In a couple different posts, Bryan wrote: > Hey, don't be so hard on yourself. We're Rabbits not because > we're professionals, but because we're amateurs; we love Looney Oh, sure, I can appreciate that. I am only a BIT hard on myself, really--plain text can't quite convey whimsy, without emoticons every line, huh? BUT, on the other hand, even being an amateur, I feel like I poorly represent LL when I bungle games during demos. Unless I make sure everyone knows that I am not an "Official Rep"--which I do, when asked, but I don't make a point of clarifying with every person--there will be people who seee me as such and, thus, do not se LL in the ideal light they deserve. And on the gripping hand... I guess you haven't read my Rabbit Profile lately? http://rabbits.looneylabs.com/?RabbitUserID=DavidArtman ;^) > Some specific advice: for things that absolutely need everyone > to be in one place at one time (like Werewolf), just set a > specific time to begin with. Well, to be clear, that's pretty much what the con sign-up sheets and schedule said, initially. It was only in response to having almost no one at 8pm, that I began to pitch it as "just come by." But, sure, next time--though I hope never to be quite so off base again--I will just pick a time, if I am having to push it back for popular other events or, generally, because few show up at the advertised start time. > Also, you might want to try a floating tournament instead of a > fixed one. That way people can just drop by, play a game or two, > and then go to whatever other scheduled event they had. Very interesting idea; I'll consider it. SO... maybe I could have done it as some kind of "aggregate score" tournament, based on wins in games played all session? That would actually incentivize folks to stick around, too: the more they play, the more wins they can rack up. Hmmm... and I could even let each pair/triplet/quad of players choose what they wanted to play, and weight the points award for a win based on relative play time differences between the games (ex: a win in 4-player Martian Coasters would be worth two or three points, as compared to a win in 4-player Treehouse). > This all makes me feel that we really ought to try and get the > Rabbit Wiki that we have discussed up and running, so we can > actually document whatever suggestions and conclusions we reach > about the best ways to run events. Well, what's to stop us from doing so on the Icehouse.org wiki? Tag all the Rabbit Advice with a [[Category:Demoers]] tag or [[Category:Rabbits]] tag, and the wiki will auto-sort all such pages into that category listing. Add a new section to the Home Page, introducing and pointing Rabbits to that category, and I think it would be more than sufficient. I'd certainly add my 2¢ to any pages created to discuss pyramid game demoing--oh. Oh, I see why that might not work: some Rabbits demo things other than pyramids! (I forget, sometimes, so strong is my obsession.) Oh, well... yeah, we'd want to have a game-independent wiki, wouldn't we? Anyone know if the icehouse.org site admins--or LL themselves--can add a new folder and another wiki install, for us? I am becoming wiki-happy, lately: it's SUCH a great way to publish group proceedings online that I am pretty much shifting my own site and any with whom I have pull to that mode of operation. The bulletin board is dead! And finally: > You know, I seem to recall something similar happening at the > last Con I demoed at. If I remember correctly, someone was > looking at them in a vendor room, and I told them before they > bought them, but it may be a somewhat more widespread problem. OK, glad I'm not the only one who sees/worries about this. > My solution? Come up with a spiffy game for a Treehouse set > and volcano cap set. Maybe we need to revive the Icehouse > game design competition, and have this be a theme for the > next one. Yep, and that would be a very nice way to re-brand the VCs. But a packaging change would still occur--to pitch them as "supplements" for the single-stash game you propose. And, of course, clarify that they enable Volcano to be played, too! (Shift focus from *only* for Volcano to *also* for Volcano.) And if you get any kind of game design contest going, let me know! I am already trying to come up with game, in general, that really leverages opaques (check out my flagellation on "RPG" at the wiki). Using only smalls would be a bit tougher, but I'm game. (heh) David