, the
practical fact is, all sense and hope of reason have fled.
--
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)
dpmcalister
> (in message <ui0mADA2...@celephais.demon.co.uk>):
>
> > Yeah, along with everything else.
>
> covered in our taxes.
>
> The Lifeboat association has always struck me as a bit like the
> police turning round and saying that they need our money to fight
> crime. Yes... but you already have it.
OK, I'll bite - SAR (Search And Rescue) *is* paid for in our taxes! It's
undertaken by the Royal Air Force (who are paid for using our taxes). In
fact, I pay my own wages ;)
dpmcalister
Morgoth's Cat
<LaaaaA...@mice.com> scribed:
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:03:57 +0000, Adam Canning wrote
>(in message <MPG.16e88164f...@news.cis.dfn.de>):
>
>
>> For which you get your scores recorded and certain of the comitteee
>> resist all attempts for your details to be used for anything other than
>> keeping your scores [The purpose of taking the information] and possibly
>> for letting you know about conventions and the like [It was an intention
>> at one point but I'm not sure its done.]. [The US RPGA hates this and is
>> trying to find ways round the Data Protection act. I suspect this is so
>> they can use you as part of a marketing list].
>
> What? So the RPGA has a policy whereby it takes the details of
>non-RPGA members (creating an artificial category for them), keeps
>them and wants to sell them off to junk maliers?
>
> that's completely and utterly outrageous, not to mention illegal!
>
> If they have that kind of policy in place then you should, by law,
>have the opportunity to tick a box somewhere to opt out of any scheme
>or marketting exercise. Even "letting you know about conventions".
>
> Christ, I thought the RPGA were just harmless twats but this
>definitely puts a new perspective on things. Knowing this I'll
>actively be staying away from any RPGA organised games.
>
Erm, read what he said. It's the US RPGA.
Karim C Kronfli
>non-RPGA members (creating an artificial category for them), keeps
>them and wants to sell them off to junk maliers?
NO that is completely incorrect.
The RPGA in the UK has had advice regarding the Data protection act on
all aspects of the database it is one of the reasons we have had some
much difficulty with merging the members details with the US.
--
Karim C Kronfli
Please remove NOSPAM from E-mail address. You know what to do!
Karim C Kronfli
>WotC employed RPGA representative in this country and, regardless of how
>hard the volunteers push (see your comment below), WotC will not listen to
>you.
Wrong, wrong and 3 times wrong.
The RPGA in the UK has always been primarily run by and supported by its
volunteer members. Whatever parent company existed doesn't change what
the volunteers do and they do most of the work that the membership sees.
I.e. games organising, referees, scenarios and players, contact between
players and local shops through the Area Co-ordinators and regional
Director.
>
>> The levels system is being readjusted.
>
>It doesn't need readjusted, just deleted.
Why? Nobody, gives a well thought out clearly presented explanation for
why this should be the case. As far as I can tell it is merely change
for changes sake, the politics of envy or similar negative emotions
coming in to play.
It doesn't do any harm so why delete?
We have thought it ought to become more relevant which is why we are
attempting to organise a graded average system rather that just a total.
Much like any other grading system in many other games which people
play.
Some people want to have comparisons, we try to provide a system by
which they can be made. We no longer insist on scoring players that is
now up to them but we keep the option for those who wish to do it.
>I think you should rephrase that to "what British volunteers do" - like I
>said, the RPGA doesn't exist here anymore
Please see my point above.
>
>> There are people who give up a lot of their spare time to develop and
>> push the hobby in general.
>
>I know, I'm one of them
>
>> We listen, we adapt, we change, and a lot of people enjoy what we do. We
>> run more and more games each year at GenCon and other conventions such
>> as Conception.
>
>The volunteers might try, but the RPGA has obviously decided it can't be
>bothered. For years people have asked for confirmation of Gen Con UK
>eariler so that plans can be made - this year the RPGA can't even be
>bothered to announce that it's not going to happen (and I dare you to reply
>that it is - who's going to organise it? Remember, there's no RPGA rep in
>this country anymore).
Look, the RPGA does not run Gencon the RPGA helps organise most of the
role playing events at GenCon. I have made this point multiple times on
this forum alone let alone others.
As soon as Hasbro (Who now run GenCon) confirm that there will be a
Gencon UK then we will support it to the best of our ability as well as
many other conventions throughout the country all year round.
We aren't happy about the current state of GenCon UK either we have made
the point many times to Hasbro but the current state of play as we
understand it is.
There will be a GenCon UK but being cautious we aren't kicking into high
gear until there has been a press release.
I hope this clarifies a few points
--
Karim C Kronfli
RPGA UK Live Action Games Co-ordinator
-=dpmcalister=-
> >Therein lies the problem - the RPGA in the UK no longer exists! There is
no
> >WotC employed RPGA representative in this country and, regardless of how
> >hard the volunteers push (see your comment below), WotC will not listen
to
> >you.
>
> Wrong, wrong and 3 times wrong.
>
> The RPGA in the UK has always been primarily run by and supported by its
> volunteer members. Whatever parent company existed doesn't change what
> the volunteers do and they do most of the work that the membership sees.
> I.e. games organising, referees, scenarios and players, contact between
> players and local shops through the Area Co-ordinators and regional
> Director.
So, in what way does that make me wrong? The RPGA is a marketing arm of
WotC/Hasbro (was TSR), there is no WotC/Hasbro employed RPGA representative
in this country, hence there is no RPGA presence in the UK. Regardless of
how much you would like to think that the volunteers keep the RPGA in the UK
going, it doesn't. Sure, the volunteers keep the basics of the organisation
going, but that's not the RPGA! The RPGA is the organisation that the
Americans have had for years, that we've never really had. As has been
mentioned in a previous thread, volunteers are wonderful things, but nothing
beats paid employees!
> >> The levels system is being readjusted.
> >
> >It doesn't need readjusted, just deleted.
>
> Why? Nobody, gives a well thought out clearly presented explanation for
> why this should be the case. As far as I can tell it is merely change
> for changes sake, the politics of envy or similar negative emotions
> coming in to play.
>
> It doesn't do any harm so why delete?
True, it doesn't do any harm, but it causes a lot of resentment. Envy
doesn't come into it, I just think it is a very outdated notion. Basically,
the higher the level doesn't mean the better the player/GM, it just takes a
crap player/GM longer to get the same levels. A better solution (with regard
to GMs at least) is the GM sanctioning system, which works well (IMHO).
> We have thought it ought to become more relevant which is why we are
> attempting to organise a graded average system rather that just a total.
> Much like any other grading system in many other games which people
> play.
The *only* grading system I've *ever* come across is the one the Royal Air
Force use to assess promotion propects! Never in games...
> Some people want to have comparisons, we try to provide a system by
> which they can be made. We no longer insist on scoring players that is
> now up to them but we keep the option for those who wish to do it.
People ask for comparisons because they know the system exists (I know,
because I've done it!), but if the system wasn't there I wouldn't miss it.
> >I think you should rephrase that to "what British volunteers do" - like I
> >said, the RPGA doesn't exist here anymore
>
> Please see my point above.
I still think my point is valid.
> >> There are people who give up a lot of their spare time to develop and
> >> push the hobby in general.
> >
> >I know, I'm one of them
> >
> >> We listen, we adapt, we change, and a lot of people enjoy what we do.
We
> >> run more and more games each year at GenCon and other conventions such
> >> as Conception.
I never disagreed with that, so am confused as to why you mention it again!
> >The volunteers might try, but the RPGA has obviously decided it can't be
> >bothered. For years people have asked for confirmation of Gen Con UK
> >eariler so that plans can be made - this year the RPGA can't even be
> >bothered to announce that it's not going to happen (and I dare you to
reply
> >that it is - who's going to organise it? Remember, there's no RPGA rep in
> >this country anymore).
>
> Look, the RPGA does not run Gencon the RPGA helps organise most of the
> role playing events at GenCon. I have made this point multiple times on
> this forum alone let alone others.
Well, as a newbie to this forum, you'll have to forgive me for not being
able to read your mind! Regardless, the RPGA was/is still involved in the
organisation of Gen Con UK and should know about it's goings on long in
advance of the event - hell, even Conception 2003 has been announced!
> As soon as Hasbro (Who now run GenCon) confirm that there will be a
> Gencon UK then we will support it to the best of our ability as well as
> many other conventions throughout the country all year round.
> We aren't happy about the current state of GenCon UK either we have made
> the point many times to Hasbro but the current state of play as we
> understand it is.
> There will be a GenCon UK but being cautious we aren't kicking into high
> gear until there has been a press release.
Your latter point is fair and valid, but doesn't the fact that Hasbro
haven't made any form of statement regarding Gen Con UK make you even the
slightest bit suspicious? Come on, Karim, you're not that naive!
> I hope this clarifies a few points
Yes, and no! Hope my answers and comments make sense.
-=dpmcalister=-