are we having one?

if so, who is turning up ?

where and when.

Else, better luck next millennium

Ian

sub subDoWeCare(date)

if (mvstrGodsMeetingThisSunday = yes)
    msgbox(Who is turning up? Please email the list)
    msgbox(Who is hosting? please email the list)
Else fnInsertFinger(mvNumFingers)

end sub


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

>are we having one?

I think we should, even if only to clear the agenda which has been rolling 
over for the last few months. I'll re-prepare it tomorrow.

>if so, who is turning up ?

I'll be there.

>where and when.

Well if Mike's place is unavailable, I'm happy to host it here.

Keith
(phaeton@ihug.co.nz)


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Has any progress been made on Namer or Ranger? Is Mind ready to be voted on?

I haven't heard anything on any of these topics on the list for a while,
which makes me think that there is nothing for the gods to discuss on them.

Is there anything else major on the agenda?

If not, we postpone again, and we might want to explicitly change our
expectations to the current status quo - that a meeting can occur on the
first sunday of the month if there is any business to discuss - otherwise
only on the Sunday preceeding the Guild Meeting for campaign updates (not
that we need a Gods meeting to vote on the above!)

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Smith [mailto:phaeton@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 30 April 2001 3:18 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Gods' meeting - need we bother?



>are we having one?

I think we should, even if only to clear the agenda which has been rolling 
over for the last few months. I'll re-prepare it tomorrow.

>if so, who is turning up ?

I'll be there.

>where and when.

Well if Mike's place is unavailable, I'm happy to host it here.

Keith
(phaeton@ihug.co.nz)


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Some GM has been killing players instead of characters again. Over the last
year or two our player pool has dropped dramatically, and we don't seem to
be getting enough new blood to keep numbers up. DQ's strength is in its
longevity and diversity, and without diversity we will lose the longevity.

ideas?

Andrew


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> Some GM has been killing players instead of characters again.
> Over the last
> year or two our player pool has dropped dramatically, and we don't seem to
> be getting enough new blood to keep numbers up. DQ's strength is in its
> longevity and diversity, and without diversity we will lose the longevity.
>
> ideas?

The reason I have stopped playing and GM'ing was that the game seems to be
more orientated around achieving goals and being rewarded for it rather than
the social end of things. The players tended more towards the competative
rather than the creation and development of characters.

While I assume not everyone is leaving for the same reasons, a lack of fun
and enjoyment from playing will be a factor for a number of people.

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

On Monday, April 30, 2001, at 03:27  PM, Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:

> Some GM has been killing players instead of characters again. Over the 
> last
> year or two our player pool has dropped dramatically, and we don't seem 
> to
> be getting enough new blood to keep numbers up. DQ's strength is in its
> longevity and diversity, and without diversity we will lose the 
> longevity.

Actually I don't think there has been a GM killing players - instead the 
players are breeding :-)

In my opinion the problem may be more to do with not getting any new 
blood rather than with the drop-outs. There will always be drop-outs. 
People change the priorities in their lives, move and so on, and GMs 
can't stop that happening. You can only fudge the dice on the conception 
rates so long.

Also I think roleplaying has over the last few years gained a few 
competitors - like EverQuest which drops the available pool as well.

So where is the new blood going? Can we divert the artery back to DQ? 
Should we? Maybe where they're going is better :-)

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

can we meet this week to discuss mind?

I am available most of most days - Thursday or Friday evening

cheers Ian


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Can you turn this around.

What would bring you back?
[Answering for you] More fun and social games and players.

What exactly do you mean by fun and social?

What can be done to make the games you GM and play in more fun and social?


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mandos Mitchinson [SMTP:mandos@nz.asiaonline.net]
> Sent:	Monday, 30 April 2001 15:39
> To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject:	Re: [dq] Shrinking player pool
> 
> > Some GM has been killing players instead of characters again.
> > Over the last
> > year or two our player pool has dropped dramatically, and we don't seem
> to
> > be getting enough new blood to keep numbers up. DQ's strength is in its
> > longevity and diversity, and without diversity we will lose the
> longevity.
> >
> > ideas?
> 
> The reason I have stopped playing and GM'ing was that the game seems to be
> more orientated around achieving goals and being rewarded for it rather
> than
> the social end of things. The players tended more towards the competative
> rather than the creation and development of characters.
> 
> While I assume not everyone is leaving for the same reasons, a lack of fun
> and enjoyment from playing will be a factor for a number of people.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

In the past few years effort has been made to introduce world shaping events
and large on-going story-lines.
Is the general opinion that this is appreciated and adds to the game and
makes it more enjoyable, or is it making it too complex and too much hard
work?

Many people have cited constant rules changes and aguments as the reason
they stopped playing.  Rules changes have been reduced to yearly (at most)
and there are not enough people interested in arguing about them to form a
quorum.  
Has this made the game better or has it just drained some of the passion out
of the core GMs/players?

In the pursuit of character power and accurate accountacy, has the campaign
lost its soul?


Talk to current and ex-players and try to find out what needs to be done to
re-vitalise the campaign and peoples interest in it.

Another thought of mine... is accurate, consistent mapping and available
maps taking away the joy of exploring new lands?

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [SMTP:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
> Sent:	Monday, 30 April 2001 15:27
> To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject:	[dq] Shrinking player pool
> 
> Some GM has been killing players instead of characters again. Over the
> last
> year or two our player pool has dropped dramatically, and we don't seem to
> be getting enough new blood to keep numbers up. DQ's strength is in its
> longevity and diversity, and without diversity we will lose the longevity.
> 
> ideas?
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

To give another viewpoint of someone who has stopped playing.  I have
attended the last six guild meetings being willing to play one of my
characters.  With the exception of one meeting (*see below), there has not
been any adventures that have interested my characters enough, for me to
commit my time to them.  Perhaps, as Clare suggests, this is because
spending time with my family now has higher priority than DQ.  But, that
said, if the adventures were interesting and relevent for my characters I
would have adventured in the last year and a half.

In response to Stephen :
>In the past few years effort has been made to introduce world shaping 
>events and large on-going story-lines.  Is the general opinion that 
>this is appreciated and adds to the game and makes it more enjoyable,
>or is it making it too complex and too much hard work?

I have found the ongoing story lines to be very frustrating.  This guild
affecting events occur, yet the Guild, and most characters in it, do not
respond to them, and wander off other places.  My characters, most of whom
would (realistically) get involved, cannot, because there is no feedback or
GMing (apart from the odd email) except during adventures.  If most
adventures are not involved in the event then there is little chance in
being involved, once factors such as night and level are taken into account.

I think the idea for ongoing campaign events which affect the guild has
some sound reasons behind it, but I think it requires a large amoutn of
effort in providing GMs with the information and incentive to run
appropriate adventures.  I appreciate that a lot of work has been put in by
some people, and I thank them for that.  I do not think that the current
ongoing campaign events are working effectively.

Perhaps a more effective way of rounding out the campaign would be to
encourage GMs to swap information more readily.  Many (most ?) GMs have a
corner (or continent :-) of Alusia which they regularly run adventures in.
They develop a series of connected adventures, a mini-campaign if you like.
 It would be good if there was some way of getting more GMs involved in
each of these areas, so that a wider variety of GMs and players could be
involved in each one.

Anyway, that's my ramblings on the subject.  Two other points :
1) This thread was started by a comment that "over the last year or two our
player pool has dropped dramatically".  Is there more than anecdotal
evidence of this ?  Has shifting the meetings location had an effect - if
more effort is required to attend, then there will be a reduced attendence
?  Are there more players pre-signing up for adventures, so there appears
to be less attendence at meetings ?
2) On at least two or three previous occasions (in the 19 years it has been
running - the first Guild meeting was about June 1982) there has been a
significant drop in the number of players.  This may just be another cyclic
downturn.

Cheers,
	Brent.

(*The other meeting there were two adventures that two of my characters
wished to go on, but I was unable to go on either of them for personal
reasons (Sally and I cannot play on the same night), and character reasons
(the organiser of the adventure was someone that my character would never
adventure with again)).


At 15:43 30/04/01 +1200, Clare West wrote:
>
>On Monday, April 30, 2001, at 03:27  PM, Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:
>
>> Some GM has been killing players instead of characters again. Over the 
>> last
>> year or two our player pool has dropped dramatically, and we don't seem 
>> to
>> be getting enough new blood to keep numbers up. DQ's strength is in its
>> longevity and diversity, and without diversity we will lose the 
>> longevity.
>
>Actually I don't think there has been a GM killing players - instead the 
>players are breeding :-)
>
>In my opinion the problem may be more to do with not getting any new 
>blood rather than with the drop-outs. There will always be drop-outs. 
>People change the priorities in their lives, move and so on, and GMs 
>can't stop that happening. You can only fudge the dice on the conception 
>rates so long.
>
>Also I think roleplaying has over the last few years gained a few 
>competitors - like EverQuest which drops the available pool as well.
>
>So where is the new blood going? Can we divert the artery back to DQ? 
>Should we? Maybe where they're going is better :-)
>
>clare
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --