The Subscription Model

From Tab Wiki

So with this latest campaign we are trying out something which I call the "Subscription Model" of running a campaign. That is, when we sit down and decide what to play next, we "subscribe" to the chosen campaign for a handful of sessions. Then, after those sessions play out, we sit down again and decide whether we want to subscribe for another handful, or whether to play something else.

I have decided that I really like this model. You see, it comes with several built-in advantages:

• It means that deciding what to play is less of a commitment to a particular setting/system, since you're only committing for a few sessions, after which you can decide whether to commit again. This may also make people more willing to try something they're not sure about, since at worst it'll be over in a few sessions.
• It is more responsive to how people are enjoying a campaign, since when the campaign comes up for re-subscription, if people aren't enjoying it they'll have their chance to vote for something else instead of having to wait until the end of the whole campaign.
• It gives me a chance to run intermission one-shots between chapters, as otherwise the one-shots I want to run sometime queue up and are often put off for ages.

I've been doing some thinking about the Model, and how a group ought to decide whether they want to re-subscribe or not. It seems that there are several things to consider.

For example, as I've said before, getting people on board for a game is a lot more like consensus-building than simply majority-building. Consequently, it seems to me that whether to re-subscribe shouldn't simply require a majority vote, because there could situations where a minority of players really aren't enjoying the game, but everyone else is, so chapter after chapter, their vote for someone else doesn't cut it. And that could lead to leaving to do something else.

But I'm not sure whether requiring re-subscription to be unanimous is the right solution either. It might be that one player has a bad chapter, or simply tires of games much more quickly than the other players, and requiring unanimity would mean all of the other players are dragged along with changing games more-or-less at the speed the player with the shortest game-interest span.

So having thought about it, it seems to me that a good middle ground would be as follows: After each chapter, a vote is taken on whether to re-subscribe to a campaign or not. If--in favor of continuing the campaign--a majority is failed to be reached, then something else is played. If a majority is reached, however, but unanimity is not, then people talk about what could make the next chapter better for those who voted against re-subscription, but the next chapter goes forward--on a probational basis. If, when the time to choose the next subscription comes up, one or more of those people are still in favor of changing campaigns, then a new campaign it will be.

This setup means that a minority won't be constantly dragged along in the current campaign when they'd rather choose something else. It even gives a chance to try to fix the current campaign more to their liking. Finally, though, it also means that if a single player simply favors changing campaigns more frequently, then a majority of players will get to enjoy at least a couple chapters in a campaign before trying something else.

Thoughts?