ursangnome (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ursangnome) wrote2003-02-08 11:40 pm
ursangnome) wrote2003-02-08 11:40 pm
Ecology, Part II
Science is not the only realm of human endeavor to which we can apply a few thoughts on ecology. There's also an ecology to live action role playing games ("larps"). So let's take a look at something - Intercon C.
Note: I thoroughly recognize that I'm engaging in "armchair quarterbacking". I've only ever been involved with one concom, and that was a miniscule part in a non-larp convention. I take my own thoughts on this with a grain of salt, and so should everyone else.
To look at the web page, Intercon C is a pretty big larp convention. Something like 30 games appear on the schedule. That schedule suggests a high degree of "sameness" among the games: they seem to have about 25 players on average (standard deviation 8.5), and they seem to run about 3.9 hours (standard deviation 1.5). So, the majority of the games are 4 hours long - there's one 10 hour game, 2 six hour games, and the rest are shorter. That's 27 short games. This in and of itself isn't a worry. The ecological model suggests that there's be mostly "nominal" games, and a few bigger ones. However, there are two indicators that the ecology here is out of whack - waitlists and cancelled games.
Of the 21 games you can try to sign up for on the web-site (two of the long games don't even appear), 10 have waitlists. I don't have accurate information on how long the queues are, but what information I do have suggests that they are/were frequently in the teens of people waiting. You could run whole games on those waitlists alone. In the meantime, I'm told that other small games are cancelling because they aren't meeting their minimum number of players.
Now, let's add a little history as I have seen it - six months ago, at Intercon XVII, I started considering going to Intercon C. They were pushing it pretty hard. "Lots of games! We're even adding more!" they cried. When I get home, and check the website, there were already waitlists. They added more games, and there are still waitlists...
I think there's a general principle that the concom didn't see - the con's overall size is probably limited by how many larger games they have. Beyond a certain point, you cannot just slap on small games and have it be effective and enjoyable. That's making the ecological pyramid "bottom heavy".
You see, shorter games are rarely as compelling as their longer counterparts. They tend to lack in depth and complexity, so few of them scream, "Play me!" A player comes along, looks at a long list of short games, and goes "Eh," at most of them. They don't choose to fill a game "because it is there". Instead, they go on a waitlist for a better game and hope. In the meantime, the "second string" games don't meet their minimums, leaving the people who did hope to play them stranded with nothing to do.
So, beyond a certain point, adding short games probably doesn't fill your player's needs. But you cannot add longer games later on - the writers/GMs simply canot produce a big game on short notice. So, your con has a size limit based upon how many big, compelling games you've got to start with.
The lessons? When you start seeing waitlists for your games, stop pushing for registrations. And don't expect that adding many small or short games can take the place of adding one bigger game. Players won't do what you want (which is take whatever they are given). Instead, they will be picky, and they will gripe about not having good games to play. And, since they paid the registration fees, they have bought the right to gripe.
Note: I thoroughly recognize that I'm engaging in "armchair quarterbacking". I've only ever been involved with one concom, and that was a miniscule part in a non-larp convention. I take my own thoughts on this with a grain of salt, and so should everyone else.
To look at the web page, Intercon C is a pretty big larp convention. Something like 30 games appear on the schedule. That schedule suggests a high degree of "sameness" among the games: they seem to have about 25 players on average (standard deviation 8.5), and they seem to run about 3.9 hours (standard deviation 1.5). So, the majority of the games are 4 hours long - there's one 10 hour game, 2 six hour games, and the rest are shorter. That's 27 short games. This in and of itself isn't a worry. The ecological model suggests that there's be mostly "nominal" games, and a few bigger ones. However, there are two indicators that the ecology here is out of whack - waitlists and cancelled games.
Of the 21 games you can try to sign up for on the web-site (two of the long games don't even appear), 10 have waitlists. I don't have accurate information on how long the queues are, but what information I do have suggests that they are/were frequently in the teens of people waiting. You could run whole games on those waitlists alone. In the meantime, I'm told that other small games are cancelling because they aren't meeting their minimum number of players.
Now, let's add a little history as I have seen it - six months ago, at Intercon XVII, I started considering going to Intercon C. They were pushing it pretty hard. "Lots of games! We're even adding more!" they cried. When I get home, and check the website, there were already waitlists. They added more games, and there are still waitlists...
I think there's a general principle that the concom didn't see - the con's overall size is probably limited by how many larger games they have. Beyond a certain point, you cannot just slap on small games and have it be effective and enjoyable. That's making the ecological pyramid "bottom heavy".
You see, shorter games are rarely as compelling as their longer counterparts. They tend to lack in depth and complexity, so few of them scream, "Play me!" A player comes along, looks at a long list of short games, and goes "Eh," at most of them. They don't choose to fill a game "because it is there". Instead, they go on a waitlist for a better game and hope. In the meantime, the "second string" games don't meet their minimums, leaving the people who did hope to play them stranded with nothing to do.
So, beyond a certain point, adding short games probably doesn't fill your player's needs. But you cannot add longer games later on - the writers/GMs simply canot produce a big game on short notice. So, your con has a size limit based upon how many big, compelling games you've got to start with.
The lessons? When you start seeing waitlists for your games, stop pushing for registrations. And don't expect that adding many small or short games can take the place of adding one bigger game. Players won't do what you want (which is take whatever they are given). Instead, they will be picky, and they will gripe about not having good games to play. And, since they paid the registration fees, they have bought the right to gripe.