[Deptheads] Strategicon - Private Games

Mon May 13 22:50:03 PDT 2013

I changed all the events to public.

Martin Padilla scheduled a bunch of SJG games on the schedule, but I do not know if he is officially associated with SJG.  (Given that he was only running SJG games, he was limiting the number of players to one game, he was excluding himself from those games, and that he was trying to schedule games for the entire weekend gave me that impression)

Tanya expressed my problem.  A GM should not turn someone away from a public event so they can play.  But my problem are those events that the GM has made it clear that they are going to play and limit the number of players in their event so they can.  I do not see a difference between this and Open Gaming, other than the GM has used us to advertise their game instead of trolling open gaming.

Shane Sauby
Board Games Supervisor

________________________________
 From: Tanya Aldrich <tparry at strategicon.net>
To: deptheads at strategicon.net 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Deptheads] Strategicon - Private Games

I think part of Shane's issue hasn't been covered. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

An event with a one game limit should not qualify for GM hours, especially if they allocate a space for themselves.

Breaking down the main issue as I see it.

* Private events don't display anywhere accessed by the public, and therefore also not pre-reg-able.
* Public events may give a GM the argument for time credit.

* We currently have no option in between.

Some events have to have limits due to limited access to the game (i.e. only x copies in existence). I don't think these people should be penalized, but do these people care about a free badge.

Outside GMs enter events because they want the space allocated (private or public) and they want their event seen as available at x time (public only). (No offense John, but I hate trolling for bodies in open gaming.) Also, some outside GMs want to play in the game.

Which brings me to the other part that Shane mentioned that hits closer to home. When I have/had the time, I GM certain games to make sure they were on the schedule, the events where listed as unlimited, and I did run multiple games/rounds as necessary, but my one requirement of running an event was being able to play it (at least the first round). Do I need/want time credit, no, but if I was someone else, running multiple games/rounds of an game and lost time credit that I needed because I had to turn one person away in order to be in the event, I'd be a little miffed. Particularly, if I entered a number of events that wouldn't otherwise have been offered and they didn't run do to lack of interest (this is a case of balancing offering unique variety, vs paying someone for actual work). People shouldn't be given time for events they personally submitted that didn't run, but the they also shouldn't be penalized for wanting to play in the one game that
 does run, if they are willing to run as many games in that event as are available at the time of the event. Just something to think about when making the rules. [Someday, I'd love to do the Catan-a-thon again :) ]

I may have fanned the fire more, but we need to figure things out, so we don't have a repeat at Gateway. I'm likely the one that will be coding the solution when we figure it out. :)

Shane, for Gamex, the only solution that I can come up with is to warn anybody submitting public events with a player limit means no time credit, unless you provide an exemption. If you deem it necessary, the same goes for turning a person away so that you, the GM, can play. I don't, however, agree that events should be denied. And now that I think we all understand the hole in the current setup, many of the "private" events may need to be made public for this con, with the above caveat.

Tanya

On May 13, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Evil5757 at aol.com wrote:

Actually there is nothing wrong with the scenario that you describe below. 
If someone wants to play Talisman but only wants to play a 4 player game so it 
doesn't take as long, he can run it as an event and take a table. Also, someone 
might want to run a game with "home rules" that they only have one set of (deck 
of cards, figures, whatever). This would logistically make having the game with 
more people impossible, but should be able to be done as an event.
> 
>The SJGames is the same situation. They only want a certain number of 
people in the game to increase the enjoyability factor for those that do get in 
the game or whatever metric they employ to determine how many people should be 
in the game.
> 
>As far as Open Gaming goes, I would love to see a true Open Gaming room 
come back to our con, and when it does, there is nothing wrong with people 
putting in their events and requesting them to be put in Open Gaming (but we'll 
cross that bridge when we get a real open gaming room).
> 
>To the remaining dilemma, as long as someone isn't coming to the con with 
all the slots in their game already spoken for by their friends (as has 
happened), then it is a public event and should be made available to everyone in 
the schedule. If someone already has all the slots filled, they are welcome to 
run the game in Open Gaming.
> 
>John
> 
> 
>In a message dated 5/13/2013 12:45:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, ssshanucon at yahoo.com writes:
>Okay,  so what do I do with this situation:
>>
>>  John wants to play Mansions 
  of Madness.  He has one copy of the game.  He wants to play.  
  He does not want to accept more players than the one game. He wants to put it 
  on the schedule so other people know that he has the game and wants to play, 
  since he has no friends who want to play the game with him. John goes to the 
  website and puts in all the information, but limits his event to 4 people, 
  since MoM plays 5 and he already is claiming one of the spots.
>>
>>  
  Given your answer to my previous question, I think my only reasonable response 
  is to deny his event and make John find players on his own in open 
  gaming.  Let me be perfectly clear on this: I am totally okay with 
  that.  I have been trying to accommodate these types of GMs by finding a 
  compromise of some kind, but I am perfectly willing to just say "No."  I 
  just want to make sure that is really my only option.  And before anybody 
  says anything, I do not believe approving a "public" event for only one game 
  is acceptable, since then the GM can argue that they are earning volunteer 
  hours towards a badge when all they are really doing is bringing their 
  favorite game and playing it.
>>
>>Shane Sauby
>>Board Games Supervisor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Eric M. Aldrich I <ealdrich at mac.com>
>>To: deptheads at strategicon.net 
>>Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013  11:52 AM
>>Subject: Re:  [Deptheads] Strategicon - Private Games
>>
>>
>>
>>That's correct. Private games are there to schedule non-public events.  They allow us to plan the room schedule without the public seeing the games  listed. They are not listed in the con book. Do not ever list a public event  as private. 
>>
>>
>>Example of a private event: An internal board meeting during the con.
>>
>>
>>
>>Eric
>>
>>
>>On May 12, 2013, at 10:01 PM, Shane Sauby wrote:
>>
>>Hi  folks,
>>>
>>>    I cannot see  the private games on the schedule.  They need to show up on the game  search page so players know they are being scheduled.
>>>
>>>Shane 
    Sauby
>>>Board Games Supervisor
>>> 
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Deptheads 
    mailing list
>>>Deptheads at strategicon.net
>>>http://mordred.punk.net/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Deptheads 
  mailing list
>>Deptheads at strategicon.net
>>http://mordred.punk.net/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Deptheads 
  mailing 
  list
>>Deptheads at strategicon.net
>>http://mordred.punk.net/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>>_______________________________________________
>Deptheads mailing list
>Deptheads at strategicon.net
>http://mordred.punk.net/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>

_______________________________________________
Deptheads mailing list
Deptheads at strategicon.net
http://mordred.punk.net/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mordred.punk.net/pipermail/deptheads/attachments/20130513/a2143188/attachment-0001.htm