1. Absolutely. The invitationals that I've read so far have been very good reads.1. Do you think we should have invitationals at all?
2. About how many invitationals per year is a good number?
3. What type of game should invitationals be (basic normal, themed)?
4. How should the "best" players be chosen?
2. I'd say 2-3. Thok's suggestion of one large and two themed seems pretty reasonable to me.
3. A mixture of some kind... like Fiasco said, themed games should have some broad appeal.
4. I'd suggest a secret ballot of some kind? Perhaps you could set up a Pollster account and have people PM their nominations/votes/whatever to said account. I'd like to think that it would avoid hurt feelings between players who do or don't find each other talented or enjoyable.
Like Stoof said, there can be an issue with players feeling miffed about not being nominated or chosen to play. I won't argue that there's a level of pride invovled with these sorts of things, and there's no way to objectify whatever criteria used to select players. I do like the idea of having a game for Scummie winners, provided all of them are willing to play. I know that PJ and I have talked in the past about our "ideal" player lists for a mini game, and we chose based on who we thought would be the most
fun
to play with, even if they aren't necessarily the most "talented" players. However, that kind of criteria is also entirely subjective. One thing I would emphasize is that we keep active/reliable players in the game(s). Players with a tendency to flake out or disappear for periods of time can really hurt a game. And while I understand that it's unavoidable at times (especially if a game lasts for longer than a couple of months), but I would find myself wanting to blackball certain players for consistently/repeatedly needing to be replaced in games.
