[quote="Nierite"]I do really like the "Prior Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance" method of table optimization, but I'm not sure if it is the best idea overall. I know that I have come to Cons where I am either by myself or with only a single other person sitting at the table that I actually know. This becomes a MAJOR concern if you are a new player to the game, which is ultimately what we want to see at more tables.
I am always of the character-generation paradigm that every character should be able to do at least one thing well, and that doesn't necessarily have to be combat. Of course, this can be something of a trap because you can always get a path where you all made rogues who are experts at picking locks and you are stuck with a fight against a hoard of giants out in the open. The same is true with D&D but with the classless system of Arcanis it is harder to advertise yourself as a specific gaming-archetype. As such, you really still need to advertise yourself based on what you are when you form a table, and hopes of finding a balanced party. "I'm the Battle Cleric" or "I'm a talker" are all viable options.[quote]
I agree with this. Once previously, and currently I am running a rogue-like character, and have found this exact problem in the past when got assigned to a table that proceeded to have 4 thieves and no fighters at it. I knew we were screwed before we started.
At that time I often tried to arrange tables before hand with a balanced team of characters and players that I liked, but the problem with that is that while it increases the success rate of missions, and at least temporarily increases the fun; it also reduces a lot of the social aspects of the conventions/campaign and can cause some tensions. By always arranging your tables beforehand with people you know, you limit your exposure to other players and other gaming styles. This limits the building of a larger community as fewer people know each other, and it leads to more stratification in the campaign as some tables max out everything, always go high tier, and cause modules to be written to be challenging to them, not the average table. Meanwhile, joe newbie comes in, joins an imperfect table, gets less than maximum X.P., doesn't play with some of the most experienced gamers in the campaign, and doesn't meet any of the people active on the board/in the community (except maybe as a judge) because they're all at the pre-arranged tables. Over time this effects his attachment to the game as he sees others doing better than himself and never gets to know the most active people in the campaign.
I will note right now, that as a new player, I have not had this problem at the conventions. I have played with some of the people on this board now (though I wouldn't say I know them) and my experience of meeting players from other regions is what I go to the convention for. I generally like to play with 1-2 people I know at a table, and 3-4 that I don't that contribute well to a table. I have wondered about some tables that seem to be a set group of characters. They sound interesting, and make for a great story, but from what I've hear it does seem to cause some (limited) friction in the campaign.
I also agree that every character should be good at something. And ideally you should spread out what you are good at. When I run a rogue I actively try to find a table without a rogue. After all, if what I am best at is larceny, and I sit down with another character whose best skill is larceny, most of the time one of us is useless. This is not true, of course, if your best skill is combat.
In deference to this, I try to always have only one character who needs help being carried in combats at a time, so I can fall back to a more combat oriented character if needed.
