For the record, I belong to a group with 3 GMs who rotate the duty across their plots. Each GM presents a 5 - 10 session plot to the group, and we choose 2 plots to play.
One week, the first plot is run. The next, one of my cohorts will run theirs. We each have several potential plots, and when one arch ends, our group decides on the next to be played. Some plots are set in the same setting and game (where you can play an old character again); some are unique. It all depends on what the players are interested in at the time one of the plots ends.
All of the games I run use BRP (of one version or another). So, my group is already familiar with the system and enjoy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Tar
However, having said this, I'm not sure why you want to address this particular dichotomy. What's wrong with proselytising the BRP system to both new and established players? My suggested selling point to both is that it is ‘elegant’, relatively simple and transparent, and well established and therefore robust. Long may she sail  |
Specifically, I am concerned about conventions.
There's nothing quite like having a group of unknown players at your table (some complete newbies, some veteran BRP'ers, others of unknown allegiances), running a game and having the d20-fan complain the game isn't like theirs. Considering the odds of a completely new gamer getting exposure to the BRP system is much less than that same person finding a d20 book at the local bookseller, I want to make a clean first-impression!
I ask because I'm thinking of advertising with my FLGS for "new gamers" to run BRP for. I'm trying to keep this kind of gamer-society exposure to a minimum.
Also, like mentioned before, there is a real inertia to overcome when trying to present a new system to gamers. I even feel it myself.
I don't want to play in systems other than BRP, typically. (Even with the group described above, I find myself having to play in systems that these other GMs want to run.)
Does any of this make sense?