#17: The Dos and Don'ts of Game Mastering a Convention Game

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/oneshot/oneshot17.phtml

Summary:

Twelve pieces of advice to make your convention game great!

Go to the column for more information.

[corone]

Top advice.

I'd add that while running the con game with your own group is a good plan, remember your lot will take possibly twice as long to play it as the Con players will (if they are anything like mine). People who know each other tend to sidetrack and role-play more, whereas strangers will focus on the adventure initially, meaning they'll cover more ground more quickly.

For timing I always run an adventure in 3 acts. So as a con slot is usually 4 hours that gives me an hour an act with a spare hour to overrun and explain rules and stuff at the start.

For rules explaining, after a run over the basic system and any individual character traits I finish with 'is there anything on anybody's characters they don't understand' and then we crack on.
Absolutely agree that explaining should be kept to a minimum, and don't explain combat until you get to it. You'll have to explain it again when they hit combat anyway, but by then they'll know the basic system a little better so it will make more sense.

Pre-gens are also the golden rule! Absolutely, never ever do anything else.
I once played a Deliria game where we had to create characters, which took 2 hours of the 4 hour slot. Inexcusable as the game was a series run over the con and half the group already had characters from previous sessions, so they were stuck waiting! That, and the GM was also obviously improvising (even though he was good, to be fair) made that one of my worst con games.

[xenongames]

Good essay, Tom. I agree with all the points.

I would add a bit about writing accurate and enticing game descriptions. A con GM wants to describe a game that will attract the right kinds of players. As a player, you certainly don't want to sign up for a game and find it doesn't match what the game said it was going to be.

I also have a special place in hell reserved for GMs who run published scenarios. Even if advertised as such, it just really turns me off as a player (and fellow GM).

Originally Posted by corone

For timing I always run an adventure in 3 acts. So as a con slot is usually 4 hours that gives me an hour an act with a spare hour to overrun and explain rules and stuff at the start.

In the conventions in the SF Bay Area, rpg slots are often 6-8 hours. RPGA events are 4 hours, of course, and the odd indie game might be 4, but the majority or games go much longer than 4 hours.

I agree about the 3-act structure. It certainly helps with the pacing.

When I run, I tend to schedule breaks. Lately, I've been running games on Monday morning (of 3-day holiday weekends), starting at 9 or 10 a.m. So, I schedule a half-hour break for check-out, last run through the dealer's room, and lunch.

I may also schedule a break between acts (especially between acts 2 and 3) so as to adjust based on the PC actions. Actually, the last game I ran ended on a weird sociological note at the end of act 2. Act 3 seemed kind of superfluous at that point. It definitely didn't follow the typical structure of frantic climax followed by a 30-second denouement as we clean up.

[Mechante_Anemone]

A lot of good GMing advice in there, though most of it is not necessarily specific to conventions. I would caveat these tops with the following: Sometimes you do want to break one or more of these guidelines, but think seriously about what effect you're trying to produce and whether it really will make your game better.

For example, some of the best games I've been in (convention and otherwise) were ones in which the GM allowed players to split up in groups and kept alternating the focus between groups, ratcheting up the suspense. But if you want to use this kind of technique, better to practice it with your buddies first and not use the convention game as your first experiment!

[arete66]

Originally Posted by Mechante_Anemone

A lot of good GMing advice in there, though most of it is not necessarily specific to conventions. I would caveat these tops with the following: Sometimes you do want to break one or more of these guidelines, but think seriously about what effect you're trying to produce and whether it really will make your game better.

For example, some of the best games I've been in (convention and otherwise) were ones in which the GM allowed players to split up in groups and kept alternating the focus between groups, ratcheting up the suspense. But if you want to use this kind of technique, better to practice it with your buddies first and not use the convention game as your first experiment!

Cool. I'm curious, though. In those instances that worked really well, did the GM actually split the players up *physically*? (Separate rooms, and so forth.)

Cheers,
Tom

[Craig Oxbrow]

Originally Posted by arete66

Cool. I'm curious, though. In those instances that worked really well, did the GM actually split the players up *physically*? (Separate rooms, and so forth.)

Cheers,
Tom

I can't speak for Mechante_Anemone, but splitting up physically or not depends on how much out-of-character information you want the different groups of players to have. Splitting up can heighten suspense, suspicion of betrayal or fear that something has gone wrong for the others, but intercutting between separated PCs with the players at the same table can help for action pacing - or irony value if they are betraying the others or being ambushed while alone, as long as the players separate IC and OOC knowledge clearly. It also means the other players don't have to sit and wait for a few minutes while the GM's away. I tend to go for everyone staying at the table as a result.

[arete66]

I hear you. Just to be clear, I'm certainly not advocating GMs refrain from splitting *characters* up. Splitting *players* up, however, has not been pulled off successfully in my experience.

I have heard tales of two or more GMs successfully splitting players up amongst themselves. But one GM and multiple, separated groups of players, not so much.

Cheers,
Tom

[StevenC]

Some really good advice here, so let me see if I can add on:

When I'm running a Con game, I start by creating a flow chart of what I expect the adventure to run with, and then creating links between the different scenes. This may sound like railroading, and to be honest, my con games do tend to be more railroady than what I normally run at home, but what you're really doing is framing how things are most likely to go, so that you can design a better flowing game as a result, and be better able to react when the group wants to do something unusual.

The most important thing about this is that every location the group goes to should have something relevant about it. Several times, when designing an adventure, I had real trouble figuring out what the group would actually do in a particular location or scene, and I ended up editing it out or simply narrating it as color. A lot of the time, scenes that should be there for realism purposes, but that really don't serve to advance any of the adventure's goals or simply aren't interesting, can be taken out.

When I know how the adventure is designed to run, I have a better idea of pacing and what I need to do to get the group to the good stuff. If the group had a lot of trouble with a combat, I'll take out another one so that they'll be able to get to the finale. Similarly, if they had a lot of problems with a puzzle, then I can skip a scene or two to get them to the real meat of the adventure.

Oh, and with that in mind, I always want there to be good stuff to get to. I mean how much fun is it really to get to the end of an adventure and find out that, sorry Mario, the princess is in another castle? Your group is there for one adventure, so give them something to talk about at the end of the con that was awesome!

And then, to counter what I've just said, sometimes you just have to read what the group wants and give it to them. I've run some groups, typically when everyone you're running for know each other, and everyone just wanted to ham it up and play around with the scenery. Sometimes it's best just to let them have a good time and roleplay. At the end of the adventure, if everyone had a good time, who cares if they didn't get to stop fozzle with the maguffin?

So there are some of my thoughts...

--Steve