|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 22, 2013 12:52:48 GMT -8
I have a conundrum and I'm going to the Happy Jacks hivemind for help.
I don't like our convention shows.
There are a lot of countless game anecdotes with little background, so they often sound like inside jokes. There are brief game descriptions, and people talking abut the games, but really no valuable content.
I want to change that.
As a preamble, I want to say that bringing the audience out and having them on the show in some capacity is important to me. Like critical.
And I think there's a HUGE missed opportunity here: We're assembling a roomful of very creative and knowledgeable people. I want to harness that room to have a discussion about how to improve our games.
Thoughts? Ideas for format?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 14:00:59 GMT -8
No suggestions for format right now but this immediately springs to mind: After a GM is briefly introduced and shares a game highlight or two, ask him or her what didn't go well. Then allow 5 mins +/- for GM, players and audience to problem solve. As you say, there's a gaming braintrust in the room—put it to work!
|
|
SirGuido
Supporter
Drizztmas Santa
Ask me about the Drizztmas Exchange!
Posts: 2,127
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, Traveller, Fate Accelerated, Masks
Currently Playing: Nothing.
Currently Running: Nothing.
Favorite Species of Monkey: Anything in a Cage.
|
Post by SirGuido on Feb 22, 2013 14:21:44 GMT -8
I think you'd be better off talking about the Con games AFTER the con in separate episodes. Maybe ask the audience if they have a gaming situation that came up during the con that they want to talk about and then discuss that with audience feedback. One or two of those would make a show I'd think. Just a thought.
|
|
jfever
Journeyman Douchebag
FEVAH!!!!
Posts: 218
|
Post by jfever on Feb 22, 2013 14:40:29 GMT -8
The main thing I notice in the Con shows that is detracting from it's awesomeness is HOW the players are talking about their games.
In the first couple of Con shows, players did tend to talk about what they liked, what they didn't like, and maybe a funny moment or two. This was fine, and made the Con casts likable. There was a time when you, Stu, asked the listeners if they wanted anything changed about the Con casts, and we all responded with a hearty "no".
I have noticed as there are more Con show there are more players trying to be as dramatic as possible in their retelling of their game. So what could take about 2 minutes takes 10 or more. Not only does it take forever, but key pieces of information are being left out which leaves the listeners confused. Saying things slower and louder with more pauses, omitting information, and saying game applicable quotes without any back story at all don't make for a quality retelling of a story. I forget who, but everyone started giving someone shit for taking to long this last Con cast. That hasn't happened in any of the previous Con casts.
So I'm not just ranting, I will try to be a little more specific: One of the previous cons, Tyler ran a Dead Presidents game. It may have been the first Dead Presidents game. Anywho, Tyler mentioned that his mind was blown when his player's solution for getting rid of Hitler in the jar, was to shove it in Kim Jong-Il's dinosaur ass. It was brief, to the point, and EXTREMELY hilarious. The situation was funny, and Tyler didn't have to add any of his own histrionics to make it funnier.
I think JonMcnally has a point: Let the GM/DM/Narrator talk about what they thought was bad/good, and let the players/audience answer his/her questions.
Also, I think a timer would be effective. To keep these hyped up crazy Con gamers from ranting too long about the funny time when "If a gas station attendant asks you for a quarter, ALWAYS give him cheese. HA HA HA!!!" Kimi HAS to have one of those. Doesn't she teach elementary school?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 15:46:21 GMT -8
Also, I think a timer would be effective. Brevity is the soul of wit, I hear. Similarly, a speaker might be restricted to a single, topical anecdote, either something that went well— I endorse this and here's why—or something that didn't— help me fix this, please. These are the sort of rules we use in education, theater sports, meeting facilitation, etc. It doesn't seem unreasonable to apply them to a podcast of quality. Arguably such guidelines are controls to keep convention episodes on brand—in pursuit of ever better game experiences.
|
|
sam
Initiate Douchebag
A Happy Jacks GM
Posts: 41
Preferred Game Systems: Savage Worlds, GURPS, Star Wars: EoE
Currently Playing: I mostly GM.
Currently Running: Star Wars:EoE, Savage Worlds
|
Post by sam on Feb 22, 2013 16:18:55 GMT -8
PREFACE: I don't post as much as I should, but I do lurk here in the forums often, but I have been to every con show since Stu has been doing them; and I have to say that while the shows popularity seems to continue to grow on the Internet, our local little convention (So Cal) community has grown even closer over the years. I used to come to the cons just for the games, I now come to see my HJ friends and be part of this great community.
THE CON SHOW: I have spoken on the "Con Shows"a few times as a player and most recently as a GM for the Deadlands/Wild West Savage Worlds games and I always try to provide at least one thing that the listeners can glean from something I experienced. Maybe not everything, but at least one thing. I too agree that a change to the con show format is needed.
FORMAT IDEA: Each GM should give a background about the game they ran and some lessons learned; then the players should add comments about how the game was perceived, presented and played. That same GM could add a final thought to close that game and get thought provoking questions from the hosts, crowd, even chat room (if streaming).
Longer, more in depth discussions of the issues that came out of these games could happen on later episodes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 17:27:50 GMT -8
I love the con shows. Well less love and more tolerate. The reason being is that I feel disconnected from the games. I'd rather hear about 1 or 2 of the more awesome games in depth in a separate, less drunk episode.
But at the same time I like hearing all of the inside jokes. So I guess this is a null comment.
|
|
|
Post by Houndin on Feb 22, 2013 17:41:18 GMT -8
As someone who's unable to attend the cons because I can't afford the plane fare, I love the 'Con Casts.' However I have noticed as well that they are becoming more and more 'inside' I love hearing the game anecdotes and situations but it's turning into a lot of noise as opposed to signal. I finished listening to this last one and wrote it off as a 'had to have been there' cast. The ones I prefer are the week after the con when the real meat & potatoes are discussed. What went right, what went wrong, cool systems that were played. Now you can't do that with all the 'live studio audience' of the con unless you skype/hangout them in a week after the con.
To use JiB's catch-phrase, "That Said" I'll keep listening to them and wishing I were there.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 22, 2013 23:13:52 GMT -8
Also, I think a timer would be effective. Brevity is the soul of wit, I hear. Similarly, a speaker might be restricted to a single, topical anecdote, either something that went well— I endorse this and here's why—or something that didn't— help me fix this, please. These are the sort of rules we use in education, theater sports, meeting facilitation, etc. It doesn't seem unreasonable to apply them to a podcast of quality. Arguably such guidelines are controls to keep convention episodes on brand—in pursuit of ever better game experiences. This.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 23, 2013 11:11:09 GMT -8
I think you'd be better off talking about the Con games AFTER the con in separate episodes. Maybe ask the audience if they have a gaming situation that came up during the con that they want to talk about and then discuss that with audience feedback. One or two of those would make a show I'd think. Just a thought. The problem with that (thought I think it's a great idea) is that many of the gm's and most all of the players are only available at the con. Also the thoughts about the game are fresh (though that can be a double edged sword) JiB
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 23, 2013 11:19:30 GMT -8
PREFACE: I don't post as much as I should, but I do lurk here in the forums often, but I have been to every con show since Stu has been doing them; and I have to say that while the shows popularity seems to continue to grow on the Internet, our local little convention (So Cal) community has grown even closer over the years. I used to come to the cons just for the games, I now come to see my HJ friends and be part of this great community. THE CON SHOW: I have spoken on the "Con Shows"a few times as a player and most recently as a GM for the Deadlands/Wild West Savage Worlds games and I always try to provide at least one thing that the listeners can glean from something I experienced. Maybe not everything, but at least one thing. I too agree that a change to the con show format is needed. FORMAT IDEA: Each GM should give a background about the game they ran and some lessons learned; then the players should add comments about how the game was perceived, presented and played. That same GM could add a final thought to close that game and get thought provoking questions from the hosts, crowd, even chat room (if streaming). Longer, more in depth discussions of the issues that came out of these games could happen on later episodes. Sam the Wise as always has a very good idea here. JiB
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 23, 2013 20:18:19 GMT -8
I enjoy the Con shows for what they are; a live audience making fun of each other and the hosts after several days of gaming and drinking. That being said (hey JiB), there are some good ideas presented here.
I too like sam's suggestion of the GM providing some background or setup on the game they ran, the lessons they learned, any maybe a few things they would have done differently. Then invite the players to provide comments/feedback.
|
|
|
Post by inflatus on Feb 23, 2013 20:27:51 GMT -8
I think a "Panel" would be cool. Pick a subject and then take a few questions at the end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2013 21:35:25 GMT -8
I definitely think a moderator would be good. More than someone to bring up the next person but someone to ask questions and keep the thing coherent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 2:19:49 GMT -8
I think a "Panel" would be cool. Pick a subject and then take a few questions at the end. I'd even go a step further and make the subject whatever topic has been coming up repeatedly then get direct input from the audience. So for example this last con would have probably been fudging dice rolls. The downside though is that it brings up topics which have probably already been done to death on previous episodes.
|
|