Wow, thanks to everyone who weighed in on the Festival issues I was discussing. Your input is very useful and much appreciated.
The thing causing the most discussion, it seems, is the "pinch-hitter signup list," as we'll call it. To reiterate, this idea refers to having a signup list for attendees to commit to be hanging out in consuite during a given time slot ready to jump in and fill a last-minute player drop. This would be in the interest of giving GMs the fastest and best possible information on who they can get to step in. I wanted to expand on some of the excellent points you guys brought up and see if we can plan things so as to take them into account.
First, there's the issue that not every larper who agrees to be on the pinch-hitter list will necessarily be interested in playing every game. I'd know I count among them. I'll usually jump in if they're desperate, just so that my fellow larpers don't have a bad time, but not every game speaks to every larper. But frankly, I see no problem in going to the consuite and generally addressing the pinch hitter list with "X Game needs someone. Who's up?" and allowing them the option to say no. I guess this runs into a problem if the list is short, or if no one wants to play a particular game, but we're going to have this problem whether we have a list or not. Having the list will at least increase the chances of securing someone quickly who is willing, even if it's not automatic.
So, the point: Pinch-hitters would maintain the option to turn down a game if it doesn't interest them.
The biggest concern people have seems to be whether or not knowing that someone can fill in and prevent the ruining of the larp will encourage people to blow off games. As several of you pointed out, there is a possibility that people might feel less guilty about punking out if they know that the game will probably still run without them and they won't be responsible for ruining anyone else's good time. Even when you can get a replacement, it's not always an ideal solution; it's a pain for GMs to get someone up to speed quickly enough to play, and talk about knocking over the carefully-constructed house of cards that is casting a game.
So this is definitely a concern. But I am of the opinion that optimizing our ability to patch holes in casts is going to have a larger positive effect on runtimes than an increased number of blow-offs is going to have a negative effect. First of all, I believe that if an increase does occur, it will not be huge. In general, people sign up for larps because they want to larp. It's not like larping is a video game you can turn on in your own home anytime you want to play. It takes a lot of people deciding to come together and go to the effort of putting on the game. If you don't take the relatively rare opportunities that arise (such as the fabulous one offered by Festival) you... never get to larp. The people that don't care about getting to larp do not usually sign up. Second, I believe that the ability to restore a game to a full cast is the real priority.
My conclusion: A possibly increased number of last-minute drops is an acceptable risk because having the ability to replace four dropped players is better than having only one drop that you can't fill.
I wonder if it might be useful to make it clear that by blowing off games, people will be let down. I like to think that it is fairly well-established larp ettiquette that because of the dependence on the collaborative effort to make larps work, one only drops a larp at the last minute in a legitimate emergency, and one makes sure to inform the GMs of said dropped game so they can try to find replacements. Of course, the fact that my player who didn't show up last weekend never contacted me at all, and when I tried to call her, her phone was turned off, would put lie to the supposed universality of that notion.
Also, I think I may place a ban on games longer than four hours going on the schedule next year. The fact that they claim so many people for more than one slot makes any game running across from it suffer. This is nothing against School of Young Women, which by all accounts is a very good game and was much enjoyed this past weekend, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that of the four games running opposite of it, only one of them (Alice) managed to get a full complement of players. It may have just been because School is so large at forty players; that's an awful lot to have nipped out. I might consider a longer game if it is significantly smaller than that, but at the moment I am inclined to stick with four-hours and less.
Again, I welcome your input and opinions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment