I would like to make a motion

[Just Rob]

[Greylen]

[Just Rob]

Bump.

More input?

[Boric Glanduum]

I'm in agreement with Lorin's points. Especially where "new blood" is concerned. I see too much discussion on the interwebs about in-group conflict and personality issues. I think we have been blessed to avoid much of this problem. More new blood increases the risk of interpersonal conflicts.

New blood also increases the difficulty of setting a consistent night; yes, it's another one or two players that may be able to play where two of the "standards" are not, but the flip side is the difficulty for the DM. What happens if EVERYONE is able to attend? (Numbers estimated for the sake of argument: ) Then the DM suddenly has to plan for eight PCs rather than six, the encounters get thrown off, etc. The logistics of running eight vs. six is not just adding two characters; I've found in my limited experience that it feels exponentially harder for each character once you get past 4 or 5 at the table.

Then you also have the added difficulty of in-game details and story continuity: Whoops! the bard that was here last session adding bonuses in the midst of the dragon-fight, is suddenly gone because his player couldn't attend, not to mention how to weave in those appearances/disapperances in a believable manner. Again: more DM trouble and problems., not to mention the grief the rest of the party feels (and pain) at the bard's sudden loss.

Speaking for myself: my schedule will certainly free up after December. I think all of our schedules will do the same. I'm also for the "two week simmer" on the schedule: if it sits on simmer for two weeks, it's done and ready to be put on the table. One way or the other. I've said before, if we need a one-shot adventure, I for one am more than willing to have a game ready and step behind the screen for that one-shot. My schedule can handle THAT.