Drinks, conversation, and ... Space Station

General/Looking For Group
481

Waitwaitwaitwait!

I think I mentioned it before, but maybe not recently - for DitV, a maximum of four (4) players is my target group size! Sorry to have to un-invite anybody, I’d gladly run for all of you at once, but 'tis just not possible in Dogs.

So first to announce interest, first to be included, I’m afraid. That puts Alrik, Tam and Tom in the first group for sure, and then, I dunno, either -H- or Darth I guess.

I can offer the rest of you to run another, separate game (maybe even the same town, or a different one, let’s see) on another day, though.

Depending on how many are interested in total (i’m counting Al, Tam, Tom, Darth, GJ and perhaps -H- so far [Simon declined], so 5 or 6 as of now), we could make two groups of three players, or something?
Although one group of four and one group of two can also work, I’ll just adjust the town I send you to…

482

Some more thoughts about this:

I didn’t think this would become an issue so soon, but it seems here it is. Our indie group is becoming quite sizable by now, and that can be unwieldy for some of the games I’d like to play/run best…

One option I can sometimes offer is to run a game twice, on consecutive days in the same week. That way, everyone can get in on some sweet Dogs (or whatever) action, and no one has to be excluded.

Another option, so that no-one has to refrain from RPGing although they’d liked to have a seat in any given game, is to have two GMs run two different games on the same (or different) days, for smaller groups each.
(so, forex, Simon/H/Alrik could run a M&M/Cosmic Patrol/D&D4 game for three or four players at one table, while I run Dogs/ApocWorld/whatevs for the rest of us at another table)
Although that’d mean we’d all miss out on the action on the other table(s)… but we could always just switch it up every now and then…

I see a lot of the other groups on this board saying “we’re full, sorry!” or sometimes “one more player is wanted, but no more than one”… I feel this would not sit right with this group however.

Then again, we could just check and see each week who has time and what gaming constellations (so to speak) that allows for. But with the current rate of interest and attending, we’d never get around to play some of the “better for smaller groups” systems (such as Dogs), or at least no more frequently than once a month or so.

Thoughts? Preferences? Further possible solutions?

483

I think it depends on how many sessions we’re going to have.
Like in ApocWorld I don’t know if it’s intended to be a one-, two-shot or a small campaign.
If you want to run 1 or 2 sessions, the scheduling of 2 (3 people sized) groups might work - but everything beyond that is probably impossible cause it just needs one person to not be here for some time and then that group won’t be able to play.

And before we start talking about splitting the party it’d be good to know who really wants to participate, cause up until now only 4 people posted smth about next week. :wink:

484

oh sure, that should be explicit, I agree. :slight_smile:

So, for ApocWorld, I’m running this for the first time, but given the somewhat sandbox-ish style and the player-driven narrative, I guess two or three more sessions are in order at least. So it was definitely not a one-shot. Hard to say how many sessions it will/should be, but I’m aiming for, say, three more and let’s see if that gets us finishing an arc or whatever…? So yeah, that’s probably a small campaign right there :wink:

For Dogs, it’s very episodical in its gameplay. Each town is supposed to be one session long. (I rarely ever made that, so far, I usually need two sessions)
So theoretically, there could be different PCs every week, because player absence can be justified by the character having been called elsewhere where s/he is more direly needed atm. (think FBI agents investigating a case, then getting pulled off it the next week)

So, Dogs is real easy that way. In fact, one can pretty well reserve the game for weeks when only 3 or 4 people can make time, and then play it with those few, whoever they are. Right now, I’m aiming for 1 or 2 sessions (for each smaller group I guess), just to try out the system and see if it would be fun to do some more sessions in it or not.
(forex, Alrik also knows Dogs, and while I don’t think he has run it before, maybe he’d like to run a town or two for us sometime? Or someone else gets motivated and wants to try their hands at it? Dogs is a good game to do this with.)

Now, why I protested so early in this case, is just because we specially waited til Tam was back to begin with Dogs,and now 4 people have already announced interest, but none of them was Tam :wink:
I’m of course glad that Darth and GJ are also interested in the game! Three weeks ago, it looked like no more than 2 people were motivated to try it… but now, with upwards of five players incoming… I like to get things out in the open, and in this case there’s just a hard cap (for me) as to how many players the game can take.

(I had a massive GM’s hangover after the recent ApocWorld session as well :stuck_out_tongue: Do any of you also get these, btw? 6 players is a lot to handle, especially in the improv style an AW first session demands. I expect it to get better from here on out, though, as things have taken shape by now and the game gets a more predictable direction with each session I presume. Gods help me if that is not the case :wink: :smiley: )

485

[quote=“Thopthes”]If you want to run 1 or 2 sessions, the scheduling of 2 (3 people sized) groups might work - but everything beyond that is probably impossible cause it just needs one person to not be here for some time and then that group won’t be able to play.
And before we start talking about splitting the party it’d be good to know who really wants to participate, cause up until now only 4 people posted smth about next week. :wink:[/quote]
I agree with Thoptes here.

The main problem would be, that there will no game that week at all, if you play a 3+ shot, and even one player is missing. Like in Apocalypse World, where one player is missing for at least a month … and who says, that the same set of the other 5 players will be able to make it on a day in the future.

Just a suggestion:
You could make it like two weeks ago:
-> If there are too many players for a particular game (or the “wrong” ones if you play a 2-3 shot), play something different in that week.
Dogs in the Vineyard won’t run away
… and if there is a certain game, that could not handle too many players that well (or would suffer a lot, while doing so), we could wait till a wild “week with the right amound of players (including the storyteller)” appears.
: )

@Dogs in the Vineyard / Next Week:
I would like to play it (again), but I did so already. So if there are too many players, I would make room for someone else, who has not gamed Dogs in the Vineyard before.

… or how about me preparing a one-shot? If there are not to many players for Dogs in the Vineyard, then we will game Dogs. If there are too many, then we will game the one-shot?

486

I’m not sure I see the point / problem here… I mean sure, if a ‘fixed’ group can’t come together in any given week, no play. Sure. We’ll just have to play something else that week. But… we ran like that for months now, no? :wink:

For some games (e.g. Pendragon) it didn’t seem to be an issue. Some player was absent last time we played, but I joined up with a new char that same session. No biggie, right?

I could see Apoc World work like that as well.

For Dogs, my stance is “3-4 players (but who they are is completely flexible)”. So, maybe best to wait for a week with no more than 4 players available, and then do Dogs.
There’ll be those weeks, for sure.

But I’m thinking of the future… some day (perhaps soon) we’ll have a pool of 10+ players/GMs around… then I predict no-one (not even the most hardboiled D&D-type games’ GMs) will be able to handle the weeks where like 8 or 9 players show up, right?
(I may be wrong though, maybe Tom or Simon or Darth or any of the others [remarkably high number of GMs in this group, btw!] won’t mind such unholy amounts of players at their tables?)

Either way, for the coming week, perhaps best to go the usual route: see who’d be available, see what could be played/ran, go with whatever comes up that way… :slight_smile:

487

Oo, a challenge! Sure, I’m up for it. As long as it’s not every week… (And if the numbers get even higher, there’s always Action Castle.)

One thing I’ve been planning on running that might offer a solution is an old school fantasy campaign composed of one-session segments with whoever attends participating, and a sensible explanation for people not being there. This would probably be AD&D or Basic, heavy on exploration. Any interest?

As to this week, I can probably make it every day except Friday. If you do split the group and run several versions of Dogs, I’d strongly prefer a rethemed version over the original.

(And if you’re postponing Dogs, then I’d be happy to run something, too, if desired.)

488

Uh, almost forgot to add - I can’t make it on Friday either! So the only day possible for me this week is gonna be Thursday, sorry!

489

Oh she’s here and very much in, just not reading the board as often as she should! :wink:

I’m just sorry it’s such a limited number of players and not everyone can gather for it, so I really like your idea of playing Dogs on any week when it’s up to 4 players showing up for it 'cause then noone needs to be left out. See you guys on Thursday :slight_smile:

490

I think that is a solution that might work. Splitting the party would just include a lot of ramifications.

[quote=“Auburney”]
But I’m thinking of the future… some day (perhaps soon) we’ll have a pool of 10+ players/GMs around… then I predict no-one (not even the most hardboiled D&D-type games’ GMs) will be able to handle the weeks where like 8 or 9 players show up, right?
)[/quote]
Actually we already have these numbers. It’s just that not all the people have time in the same week. And - like you said - there will be weeks again where only 2-3-4 people are gonna be available.
I’ve always thought this group to be a ‘drinks, conversation and games’-group. Casual and no extra scheduling. Just a ‘who’s got time this week? Ok let’s play this or that’.
So like you said, let’s play dogs if only a few people got time and something else if there are more players interested. :slight_smile:

491

No dogs, eh? Well ok. I’m in anyway. Thursday 7.30 pm, ok?

492

So who’s running what this week? You doing something, Darth?

If there aren’t any plans yet, I could run Call of Cthulhu or something.

493

[quote="-H-"]So who’s running what this week? You doing something, Darth?

If there aren’t any plans yet, I could run Call of Cthulhu or something.[/quote]

That’d be cool!

494

[quote="-H-"]So who’s running what this week? You doing something, Darth?

If there aren’t any plans yet, I could run Call of Cthulhu or something.[/quote]
:laughing:

I would have done the same thing

Edit: I will post the Game (Trail of Cthulhu) and the Characters when I come home today (very late in the night).

495

@Auburney:
Perhaps we could create characters together in advance if we ever have extra time or something? So whenever the chance comes up, we can just start a session with the interested parties.

@H
Ok, I’m up for CoC and the DnD games, but I just got a tiny wish if you ever have time or will for it - revisiting Grimm with more players.
I just loved how helpless kids actually feel in such a insane situation.

See you on Thursday again, everyone.

496

Cool idea!

See you guys on thursday!

497

[quote=“Thopthes”][quote=“GJsoft”]
@H
Ok, I’m up for CoC and the DnD games, but I just got a tiny wish if you ever have time or will for it - revisiting Grimm with more players.
I just loved how helpless kids actually feel in such a insane situation.
[/quote]

Cool idea![/quote]
I play one little girl and suddenly everybody wants to be a kid? :stuck_out_tongue:

But sure, I’d be happy to run Grimm again. Glad you enjoyed it. Would you prefer a one-shot or something longer?

And this week, let’s go with Darth’s game. Heck, he already put more work into the introductory post than I put into most campaigns…

498

Puh … dming for 6 players would be the maximum for me I guess.
This is modified by the story (e.g. in a personal horror campaign it would be even less).

I would prefere one-shots. :slight_smile:

See you on Thursday. :mrgreen:

499

fine : )

I will be there at 7pm
(going through my notes and having a chat, if someone else arrives early)

500

I generally tend to enjoy something a bit longer, with the emphasis on “a bit” :wink: Imho, 2-4 sessions make for an ideal romp through many games’ basic look & feel, allows players to get into it (ruleswise and setting/fluffwise), and can have a little story arc happening and concluded.

One-shots are fun as well, of course, plus you get to know new games…

By this point, I think the games I’d most like to continue are Pendragon, Cosmic Patrol, Lady Blackbird even if that’s maybe a bit farfetched by now, and (my own) Apocalypse World.

Then again, new games keep popping up that look to be fun and interesting, such as Darth’s current Gumshoe Cthulhu thingy… so I figure it’s gung-ho for oneshots of all sorts - but if there’s ever a chance of continuing any of the above mentioned games, I’d be all over that!

edit: and yeah, I’ll keep Dogs in reserve as a filler game for one of the more sparsely populated weeks :wink: