State of WW

[Barkeep49]

I've not been one to sound the Werewolf is dying alarm. Even when we went on the long WW break (the first time) I was felt confident we'd recover. After all the games before the two long breaks all had good participation.

However, it seems now as though we've been on a steady decline for the past 6-8 months. We've had a few surges, breaking posting records twice in that time, but I think that just has masked the long term decline. I cannot remember the last time we had a new player who stuck around. That's not a good sign.

I had hoped we might get some OS people to come join us, but that hasn't happened either, though I admit direct advertising there was limited. At this point I'm not quite willing to put a stake in us, but I do think we need to discuss ways we can revive this. I have a couple of ideas, but I want to throw this open before stating my ideas since if we're going to recover it's going to need to be a community effort and not simply efforts by me (though I am willing to do my more-than fair share as the moderator).

[Hannibal Lecter]

I don think there is a big problem... I mean the bigger games are fun, but its not like small games ARENT fun. We just need to pluck good players here and there.

I know me and mccolins play on another site, and discussed if anyone was good enough to bring here....

[Lathum]

The thing that worries me more than the actual numbers are the people who participate with passion ( myself included) don't seem to have the same fire

[hoopsguy]

Lathum, I think those two issues are somewhat related. I find myself a little less excited for a game where it is 90% the same people I played with in the previous game.

We've had a couple of people who have taken breaks from WW. Many of those people are not coming back.

We've had people "come out of retirement" for a game here and there. Those people are not sticking around for following games with much regularity.

FWIW, I've thought about playing WW on another board (BoardGameGeeks) but I really do not want to invest the time playing WW if it is not with the guys here. I've developed some level of online relationships with the people here that help me justify the time sink that is WW. So I would love to see this community regain some of its momentum, but I'm not entirely sure how to do this within the framework of FOFC/OS.

[Lathum]

So is it a coincidence that we moved to OS and dropped off?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So is it a coincidence that we moved to OS and dropped off?

I don't know if it is as tied to the OS move as it seems personally. I think as a whole there are less new members joining FOFC in general these days which obviously effects us getting new WW members here as well. Perhaps there is something due to the OS board move, but I can't see how that would have caused it. I think it is more to do with no new FOF titles in some time as a drawing point for new people to come here, or even old members to come back as regularly. Perhaps the poor economy has caused people to change jobs, or have less time while working to be here.. or endless numbers of things.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I have a couple of ideas, but I want to throw this open before stating my ideas since if we're going to recover it's going to need to be a community effort

An idea that I have, perhaps somewhat radical, is to have a evening-only game. In other words, posting will only be allowed during specified hours during the evening. I thought about why I have been not signed up and one of the main reasons is my inability to post during the day (the other reason is the subject matter). I know players can still play by only posting at night (i.e., after work) but in my mind, it creates an unbalanced and maybe an unfair game. I don't know, among new players that could participate, if I am the only one that feels that way but you never know.

[st.cronin]

I think the trend towards more eccentric/complicated games has harmed us, as well as a bigger is always better mentality. I personally prefer a simple game of about 15 or so players.

[Barkeep49]

I'm glad to see some renewed activity here. I think there are some interesting thoughts, some of which I agree with, some which I don't.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think the trend towards more eccentric/complicated games has harmed us, as well as a bigger is always better mentality. I personally prefer a simple game of about 15 or so players.

+1 simple works!

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think the trend towards more eccentric/complicated games has harmed us, as well as a bigger is always better mentality. I personally prefer a simple game of about 15 or so players.

I think this makes a nice sound bite, but I don't think it holds water. I especially don't think it holds water since it's been a common complaint for 2 years and I don't think our community has been shrinking for 2 years.

Ok just taking a look at the first page of games we have the following games:
Hannibal Cannibals
Charmed Ones
Life Contingencies (2x)
Marvel Universe
Cops and Robbers
Spawn III
Highlander
Labyrinth
Political Lupus
Werewolf Draft

10 different games. I would guess that you would find the same combination of complex/simple in that 10 as you would in just about any sampling of 10 random games starting any time after WW IV. In fact, I would argue that the 10 games from WW IV to WW XIV have far more complexity than the 10 I listed above.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I think this makes a nice sound bite, but I don't think it holds water. I especially don't think it holds water since it's been a common complaint for 2 years and I don't think our community has been shrinking for 2 years.

Ok just taking a look at the first page of games we have the following games:
Hannibal Cannibals
Charmed Ones
Life Contingencies (2x)
Marvel Universe
Cops and Robbers
Spawn III
Highlander
Labyrinth
Political Lupus
Werewolf Draft

10 different games. I would guess that you would find the same combination of complex/simple in that 10 as you would in just about any sampling of 10 random games starting any time after WW IV. In fact, I would argue that the 10 games from WW IV to WW XIV have far more complexity than the 10 I listed above.

Not sure how the ratio broke down in the past but I know for complexity a couple of them really stand out (this isn't meant as a shot at anyone running these games just what I think may be an explanation on how things have gone).

The Marvel one was complex beyond belief (and had what I feel to be the single worst component of a game with posession where people can lose control of their game account wih the caveat that "maybe they'll be back" so keep up top date with what is going on). This stands out as it had a huge turn out and there was a lot of talk of burn out after that game.

Another complex one was the political one. That one stands out due to some in game rule changes which directly affected play at some points (the "let's veto that one so the wolves don't get a power" strategy followed by the change to "the wolves still get the power and everyone vetoing now takes a popularity hit for doing the veto"). This was also a fairly large game and some relatively new players from what I recall.

I wasn't in them but I believe the Spawn and Labyrinth may have qualified as complicated games but cannot speak on this from personal experience. Also, not being in them I have no idea what the feel aroung them was (if it was something that could scare off newcomers or not). I chose not to participate due to not really having the time at that point (my non-participation should not be taken as a negative attack on the games, just didn't fit into my schedule at the time).

Didn't have time for the LC two but again that was a scheduling conflict and I believe they were straight forward games and seemed to be the first games when the low turn out started (not because of those games, they just had a bad time slot).


Other related causes I believe are the holidays. It is a very hectic time of year. I don't know wht other games we had over other holiday seasons but would be curious to see if they suffered from a participation hit as well.



Overall (for me this is) the things that I look at which may cause me to not participate in a game:
- Complexity versus time schedule is the largest component, if I don't think I have the time to put into the game based on how much is involved I generally will not play.
- Multiple event deadlines. Having to be around for something which may happen during the middle of the day as well as the normal day and night deadline(s).
- Deadline time falls in there. I hate mid-day deadlines. I can't always make time (and many times shouldn't make time) during mid-day deadlines. I am much quicker to get into a game with an evening deadline and this may even push a game over the top if it is a complicated game.
- Subject matter. This really isn't an issue unless it involves complex rules in which you really need to know the subject matter to be able to understand. This ties into time available as I will be more willing to try it if I have the time to look into the theme a bit. Subject matter in no way scares me off if it's basically just there for atmosphere and theme.

[Danny]

I don't really agree with the more simple games theory. For me, I would have played in fewer games if all the games being played were basic werewolf. I took a little break from WW and what got me to play again was the marvel game. Still, the thing about larger games, is the themes may not appeal to everyone, which is why a good mix of those and simple games is probably the best.

I'm not sure what the best way to grab new players is. I think I'm actually the last new player to start playing fairly regularly.

[Alan T]

I think if all you had was simple games, they would all end up fairly similar and become pretty mundane and boring. I personally like the nice mixture of complex with simple games. It helps change things up and also lets people to play the type of games they prefer.

[st.cronin]

Ok, I guess I agree more or less with what Barkeep has said. Two points, though:

1. The "larger" aspect is, I think, more problematic than the "complex" aspect. Games with more than, say, 18 players can be painful to participate in for a variety of reasons.

2. I think there is a point at which games become too complex, and are not fun for the majority of people. There is a sweet spot of "interesting complexity" which I think has been overshot on occasion.

[Autumn]

As someone who has only played a couple times, and is therefore on that cusp, I'd have to agree that a mix of games is important. The amount of commitment is what most oftne makes me not sign up, and therefore in one sense I'm more likely to jump in on a simpler, smaller game. However, the complexities and themes can also make it interesting enough to make me jump in. I joined the Marvel game partly because it really excited me, the theme and all the different rules.

I think keeping a mix is important. Probably more important is just the personal touch. Hoopsguy taking the time to reach out and invite me into his game was what really made me clear the time in my schedule and do it.

[jeheinz72]

I don't think the games are too complex. I just think it's one of those things where I know I'm more likely to take the chance on a seemingly complex game if

A) I have the time (duh)
B) The subject matter interests me even a little
C) I feel lots of people are going to get "into" the game

A game like the Marvel one wouldn't have been much fun if no one had gotten "into" it.

I think we have a good mix of simple/complex. I think it's just that we're suffering from a completely natural burnout. We have a lot of people here who have played in a huge percentage of the games for going on a long while. Honestly, a few times lately I've only signed up for a game because I want the Mod to have another person. I know I could use a break and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

As far as the all-night-time game, well, that'd help me get my break I suppose.

[The Jackal]

Instead of caroling this year, I'll go WW recruiting.

[hoopsguy]

Heh - I generally do it before every game I moderate. Normally people are willing to come back for a game or two.

The problem, as I see it, is that people are not sticking around for the next game or the game after that. Bringing someone back for a game is nice, but we really need to have more people who are interested in playing on a semi-regular basis to have this be sustainable.

[Buccaneer]

In looking at Barkeep's list, the one game that stood out for me was the political one. That was a lot of fun to follow, despite the rule change. Most of the ones were of subject matters that had no interest to me, regardless if they were complex or simply.

[DaddyTorgo]

i took a little break due to work, but i need to get back into the swing of things. if someone can PM me in advance of the next game i'm more than happy to play and end my little break (i'm only one person though)

[Raiders Army]

I would consider myself to be an intermittent WW player. I'll provide my POV:

When games get too complex, then the "fun" is not there for the new players and players who can't devote 8-10 hours per day to the game. No new player wants to learn a difficult ruleset; a player who can't devote 8-10 hours per day won't put in the effort to re-read twenty-some pages of posts either. Sometimes I think that GMs are trying to create the most complex ruleset just to do it. That would turn me off.

I can't comment really on the veteran players other than I would agree that if the games get too simple, the vets get bored because they play with the same ones over and over.

I think having back-to-back-to-back games hurts this community. I don't like devoting 8-10 hours a day to a game, get it over with and then rinse and repeat.

I'm not sure if you're still doing it, but I thought you played a complex game and then a simple game and alternated the two. I would shoot for having one complex game a month and one simple game a month at different times. The simple game can recruit new players (and return players), while the complex game can satisfy the vets as well as introduce the new players to a more complex ruleset.

My two cents.

[Alan T]

Raiders' post got me thinking a bit more.. I think part of the problem began when people started enjoying hosting games more than running them. It did become a "ones-up" contest of sorts at times, where each game tried to one-up the previous one. We also started seeing the list to sign up and run games begin to get longer then the list to actually play in them.

[Barkeep49]

I agree with Alan that the "core" group of WW players, by and large, became far more interested in hosting games than playing them. This happened, however, a long time ago. It wasn't a huge problem until we stopped attracting new players. When new players, who could fill up spaces in games which were new and different to them, stopped arriving, we reached this point. So one thing to talk about moving forward is how to attract more new players, and perhaps that simply isn't possible on FOFC at this time, in which case I think WW is essentially done here for a while.

The other problem with people becoming more interested in hosting than in playing is that I think some people have skills which lie more in one direction than the other. Some people are incredibly talented at both playing and hosting, but that seems to be more the exception than the rule. So now if you have this very long list it means that the players who run games which you enjoy come up less frequently and you have to sit through a whole bunch of games where your interest is marginal. I don't think it's a coincidence that our original growth came during a time when only a few people ran games. During our first 20 games you only had 11 different people running games, and in the first 17 games you only had 8 people. And I don't know what you do to solve this, if others agree it's a problem.

[jeheinz72]

Yeah I think it has become a bit of one-upping with the games. Which to a degree is ok, since it *should* lead to better games. But it's also hurt our new players.

Maybe instead of a Large/Small signup list, we should do a Complex/Simple signup list? It's essentially the same idea in a way. I know personally I decided after I couldn't get inspired much for my latest game that I'll only run relatively simple games going forward. Though I don't even think I put myself back on the list.

[DaddyTorgo]

Maybe we should vote on who should be able to run games for some period of time and then rotate that around? "Elected GM's" as it were

[Alan T]

Voting on it would probably just turn it into a popularity contest of sorts and I'm not sure how healthy it would end up being for the community. I personally think people should only host games if they are going to actually participate in other people's games, but like Barkeep mentioned some people have talents that lead more to hosting then playing in the games.

In the end, I don't know if this is something you can/should enforce. It is everyone's community and if they aren't into it anymore it will fizzle out as it probably should. If they care enough about it, then games will continue.

One big misconception I have seen is people who say you need 15-20 people for a good WW game. As long as you have 6-8 people you can have a WW game that is just fine.

Here are the suggestions I can think of on the top of my head:

1) Limit the games to only two a month to help fight off the burnout factor. You can have one be the simple game and one a complex game if you want.

2) Get rid of the GM signup list. Simply have the people in the previous game volunteer to host the next one. Then that game's GM, or Barkeep as forum moderator randomly picks from that group to run the next one.

3) We just run the games with as many or few sign up as we get. You don't need to have 30 people for a fun game. You just need to have enthusiastic players (which we have been lacking at times of late due to burnout/holidays/etc).

[jeheinz72]

I would be in favor of the 2-games-per-month idea, at least maybe worth a shot starting out '09.

[EagleFan]

I think a couple ideas may help.

1) The "2 a month" idea sounds good, especially if we keep it simple/complex so that there is a good enough mix of both.

2) I haven't been around enough to know but has the short games mixed in contributed to the burnout?

3) Feedback. Why not have some type of feedback for each game. A standard type of "form" which players can submit after each game (anonymously) which rates the game they just played in. I know it may lead to some bruised egos but overall I think it could help. If those running a game can see what people liked most and least about their game it can help them prepare better or their next game. I would much rather find out that I am doing something wrong while running a game instead of continually doing the same thing and then trying to guess why attendance slips in games I may run.

4) Post those results. Not only can we learn from what we may have done but we can learn from what others do. Maybe I am in a game where I kind of liked something that was done but find out that 80 percent of the people hated it. If I see that from the feedback it will keep me from adding it to a game I run. Basically it can become an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Alan T

2) Get rid of the GM signup list. Simply have the people in the previous game volunteer to host the next one. Then that game's GM, or Barkeep as forum moderator randomly picks from that group to run the next one.

Or as something different you could have the previous game participants vote for an MVP and the person with the most votes could host the next game if they wanted to do so. If they didn't, then it would go to the second most, etc.

This would also help keep the games fresh so that you wouldn't have an MVP wolf out there every game and it would give that person a new challenge as a GM.

[Tyrith]

Bottom line, from where I see it - regardless of the simple, complex, whatever aspect, the WW community is leaking players (myself among them) and isn't getting new players in return. People leaving any pasttime or community is natural, and I feel that WW has had a pretty remarkable retention rate over the years, all things considered.

The problem lies in that this may not be something that is correctable. This WW community is tied to the greater forum community, and the forum community is experiencing the same problem of outflow greater than inflow. Most of the people that have been around the board for a long time know about WW and would have played at some point if they wanted to. If there's no one new to the board then there's no one potentially new to this community and you're stuck.

How to fix that? I have no idea.

BTW, two games a month has been pretty close to our historical rate, I suspect, if you look back at it - a normal 5-7 day game typically takes up two weeks of time because people typically don't start games on days other than Monday or Tuesday.

[EagleFan]

There is a fix, get Jim to release a new game.

[Abe Sargent]

So here's my take.

I had job stuff take over my life, as you know. Less time during the day meant less time playing, although I have jumped back in now and then every few months.

I always thought of myself as a better GM than a player, although I love playing. For me, the games weren't different enough, if that makes sense.

So, what I've been doing for my next GM experience is devoting a massive amount of my time creating a brand new rules set, brand new mechanics, borrowing some from popular games, getting rid of others, until the game that I have (and its not finished yet) is something I'm not even sure you could call Werewolf, but I think it'd be a lot of fun, because I know that I would love to play in it, make sense?

So that's my little contribution to the pot, and when my time comes GM wise, I'll roll out my mega different game and see who bites. With enough biters, we have a chance to try something really different.

I think hoopsguy's Marvel game was both good and bad. Good, because it was a well run game, and bad, because at least in my case, other games looked less appealling to me, they look humdrum and hasbeen because they are to similar to the core WW mechanics. I mean, I know that might just be me, but it is at least my take on the thing. And since I would like a little spark, I'm willing to work to bring that in for my game. of that makes sense. To break the malaise.