TOPIC: Too many continuation games?

Raging Soliloquy wrote:
Amen brother... completely agree. An 8 week rotation sees little if any opportunity to develop a character with new skills/abilities.

as to reducing numbers in campaigns to 4 or 5 I agree that's appropriate for any new campaigns, but I would be a little miffed to lose a seat at an established campaign that I am enjoying...
I also dont think the idea of a floating seat works for me... if we have to forcibly retire a player in a campaign that's even worse than the short duration games, you invest in a character, do well, enjoy the game and then get blown out. It also disrupts the continuity for others in the campaign as inevitably introducing a new character into a game with intrigue and a lot of past history can be problematic (as I know from Scott's Masks campaign although that may be just Akio's delusional paranoia!)

Was thinking more along the lines of potentially accepting an extra player not reducing the players you have. Maybe have an Npc they can play to get used to the rules. It would be an open spot only as a temporary place. I believe this would both encourage new players but not alienate existing ones.

There is another consequence to having games posted and then opened for sign-up 4 weeks before, which is that all GMs planning to run the game should post during the first 4 weeks of the rotation so that all the games can be filled around the same time and to maximise the opportunity for players to play what they want and for GMs and players to have the maximum time to prepare.

I think we have 2 games for rotation 5 thus far, so need 2 more games. Anyone planning to run a game in R5?

Actually Andy we don't need just two more games. We could theoretically have as many games as we like. Never understood where this artificial limit came from. Looking forward to seeing you back at the club.

Eomak wrote:
Absolutely, this is what I hinted at in previous post. Lets have 8 games posted up, what a great choice that would be!