Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lalaith
I would be able to play if there were a game over the Christmas period.
|
I'd be up for a quick game between Christmas and the New Year, as I have the week off work.
Unfortunately, due to the new anti-spam controls at work, opportunities for playing Werewolf are likely to be a lot more limited for me. It's not as if I used to spend large chunks of the working day playing Werewolf, but I did find it useful to be able to take the odd short break from work to keep an eye on what was happening, and to be able to review and post during my lunch hour.
Given that I spend on average 12 to 13 hours of my week days either at work or travelling to and from work and also given that much of the remaining time is spent either with my family or asleep, that leaves about 2 to 3 hours a day at most to play Werewolf, generally between the hours of 11pm and 1am-ish. Depending on the deadline, that is seriously restrictive, at least for someone who likes to be as fully read and involved in the game as I do. By way of illustration of my difficulties, had I been playing in
Legate's recent game, I would have been able to participate only during the first few hours of each day and, possibly, in the final hour, although that final hour would have involved catching up with up to five pages of posts ...
So, why am I boring everyone with my own troubles, I hear you ask? Well, other than looking for sympathy (
), it has prompted me to think of a possible solution. I reckon that, given my situation, I will simply be unable to play in the current standard type of game, with 18+ players and up to five or six pages of posts to read each day. However, I have been wondering whether, given that keeping up with this number of posts might be difficult for others too, there is any call for shorter, more compact games with a smaller number of players. As I recall the first few games had about 12 players, which is much more manageable and is reasonably balanced with 3 Wolves.
Now, I am conscious that limiting the number of players would be likely to mean that some would not be able to join a game when they wanted, so I was also wondering whether the 'one game at a time' rule might also be relaxed, so that different sizes (and types) of games could be running at the same time. This would also allow for more mixing and matching of players (meaning that the same players would not be playing with each other all the time).
Any thoughts ...?