I’ve both played and run games at conventions. The biggest problem that I had in both cases was not knowing who you were playing with. Pacing, suspension of disbelief for group building, advancement were not so much issues. But even if you tag your game “advanced” you’ll still get wet-behind-the-ears kids and first-time gamers bellying up to your table. There’s not much you can do about it, but I always found that to be the biggest impediment. With a group that meets regularly (albeit sparsely) that familiarity with the rules comes far easier. It actually makes some things easier, like allowing a DM/GM to tinker with the formula of player makeup for the group, as weeding out an ill-fitting player gets much easier.

One thing I find, though, Walt, is that while a player won’t get bored with a character they only play once a month, they seldom get the same attachment to their character as someone who plays them more often. As I am a low-mortality-rate kind of DM, this is a pretty good thing; when a character buys the farm, there’s usually a moment of shock and awe (or awwwwwwww…..). In one of my latest games, the elven ranger split off from the party, though wounded badly, to fire off a few arrows at a fleeing monster. He was not aware that he had walked right into the sights of the evil priest who was enjoying the benefits of an invisibility potion. One Flame Strike (and a botched saving throw) later, and the party was bereft of their ranger. The players blinked a few times in shock, then their expressions turned ugly. As their characters felt, so did they: that priest HAD TO DIE! Especially poignant was the fact that one of the other characters was the brother of the ranger. Much carnage ensued, but it does illuminate my point. Familiarity may breed contempt, but it also builds attachment, which aids drama and engagement in your story. To me, that level of attachment is nearly impossible to recreate in a convention environment, in which encounters read like wargames.

One thing I find that helps build some kind of rapport in short-term scenarios is to try to link the characters to something the player can obviously grip. For instance, if a character is playing a member of a priesthood, giving them the core info about the faith they follow can help to color their characterizations even with a pre-made game. This may sound obvious, but it’s often overlooked. I remember one con where I was playing a cleric in 2nd Edition. All I knew was that his god’s nickname was “The Lady of the Bloody Hand”. The alignment was neutral good, so I assumed the character was some sort of avenging type, and the first combat I joyously had him move forward at the bugbears, mace swinging, chanting “Blood for the Blood God!” The other players were amused (as were the people at the surrounding tables, but hey, I’m a loud guy), but the DM was scandalized. He then berated me, telling me that “The Lady of the Bloody Hand” was a healing goddess, who put her healing hands over the wounds of others. This was a fact that was never explained to me. The other players liked my version better, incidentally, and I got in some great games after-hours from then on at that GenCon (’94 I believe).

Scott: Your question cuts to the heart of this series of posts. The pressures and responsibilities of having to “entertain” the players really got me to reflect on my convention experiences. I find that it helps if you walk into each monthly game with a “Con GM” attitude. The more I accepted that and got into the Con mindset, I found my game easier to run.

After a couple of sessions, you will find that the players will “find their voice” and become more active. It’s just that this will take longer. Also, your players will be less likely to get bored with a character that they rarely have a chance to play.