Active/Passive Characters in RPGs

I had planned to be kicking off a Star Wars EotE game by now but due to a number of factors that hasn't happened.

So for October what I want to do is complete character creation likely using this fabulous character generator (and so much more) created by OggDude on the FFG Forums.

Now as I've said previously in my Railroad Stations post I plan to use the Beyond The Rim adventure set as the core of the campaign. To get to that point of kicking off the game though there are a few things that I need to be clear on.

How many players?
The comfortable maximum number of players for any RPG for me is 6.  I can manage a game with more than that but it becomes more unwieldy and I'd add that it becomes less fun for the players when there is less opportunity for them to play in each session.
Given that this is likely to be part of my Friday nights and we're really talking about 2.5 to 3 hour slots that number becomes more and more of a maximum.  If the interest level is what I think it is then we're looking at a minimum of 8 people being interested with another couple of people on the fringes of that.

Dave, that's more than 6 players...  How do you do that then?
Cap it at the 6 and let the other players down? Not my style really and my preference is to do the following.
Take the 8 (or however many) players and go through Character creation.  What this does is builds contingency around the available players to take part in each session.

Yeah but you said only 6 players...
And I mean it too.  Ok so I'll likely make the odd exception to that rule but the approach is to cap the number of characters actively participating in games to 6.  That 6 isn't necessarily static and in my experience it's unusual for it be static for any more than 2 consecutive 2 sessions anyway due to other commitments that players have.  Which is where the other players and their characters have the opportunity to take part.

So what about the players who don't play?
Thematically I tend to use a passive/active character approach which essentially says that all the characters are progressing through the scenarios but some of those are passive characters in that they are not in the scenes taking place.  So in a RPG with a level based system like D&D I would artificially control the level of ALL characters to that of the party.  There are exceptions to this where particular players warrant the exception but in the main this mechanical flattening enables the sessions and story to the be the focus rather than any individual character progression.  Some players might find this unfair but it is the only real way that I've found to have a pool of players who can take part in a limited space game.
Story wise this is probably the hardest part.  The only real way to address any story gaps in the player knowledge is to have brief re-caps of where things are (by the rest of the players) at the start of each session.  This enables the formerly passive player and their character to jump in to the action.

Does that work?
I've been running games using this active/passive approach since I first used it at ORC all those years ago with good success.

Of course the right answer for some people is to just set the cap and leave it there.  That just doesn't feel like the right answer to me....

Nearly Gamer

I was recently away with work and whilst waiting for the flight home I sat at the airport with one of my colleagues at work who I don't really know that well.

So we cover the usual topics of family, work history, holidays and then she asks what I do for fun...

Now, I've never been one to hide my hobby as for me that path leads to the dark side...  erm what I mean is that there is nothing positive to gain from hiding it so by embracing it you provide an opportunity to introduce someone to it.

The flip side to that though is that I can (and do) talk about The Hobby and My Hobby for hours given the opportunity.  Which is probably why this blog exists to some extent, it's an outlet.  Anyway, back to the post.

So anyway I talked primarily about board games and named a number of the "flagship" games like Settlers Of Catan, Ticket To Ride, Carcassonne and Pandemic.  Blank stare which was followed by "My family have a board game night once a week where we play ..." and she listed a number of mainstream family board games.

Most of the games she listed were as unfamiliar to me as the "flagship" games were to her but what this did was demonstrate that this Nearly Gamer was playing games for the same reasons that I do.

Social experience, Fun, Learning (she has 2 kids) and once again Fun.

So what is all this about then?  Why does it justify a post here?

Simple really.  Never stereotype a tabletop gamer.
Also!  Don't diminish the possibility of introducing someone new to the hobby especially when that someone may already be open to the reasons to play.

I've since pointed my colleague to some games that might be good at bridging the divide between mainstream and hobby games.  I don't expect to see any real change other than perhaps her family trying games like Hey, that's my fish!

Tabletop Ambassadors

Way way back (well ok 2 months ago) I wrote up my gaming principles and one thing I didn't put down back then is something I think might be a new principle or maybe it's something else.

So what does the post header of "Tabletop Ambassadors" mean then?  Are they some sort of political envoy of the publisher/distributor elite?  Well no, not exactly.

An ambassador for anything performs a number of roles to support the things they are there to represent.

So in the case of a Tabletop Ambassador their role is fairly simple really, "Promote the hobby as a whole" which mostly translates into -

Always speaking positively about each element (games, players and community) of the hobby.
Always consider the inclusion of people to the potential player list.  Except where due cause has existed (inappropriate behaviour etc).
Always be open minded about new formats and new products.
Always speaking positively as to why the FLGS is important for the hobby.
Always understand that people are well people and they can't all play together.

There's more to this than just what I've got above but I think you get the jist of what I'm saying.

The 5 bullets above are things I believe that I at least attempt to do when gaming and being around gamers and non-gamers.  Does that make this a gaming principle?  I don't think so as I feel it's more general than the other principles I've posted about.  So what is it then?

I suppose I relate to it in the same way I relate to a work ethic or a "be excellent to each other" mantra.  It's just how I believe you should act when participating in what is a social hobby where community is key. Trying to be exclusionary about the who/what/where/when/why elements of the hobby just ends up be counter productive to your enjoyment of the hobby as a whole.

Are you a Tabletop Ambassador?