Gearing Up For DREAMATION 2010

[Salvius]

Hi Folks,

I know it's kind early, but I'd like to get some discussion going regarding DREAMATION 2010. Based on February's online debates about what I did or didn't mean by my speech at the Indie Roundtable, I would like to propose three semi-new policies and one major revision, and I'd like feedback before we make a public announcement.

1) Any game run at D2010 needs to have a "title" as well as a "system". In the case of games which are so freeform that players basically sit down and come up with a subject, the title should be something to differentiate the session from other convention sessions. An example would be "Tales from Morristown" (followed up next year by "Tales from Morristown Revisited" or "II" etc.).

2) Any game submitted needs to have a "publisher"; if you have no "company name", and the game is just presented/written by you, then use your name in this field, but we'd like to know whose game it is without a Google search. Generally if players like one of your games, they might decide to play in a new one just based on your company name or your name.

3) We've discussed to death the reasons why some games must run with only 3-4 players and I've stated repeatedly that I respect that. But from my side, we generally have a LOT of players trying to get into a given game by a given author, so I'd like to request that any game which has less than 5 players either be run at least THREE times during the convention OR make provisions for at least 3 tables in the same slot. If the game takes more than 4 players, then I would request that it be run at least twice during the convention OR we have at least 2 concurrent tables. If this is impossible for various reasons, I'd appreciate a private communication from the author to work out the specific problem.

4) Finally, the big news that I think will make everyone happy. Double Exposure will be implementing a NEW PLAYTEST TRACK, beginning at DREAMATION 2010. We will be taking volunteer playtesters and giving them an incentive to be in the track at the same level as game masters; in other words, if they playtest 4 games, they get in for free! Players will be filling out questionnaires and DE will be providing authors who want to playtest their games at D2010 a complete list of playtesters with bios from which to choose from for their table, or the option of letting DE pick a group at random. Although this will not be provided to ONLY Indie publishers, I think the majority of the track will be taken up by them.

So, thoughts?

>>>Vinny

[TonyLB]

I like the playtest track option, I think it will do a lot of good if people can really jump on it and make it work for them.

I totally respect the need to increase the "fan-soaking capacity" (my phrase, don't blame anyone else for it) of some games.  If you can give some guidance on how to specify entries that are meant to handle multiple tables within a given slot, that'd be great (like 'Miller's Grove, Misery Bubblegum, 10-15 people, 3 tables' ... how do we tell you that we're not going to try to crowd 15 people into either one table or one group?)

[Salvius]

I like the playtest track option, I think it will do a lot of good if people can really jump on it and make it work for them.

I totally respect the need to increase the "fan-soaking capacity" (my phrase, don't blame anyone else for it) of some games.  If you can give some guidance on how to specify entries that are meant to handle multiple tables within a given slot, that'd be great (like 'Miller's Grove, Misery Bubblegum, 10-15 people, 3 tables' ... how do we tell you that we're not going to try to crowd 15 people into either one table or one group?)

Our current proposal form actually has a field showing #of tables and #of players at each table. But I will be revamping the proposal form for D2010 and making it very obvious how to specify exactly what configuration the game should be played in, as well as how many GMs are needed. That will be available in September, hence the early discussion

>>>Vinny

[Jason Morningstar]

Hi Vinny,

Personally I'm good with all of this.  Points one and two are organizational and no big deal.  Point three is kind of a drag, but I respect your need to make the numbers work.  Point four will be an interesting experiment!

I'm reading point 3 as "If you want to offer a game, you must offer at least two sessions.  If it has four or fewer players, you have to offer at least three sessions."  Is that accurate? 

Can we mix and match to gain admission credit?  One playtest, three slots running other games?  Three playtest slots, one slot running Forgotten Realms?  Does facilitating a playtest of your own game count as being a GM? 

Thanks,

Jason

[Salvius]

Hi Vinny,

Personally I'm good with all of this.  Points one and two are organizational and no big deal.  Point three is kind of a drag, but I respect your need to make the numbers work.  Point four will be an interesting experiment!

I'm reading point 3 as "If you want to offer a game, you must offer at least two sessions.  If it has four or fewer players, you have to offer at least three sessions."  Is that accurate? 

Can we mix and match to gain admission credit?  One playtest, three slots running other games?  Three playtest slots, one slot running Forgotten Realms?  Does facilitating a playtest of your own game count as being a GM? 

Thanks,

Jason

Jason,

Actually, if you think about it, I'm not even really counting. If you as a game designer come to me and tell me that you want to run 4 playtest slots of your new game, and you will be running these slots with 16 people who have not paid admission because they are part of the playtest track, I'll still say yes. Why? Because I have always and still do find that making DREAMATION *the* place to be for game designers pays off in the long run, and that I know you'll be back next year with the real game entertaining paying members.

Likewise, I have never turned away a game designer because he/she hasn't met the table criteria. Point 3 is not a money issue - it is a perception issue for attendees of the convention that I have to carefully balance. We had a lot of disgruntled people last year who could NOT get into their favorite games and that is not good for any of us. At least three people told me they would stay home if they couldn't play this one game in the Indie track, etc. Those are not only losses for the convention, but also losses for the entire Indie conglom who would like to introduce them to other games as well.

>>>Vinny

[Jason Morningstar]

I'm right there with you.  I understand the need for a careful balance and your support is well known.  The example you use - "I want to play Indie Foo 2000 or I'm not coming" - sounds like a place where more communication will help.  If you came to me and told me there was a vocal group of people were desperate to play my game, I'd work hard to recruit more GMs, figure something out, offer more sessions myself.  Demand can be hard to predict but if you are hearing things, let us know!

[Michael S. Miller]

I think these ideas are all very manageable and will improve the IGE presence at Dreamation 2010.

Just this morning, I was thinking what games I might possibly run at the con. I thought "I like running Ganakagok, but I'm not sure I'd want to run it twice. Maybe Bill White's in the same boat and we could split a slot." This is all well and good for me, who knows Bill and can simply e-mail him. But not everyone has those same connections, or knows what others' interests are. There ought to be somewhere that I could make this information known and seek out other GMs who could supplement my games, and vice versa.

Could we just add a page to the wiki to do this? Is there a better way?

Vinny, the above is something that I think we of the IGE should do *before* we send in our events to you, NOT something else to put on your plate. This thread just sparked the idea.