Game format question

[NomGarret]

So I'm no longer in that stage of life where gaming groups are able to meet regularly, frequently, and for long stretches of time. As a result, I spend as much time starting up new games and running Session 0s as I do playing. Recently, I've been kicking around a thought and would like some feedback.

Would you enjoy a game with a set list of characters but where players can jump in and out from session to session?

[hymer]

I might, though it seems likely I'd muscle my way into getting one character to be considered mine pretty soon. If I couldn't do that, a lot of the enjoyment would go out for me. Having my own character and seeing ot grow and change is very high on the list of what I find so enjoyable about RPGing.

While we're near the subject, I'll just mention the West Marches style campaign, a sand box where the group is expected to change from session to session.

[Lapak]

The most successful approach I have seen to this actually does the reverse - games where the PCs might partially or totally change every week, in a system where character building is constrained enough that game-breaking characters are less of an issue. The OSR Flailsnails thing, for example.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'd suggest structuring that sort of game as an episodic tv show. Everything is wrapped up and done by the end of the session and all the characters go home. And then next week some new problem arises.

[GunDragon]

Yeah I think it would be fun to have a recurring cast of characters that players can choose from.
How many were you thinking? 7? 10? 12???
When you have it set up like that, you don't have to worry as much about people over-optimizing or playing a really dumb/annoying character

[Mordar]

I think that could be a pretty interesting idea - basically approaching things like it is a convention/tourney game. 10-15 different appropriate characters available, opportunity to shuffle through them from time to time.

Like hymer said, you might have a couple of people who are far more "regular" and grow attached to particular characters...but as long as they all had reasonable construction, I think it'd be a lot of fun.

- M

[Jay R]

My experience is that it's better to have a continuous game that only gets together every month or so, when we're all free.

My current DM has a D&D game, and a Traveler game he runs if enough of us can't make it. The D&D game is serious; the Traveler game less so.

[NomGarret]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I was thinking a smaller cast of characters, maybe 5-6. That way I can write the story without worrying about break points or cutting off a session mid-dungeon. I'm hoping I could get a pool of 15 or so players where enough of them would be free on the days that I am.

[YohaiHorosha]

Adulting is hard.

Tricks our team have used:
We have in our group a min/max, min number vs max number.

Narrative-style is difficult when the plotline you're working on is focused on the missing person. If that person is missing, either fast forward or rewind to a scene that is agnostic to the result and then retcon specifics to make the story work.

Less frequency- we used to do weekly, but then went biweekly, which worked better.

Use of technology. I have 1 dnd group in person, 1 savage worlds group virtual, 2 virtual dnd groups, and 1 virtual rotating game (we've done nwod geist, ironsworn, monsterhearts, and Time Shredders..FATE is next). There are plenty of options, but some of these virtual groups are part virtual, part in-person (5-6 players in 3 locations, or up to 7 players in 7 different locations).

[Pelle]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I was thinking a smaller cast of characters, maybe 5-6. That way I can write the story without worrying about break points or cutting off a session mid-dungeon. I'm hoping I could get a pool of 15 or so players where enough of them would be free on the days that I am.

I suspect few players would like sharing characters, but if they want to that's ok. The characterization of each character is going to vary depending on who is playing them, I assume you are fine with that.

I think it's just better to let everyone have their own character, and then not require every character to be present all the time. Just let the players joining the session bring their characters, and work with what you got.

[Knaight]

I'd be willing to play it, though it's far from my first choice to solve logistics. That said, 5-6 players is a lot to get consistently; it's much easier to handle logistics with 2-3, as it sounds like your end at least is stable.

[Frozen_Feet]

A fellow convention GM runs a campaign like this: all player characters are hand-me-downs, given to whoever shows up to play. The GM chronicles the overall saga of each character and players leave each other notes on what's happened.

I run my convention campaigns slightly differently. No assumption is made on which players or characters are present at which session, continuity is established through players leaving each other notes, maps etc. Characters can also be handed down or left to act as NPCs.