A Measure of Success [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Child of the 7th Age

02-12-2003, 03:46 PM

Thanks everyone for the helpful comments. There were a couple of folk I wanted to make sure and respond to....

First, Doug Platypus, you raise one point that also concerns me, and which Pio and I have discussed at least briefly. I wonder if some folk (myself included!) do get spread out thin, and take on too many games. I would never want to set down a flat number for how much is too many. Too many games for one individual may be just the right number for another! It depends on how fast a person writes and their real life commitments as well as how much time they're willing to give to it.

I do think that something like this might at least be briefly mentioned on a game's discussion thread, suggesting that folk weigh their real life commitments and consider how many games they're already playing in before signing up for another.

I am not familiar with the Rohan game you mention, but I do know that Shire games also can have problems with slow plot development. I think there may be factors other than busy posters that can lead games to slow down. I noticed, for example, in the Shire, when The Long Winter hit its climactic scenes where the hobbits outwit the wargs, other games on the board slowed down because many were busy getting their licks in! Something like this is just a matter of timing between two or more plots.

Also, sometimes a game slows down under the sheer weight of its plot, with too much time spent on detailed introductory scenes, or perhaps in another part of the storyline. The game founder sometimes has to be ready to give their game a kick to send it forward a bit faster. Otherwise, posters may lose interest, and feel that a game isn't going anywhere. Sometimes other posters or a mod can be helpful in pointing that out to a founder with a respectful pm. Then adjustments can be made.

There definitely have been times I've sent notes to posters, especially if a big scene is coming up. But it's a good point for us to keep in mind.

Your other point:

On the subject of Inns, I agree that the divisions are a great idea. But placing the Inns in a definite geographical location causes some (very minor) problems. For instance, in a foolish attempt at consistency, my Dwarf bard travelled from his home in Erebor, to Rohan, read a notice about an RPG, and travelled all the way back to Dale to participate in it. I would like to see RPGs starting off from the Inns, as was done in this case, but that can become a bit tricky given the fact that they all exist in one particular (sometimes inconvenient) location. I can't think of a solution, but maybe someone that agrees with this sentiment is able to.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. When we say that games can start off in Inns, we simply mean that planning can take place there. Your character can start from anyplace, and you don't have to explain how they got there or route them through the Inn or on any particular route. Some folk join games and never post in the Inn, which is also fine.

Also I wanted to comment on this:

Assuming that the Inns do in fact need a physical location, the Shire as the novice forum is IMO kind of self-defeating. Almost without exception, newbie characters are Elves, Half-Elves, warriors or vampires, with piercing eyes, mysterious pasts, and sacks full of enchanted weaponry.

Ironically, the opposite has been the case in the Shire. We have a large group of newbie hobbits. But because we've had many games for hobbits, they tend to clear out of the Inn quickly. In fact, until very recently, most of our active games were hobbit oriented. Right now, we have one hobbit game going, another windng down, and another starting next week.

In fact, if we want to look at things through the cold eye of realism, nowhere in Middle-earth would you find the wide assortment of characters that each of our Inns boast....not even Dale, which admittedly is more 'multi-cultural' than many other locations. The only way around this would be to eliminate all geographical references in the names of the Inns. Yet, I would hate to do that. For example, we recently used our "Shire" setting to plan a dinner party for Frodo and Bilbo, and had folk scurrying around the Inn (including the Elves and vampires!) helping us get ready.

Also, one reason that we've had so many Elves and Half-elves in the Inn is that there haven't been Elf oriented RPGs for them to join! We posted one a week ago, and all the Elf slots filled up in 24 hours (a new record for us!). I'd love to put up another good Elf RPG that has real roots in Tolkien (not a Mary Sue!), but the seeds that are adopted and under development tend to be men or hobbits or even dwarves! We are definitely in the market for someone who could adopt an "Elven seed" who has the experience and the ability to lead a Shire game.

Aman -- I want to respond to one or two of your ideas, but have to run to do real life carpool now. Will get back on here later.

Cami, Shire Mod

[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

Child of the 7th Age

02-12-2003, 05:59 PM

Aman,

It's me back again. I promise--no sharp and pointy objects. I'm cooking dinner, so the worst that could happen would be a few randomly tossed vegetables!

First, regarding the old games, I feel that's ancient history. For better or worse, it's behind us. I honestly don't think there was any ill will in the way games were placed, but that people's tempers were already frayed on all sides, and it was easy for things to be misunderstood. But, either way, it can't be changed. So the best thing to do is to go forward from here.

Thanks for the nice words about the Shire. I can honestly say it's been a lot of work and a lot of fun. But I did want to ask you about this:

But the moderators are in danger of becoming this big, omnipotent power who is unconnected.

It's funny, but I don't feel that way. I guess first I would say I feel very "connected" with the people who game in the Shire. Some of them I've come to know as friends. Others I don't really know that well, but I can see how their skills and writing improve and, to be truthful, that's something I think has real value, for the Downs and, more importantly, for the people themselves.

And most days, I myself don't feel very "big". What I do see is a big job that needs doing, and it can't be done by one or two mods or admins. It's essentially a job that every gamer shares, even in a beginning area like the Shire. Without good proposals and good seed ideas and good posts from everyone involved, we're all going to fall flat on our faces! I essentially see what I do as 'facilitating' (what a terrible word!) --making it possible for gamers to do what they do best in writing and coming up with ideas. We try to do this by making sure we have a sound structure and that there's someone available to give help when needed.

Yet, obviously, something is making you feel this way. If you could send a private message with specific examples and concerns to Pio or myself, or whoever else you're having trouble with, it might be very helpful. It's hard to respond constructively when your own concerns are framed in such a general manner.

My advice would be definitely not to erase your first comments, but follow them up in a private message with something more concrete we can look at and perhaps work on together. We may agree or disagree with what you're suggesting, but we won't know until you set your ideas down in more specific terms.

Cami, Shire Mod

[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

Calenedheliel

02-12-2003, 07:48 PM

I was intimidated with RPs with the old system and therefore did not join in. The new system gave me the chance to join a game and to brush up on my writing skills, as it has been many years since I've written anything.

I found Pio and Child to be an excellent source of help and knowledge when I needed help for my posts. They made this a very enjoyable experience for me.(Tips her hat to Pio and Child)Thank you very much for all your guidance. I look forward to writing with the both of you again soon.

Bêthberry

02-12-2003, 09:54 PM

I'd like to add a couple of comments about the Inns.

Child has already addressed doug*platypus' concern about the geographical setting for the Inns and so I will briefly mention my response: they are not intended to prescribe or proscribe the settings for the games in each realm. Games do not have to start out at the Inns; nor should games be restricted to the time frame of the Inns. I blended Ride to the Dark Side with The White Horse simply because it is set in Rohan, but none of the other Rohan games--Kidnapped, Search for the Book, and My Crow Management--are linked there. And the movement from The Shire to Rohan to Gondor was intended simply to follow the path of the Fellowship.

The White Horse has allowed many gamers to try out different characters, which I think is great. Because it is a 'practice ground' without a plot of its own, it can be hard to follow, though. I am currently setting up two activities which will expand its reach and perhaps give intermediate gamers practice in areas that can be tricky: when and how to incorporate other gamers' characters in their own posts, and how to plan plotlines co-operatively. Rohan is not a place for tutorials, but I think practice in these two areas identifies intermediate gaming here at the Downs.

First, 'behind the scenes' I am helping to set up some short subplots, much like Child and Pio have done at The Green Dragon. This will provide a more focussed opportunity for interacting with other gamers (outside of a game) and maybe some practice in planning strategy as well. I know of both a new gamer and an experienced gamer who found some of the 'SAVEs' in Ride a bit of a hurdle. And there were two very good, very enthusiastic gamers who wanted to add more conflict to the game when its conclusion had already been announced and set up.

Second, I would like to see more opportunity to discuss gaming in The Horse. To this end, I will be creating a 'snowstorm' which blocks characters into the Inn, and thus stimulates more talk about games. I have invited some game owners--Aman, Aylwen, Susan for starters--to come and talk about how they set up their proposal, where they got their ideas, and what advice they can offer other gamers. Nonesuch is welcome to come, too. smilies/wink.gif

The Horse has provided a good opportunity to develop new characters, but so far it has not stimulated discussion of plots and games. I would like to see that start to happen now. I wonder, if we had more discussion of sources like Unfinished Tales, would we have more games in Rohan?

With pio's and Child's permission, I am also currently reading through the games in The Shire to see who is ready to ride on to Rohan.

If anyone has any other ideas about what The Horse can do for the gamers in Rohan, feel free to post them here or contact me in PM.

Bethberry

[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

Maikadilwen

02-12-2003, 10:03 PM

I find that there has come a lot more control and structure into the RPG's with the new system and that was needed.

BUT (and this is where some people I have been talking to may be surprised or even disappointed) I can follow Aman's thoughts perfectly, because I've had some of them myself.

I am certain, no actually I KNOW that it's not meant to be that way, but the Gondor section seems....closed. A restricted area where you will only be let in at the mercy of someone in "the staff", meaning those who can actually start games in Gondor.

It is said, that if you think you have the skill level to play in Gondor, you should stop by "The Seventh Star" Inn. A couple of people told me I should try that (thank you for your trust guys, you know who you are!) and so I did.
You could almost see how everyone turned in their seats and looked in wonder and disbelief at such display of stupidity.
So I decided to just slip away as quietly as I came.
Guess that means I DON'T have the skill level, but what a way to find out...

Like I said before, this is how it SEEMS to be, from the outside. It looks like there is a hierarchy, with very few people in the top and then the rest of us at the bottom.
Maybe the appearance should be different?
If this is the way it looks to "old rats" like myself, then what does it look like to newer members?

I may have stepped on quite a few toes now so I will say this again. I KNOW that is not the way Gondor works (hopefully smilies/wink.gif ) but that is the way it SEEMS.

If someone still wants to yell at me, please stand in line with all the others and wait for your turn or PM me. Due to a tight schedule I can't guarantee you will receive an answer! smilies/smile.gif

Orual

02-12-2003, 10:15 PM

Oh, I have one thought to add--are there any ground rules for entering Rohan and Gondor? As Pio and Bethberry know, I was very hesitant and asked permission before starting at any of the Inns. But what are the qualifications for each level of playing? I mean, are you asked, or do you just skip along in and see if you make it, or do you PM the moderators like I did? I think it might be helpful to tell new players exactly what they should do to play in each different level, because I know that I'm still a little confused--I have more than enough on my plate right now, as far as games go, but eventually I'd like to try my hand in Gondor, and it would be nice to know how I go about doing that.

My two cents being added, I remain yours,

~*~Orual~*~

Child of the 7th Age

02-12-2003, 11:43 PM

Maikadilwen,

I'm wondering if there may be some misconceptions concerning Gondor. The thirteen names on that list that appear on the official Gondor thread are the folk who can originate or found games at that level. It's not a list of those who can join Gondor games and/or who have the "right" to post either in games or the Inn.

In theory, anyone who has strong writing and gaming skills is allowed to 'try out' for a Gondor game, unless it is one listed 'by invitation only.' Right now, if you were to look at the names of those posting in the two games currently open in Gondor, you would see that at least half of the posters aren't on that list. So there are definitely people playing in Gondor, even now, other than the "tight circle" of those thirteen names.

So why are people, like yourself or perhaps Amon, feeling so "excluded?" I think it is because relatively few new games have been started in Gondor in the past three months. Even if a person wanted to "try out" for a Gondor game, that would be difficult, because the games simply don't exist yet.

Why is this happening? This is only personal opinion, nothing official, because I'm not a moderator there. But as I looked over the list of potential Gondor game founders, it struck me that 6 of the names are people who've volunteered to help out in either the Shire or Rohan--some as mods, but some also just as 'general helpers' or game founders.

I am a good example of that. About ninety percent of my gaming right now takes place in the Shire. The one new RPG that Pio and I recently developed is going up in the Shire (not Gondor), as a special invitational game to try and teach collaborative planning skills to some of the more experienced Shire posters. That game will be a mix of people from the official Gondor list (6) and regular Shire folk (12).

The problem is that if I'm giving so much time in the Shire, it's going to be very hard for me to have enough energy left to develop and lead a game in Gondor. And that's true not just of me, but of half the names on the "official" list of Gondor game founders. If you are outside looking in, as you are, that must be very frustrating, since you can't try out for a game that doesn't exist!

Would I like to lead a game in Gondor that intentionally mixes some of the "older" Gondor posters with some new faces and talents, perhaps having folk "audition" for it? That sounds like a fantastic idea. I have long wanted to do a First Age RPG where people can not only game but widen their understanding of that particular period of Middle-earth history. The problem is that I would need a 26-hour day instead of a 24-hour one, and I haven't figured out how to do that yet!

So perhaps some of your perception of being excluded stems from factors like this, rather than any intentional effort to keep folk out or make them feel uncomfortable. I believe that gradually new games will go up, and some of them will be open to newer posters. But the process is going to take some time and patience.

Again, this is not official. Rimbaud is the one who can really speak for Gondor as its moderator, but that's just my impression, based on my own experience and looking at the other names on the founders' list.

Cami, Shire Mod

[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

Maikadilwen

02-13-2003, 04:10 AM

Sharon, I believe I said in my earlier post (if I didn't, please forgive me) that I know it is not the way it is meant to be, but this is the way it SEEMS to be, seen from "the outside".
I am fully aware that the listed names are the people who can OPEN games, but sometimes it seems, that in order to get somewhere, you have to know someone who knows someone....

I may be very wrong and seem really far off, but I just said what I see and have been tempted to think from time to time.

Now, I had a lot to say but due to certain circumstances, I simply can't make an English sentance today...
Frustrating, since I feel that though I try, I'm not able to make myself clear. Oh well, maybe later.

Once again, I'm not pointing my finger at any persons! I'm pointing it at a system.

By the way, I know that both you, Sharon and Pio are doing a tremendous job in The Shire and it is because of your efforts it works.
Both The Shire and Rohan are working (almost) perfectly, if you ask me.

[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Maikadilwen ]

Bêthberry

02-13-2003, 06:48 AM

Maika, I won't reiterate here what I said earlier about how busy the mods are--something which Child has now explained at length.

However, there might be another point which makes Gondor look different from the other realms. This has to do with how the games are planned. Although there are discussion threads, they don't appear to have nearly the extensive interactions which games at The Shire and Rohan have.

In part, I suspect this is because the gamers know how to interact and so less formal planning is required. They also tend to be people who use the discussion threads to discuss the game and writing rather than make chatty comments about RL--it is a writerly interaction rather than social interaction.

But there is another reason, a silent kind of discussion which does not show up but perhaps can be 'felt.' Perhaps you and others are responding to this 'absence.'

I know that a great deal of the planning for both Castle Maladil and Revenge of the Entish Bow goes on 'behind the scenes' via PM or in chat. Certainly all my planning for Saladriel and my next cameos on REB has occurred in chat with Estelyn Telcontar. That is why #Elbereth exists.

I think the best way to 'join' Gondor, in addition to posting at The Seventh Star, is to run a game of one's own in Rohan. If someone is not willing to run one's own game there, it really would not make sense to expect to become one of those eligible to found games in Gondor.

This is, of course, just my opinion. I cannot speak for Gondor's Innkeeper.

And now I must run and fulfil one of those RL obligations. Orual, I will return and answer your question later this morning.

Regards,
Bethberry

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

02-13-2003, 06:57 AM

If it helps, here's how I got into one of those restricted, invitation-only games: when I saw Estelyn's plan for The Revenge of the Entish Bow (I found it while wandering around the forum: nobody told me it was there) I realised that I had to play it; so I did as she suggested in the preamble and emailed her with an idea for a character. I was admitted. I didn't expect to be, because I hadn't roleplayed since my friends and I had to dissolve our Ars Magica group and I've never written collaborative fiction before, but it goes to show that experience is no object if your writing reaches the required standards.

It really is that simple. You don't have to be a moderator, or a friend of a moderator. You don't even need to have been a member for very long, as long as you can prove to the game's founder that you are the sort of player who is going to be an asset to their roleplay. My advice would be to have a go: the worst that can come of it is a refusal and nobody is going to bite people's hands off for asking nicely.

EDIT: Bethberry got in while I was still writing this. I'd like to add that as one's writing improves it becomes easier to pick up themes and keep things going without talking about it. Most of what I need to know is right there in the other posts. Those chat conversations aren't exactly the most structured of discussions. smilies/wink.gif

[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

Maikadilwen

02-13-2003, 07:35 AM

I think the best way to 'join' Gondor, in addition to posting at The Seventh Star, is to run a game of one's own in Rohan. If someone is not willing to run one's own game there, it really would not make sense to expect to become one of those eligible to found games in Gondor.

OUCH! I know a hint when I see one.

But who said anything about founding games? That's not what this is about.

I begin to really regret I for once decided to open my mouth, but we were asked for opinions and I stated mine.

[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Maikadilwen ]

Helkahothion

02-13-2003, 08:11 AM

Hey you meanies,

Leave Maika and Aman alone. You should not be so mean to them. They are different than you so they do things in a different way. There way. You ask for opinions on this tread. Not for comments on others. We have PM's and ratings for such business. So please leave everyone in there values. I rest my case. (For now, so be careful smilies/mad.gif smilies/evil.gif )

Greetings,

Anuion

P.S. Don't hit me! Ill be a good boy again. Just wanted to help people here.

[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Helkahothion ]
________
Sex advice forum (http://www.love-help.org/sex-advice/)

Bêthberry

02-13-2003, 08:30 AM

Helka, none of this is an attack on either Aman or Maika. I welcome their opinions. I am also friends with both of them. And don't you try to step in between us. smilies/wink.gif

This is a discussion or debate. We are not being 'mean' to them as you claim, but engaging in analysis to try to understand what they are saying, what they mean. We are analyzing their comments so we can understand them and help eliminate what problems they seem to be feeling. There is nothing wrong with criticism or stating one's opinion, but if the thread is to accomplish anything, we need to know just where or what any problems are, so we can work to overcome them.

The whole point is to have an RPG forum which works to the best interests of all gamers. smilies/smile.gif

Bethberry

Helkahothion

02-13-2003, 08:37 AM

Dear Beth,

Ok then. I was just checking of no one was being mean to my preciouses. I need them in the RPG and can't afford to loose them. Glad to know you are friends with them aswell. Arren't they great? smilies/biggrin.gif

Well, I'm done with sucking up. Bye bye y'all.

Greetings,

Anuion
________
Falcon (australia) (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Falcon_(Australia))

Child of the 7th Age

02-13-2003, 08:52 AM

Hi, Helkahothion,

Just wanted to make a comment on your recent comments here:

Hey you meanies,
Leave Maika and Aman alone. You should not be so mean to them. They are different than you so they do things in a different way. There way. You ask for opinions on this tread. Not for comments on others. We have PM's and ratings for such business. So please leave everyone in there values. I rest my case. (For now, so be careful )

I guess I must have been particularly mumble-mouthed yesterday, as "being mean to someone" was the last thing I was trying to do. When I respond to someone in a thread, either agreeing or disagreeing, it's because I value what they said, and I think it merits serious consideration.

Let me boil my responses to Aman nd Maika down to two sentences, and maybe that will clarify things.

1. Aman, you obviously have some real reasons for your concerns. Please share specific examples by pm, and we'll see what we can do.

2. Maikadilwen, I basically agree with you. Because there have been so few Gondor games, people haven't had the chance to audition and play there to the full extent I'd like to see.

3. I also concur with Bethberry that, in order to get added to the list of Gondor game founders, you'd generally need to have founded another game first in one of the other forums.

Hey, Helka, I don't think it's 'mean' to have different opinions and share them respectfully with each other within this thread or any other. That's the whole reason this board exists. Usually, you end up with a better idea by engaging in discussion and debate, even when you start out having different ideas.

I absolutely hate when folk dump on each other with namecalling and such. That was certainly not what I was trying to do. But I feel that, without an honest exchange of opinions it's much harder to get to know one another and solve real problems that do exist.

Cami, Shire Mod

Helkahothion

02-13-2003, 09:03 AM

Dear Cami,

You meanie leave me alone okay? It's my opinon and you can't change it.

Nah just kidding. I just tought you where taking a dump on Maika and Aman. Glad that's claryfied. So I wish you good luck. I would honestly say I agree with your polecy on the Gondor matter. If you did not do this, you would get all writers on Gondor and might aswell take awayt he class difference. Just a question to test the system. I have founded an RPG in the Shire.(It's still going) When it is done, does that mean I can join the Gondor Forum?

Greetings,

Anuion
________
Mazda 717c picture (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_717C)

Rimbaud

02-13-2003, 09:14 AM

It's all these darn adults not using enough smilies/smile.gif 's and !!!s, isn't it? smilies/wink.gif No-one's been 'mean' and indeed the best discussion has emanated from Maika and Aman's posts. So thank you to those two, and thank you to Bethberry, Squatter and Cami for answering so beautifully.

Those three have it, with regards to Gondor. There are few games, and few people with the time to start and run one. This is not a great problem, Gondor was never intended to be busy. smilies/smile.gif Neither should anybody feel hurt or excluded. When Entish bow or its sequel finish, Esty and I are starting up a sequel to The Saving of the Seventh Star (a miniature RP at the bottom of the games in Gondor). This will be a large RP, and a slow one requiring a lot of planning and discussion, since it has some small ambition. smilies/smile.gif

The point being, that there are unlikely to be more than one or two games at a time, but those games are not closed shop. Do post in the Star - but well and thoughtfully. Then, when the Founders of a new game are looking for players they will see your posts, and perhaps will know you from interplay in the Star and you can apply or be invited.

The stronger writers not in a game in Gondor right now, should not fret. There are games available in The Shire and in Rohan and the 'hierachy of skill' (thanks to the hardwork of aforementioned moderators and good writers) is not as delineated as some would lead one to believe. As in, it's hardly that at all. And don't hesitate to PM me and ask a question, or ask if a post at the Star is appropriate etc.

If the other mods and Gondorians want to discuss other potential names for the List in Gondor, that would be a useful discussion also.

[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Rimbaud ]

Mithadan

02-13-2003, 09:27 AM

*Mithadan whacks Maika and Helka upside the head with a wet trout.

Maika, I don't think anyone is really attacking you here. The issue you raise is valid and is a matter which I have been considering since we reformatted the RPG forums. This very issue was discussed last November in the Chasm forum that was created to discuss changing the way we ran our RPG "program".

I'll first address this by looking at the old problems chronologically, then addressing our solutions, and finally by trying to feel out a way to deal with this "perception" issue. This will be a long post.

April, 2002: in order to meet the demand for more RPGs, we opened the Freestyle Room. See my earlier posts for the results.

August, 2002: recognizing that we had a real mess on our hands, the admins discuss the RPG room and conclude that change is needed. BD is a Tolkien site and board, first and foremost. The quality of our content is and will be one of our primary concerns. We have a reputation as a thoughtful and serious discussion board. This is what sets us apart from all the others. The quality of the majority of the RPGs in the Freestyle Room was poor. There were chat-style RPGs (virtually every game involving one line posts with chatspeak). There were off-topic games (Jedi Knights, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc.). Most of the on-topic games lacked any direction or goal (let's hunt some Orcs...OK, they're all dead...let's find some more). Literally hundreds of abandoned or unfinished games cluttered the board, using up our bandwidth.

The interim solution was to create a set of rules and appoint people to enforce them. One of these people was me. Included among these rules were that your game gets closed if: there are no posts for 2 weeks; the game is off-topic; or it is a chat-style game. We also restricted the opening of threads and required that proposals be submitted to start a game. Finally, we demanded that goals be set in existing games so that every RPG would someday end. In short, we cracked down, and we freely admit this.

October, 2002: it is clear that our Rules are both working and not working. Dead games, chat-style games and off-topic RPGs had been eliminated. But people found the proposal process to be inimidating and very few new games were opened. We ran a mentored RPG to try and help people understand what we wanted, gain skills and confidence. While it was well-received, it was also too complex (my fault) and cumbersome.

November, 2002: (some secrets revealed here) the admins get together again. The initial debate is whether to try and fix the problem or just do away with RPGs altogether. The vote was closer than many here might want to think. The decision was reached to restructure the whole RPG system and recruit help in running it. The restructuring process was to be inclusive; we invited a lot of people into a private forum, The Chasm, to discuss what to do. The outcome was our present system which was put in place in late November.

The key pieces of the puzzle were promoting new games without the proposal process (The Shire and its "seeds"); the opening of an intermediate level where people could create their own games through a better proposal process (Rohan); the creation of an "advanced" level where the better players could create and open their own games without a proposal process (and could be trusted to do so with restraint); the creation of the Inns.

The idea is that people start out in the Shire, hone their skills, move on to Rohan where they can propose and run their own games, then move on to Gondor once they have shown that they can create and run a game. At the same time, anyone can join a game in any forum if their skills are up to it. Even so, players or entire games can be moved out of Gondor or Rohan if they are not up to snuff.

Now let's focus on Gondor. It was always recognized that Gondor might be viewed as elitist. We went around and around on this issue and simply couldn't work out anything that could avoid this perception entirely(even though what Child and others have commented on about including RPers in Gondor games is absolutely correct).

However, the real problem is not that Gondor exists, but rather that no one is trying to get there. Not enough games are being created in Rohan by members. To date, no one has asked to be approved for Gondor either (one person PMed me asking what is up with Gondor...why are there so few games and why are they invitation only, etc.). If you want in, do it! Make your proposal in Rohan. Run the game. There are people here who have the skills to do it.

Not enough time? Run the games slowly, control it through the discussion board and by PMs so that it doesn't run away from you. No ideas? Read the books, haunt the Inns, ask an Innkeeper. There are lots of ideas floating around. Too young? By whose standards? There are 14 year olds here who write better than 30 year olds. Need help? ASK FOR IT! A game can be run by more than one person. Its happening right now in The Shire.

We are trying to make our RPG system the best that it can be. You can make of it whatever you want to make of it. You want to stay in the Shire? Fine. You want to play without the responsibility of running a game? Also fine. You want to run games and join Gondor? Do it.

Helkahothion

02-13-2003, 09:42 AM

Dear Mithadan,

You got some points there. Let me just comment from me out. (I'm not being mean Helka! Oh wait I'm Helka silly smilies/biggrin.gif )

However, the real problem is not that Gondor exists, but rather that no one is trying to get there.

Well, there is one over here. As soon as my RPG in Rohan is finished and I have played my own to completion in the Shire, I will start one in Rohan. Just give it a month or two more and you will have an extra writer.
Was that arrogant?

*looks at sig*

Hm guess not. smilies/tongue.gif

Too young? By whose standards? There are 14 year olds here who write better than 30 year olds. Need help? ASK FOR IT! A game can be run by more than one person.

I SO agree with you here. I am 15 and if I may say so, I don't write all that bad. And help is a good thing. If it wassn't for Pio, I would not have gotten my RPG ready until next week. (BTW thanks again for that Pio.) So do not be shy to ask for help.

Greetigns,

Anuion
________
Weed (http://www.youtube.com/dispensaries)

Estelyn Telcontar

02-13-2003, 11:27 AM

I would like to add another point to the criteria for choosing writers for Gondorian RPGs – good posts on other forums are an excellent recommendation. When I decided to put the Entish Bow up as an RPG rather than writing it myself as a fan fiction, I wanted writers who could write that style. I noticed several who wrote on Books, Movies or N&N with the sense of humour I was looking for and with well-chosen words and well-formulated thoughts. Those I invited to join my game – some of them I even pestered because I really wanted them!

To guarantee high quality on the Gondor forum, game founders must have the option of choosing players. Those must be able to write in the style of the game, and they must be able to cooperate with others. (Impolite and aggressive posts are not a very good recommendation for cooperative qualities!) That includes a thorough reading of what the other players have written. When I choose players, I want to be sure we can do what we’re all here for – have fun!

Bêthberry

02-14-2003, 02:50 PM

Sorry, Orual, for not replying yesterday to your question about qualifications for Rohan and joining Inns.

Any gamer can post in any of the Inns, the Dragon, the Horse or the Star. No one needs an invitation and there are no restrictions other than the standard of writing.

If an Innkeeper feels that the gamer's posts do not meet the standards of writing for that realm, he or she will contact the gamer via PM with help and advice about the writing. If I think someone would benefit from being in The Shire, I will suggest that.

Anyone who is interested in joining a game at Rohan can contact the game owner, who makes the decision about who to accept. If I think a gamer is not writing up to Rohan standards, I will contact the game owner with suggestions and he or she will pass them on to the gamer.

The standards for Rohan are explained in the thread The Golden Hall. To see them in action, read any of the games currently here. smilies/smile.gif

Bethberry

[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

Orual

02-14-2003, 08:49 PM

If an Innkeeper feels that the gamer's posts do not meet the standards of writing for that realm, he or she will contact the gamer via PM with help and advice about the writing.

That's the part that I wasn't sure about. Thanks! I'm fairly confident about my writing skills, but I'd hate to make a real faux pas and get people irritated at me. I don't know if other people are as hesitant as I am...all I know is that I wasn't clear on that point, and new players may be unclear on it, too.

Namárië,

~*~Orual~*~

Amanaduial the archer

02-15-2003, 12:05 PM

Oh boy. I post once and it leads to all this?

May I just make something clear; no offence was meant and I didnt mean to insult anyone.

But Helka, Maika youre sweet. And youre both my 'preciouses'. smilies/biggrin.gif

Maikadilwen

02-15-2003, 12:07 PM

No, Aman.
You post once, then I open my mouth and it leads to all this. *sigh*
I should have learned something by now.

Helkahothion

02-15-2003, 02:50 PM

Don't worry your pretty heads on that,

We are all guilty in a way. And like was said before, no one was being mean. So you did something good. If it still bothers you, just blaim it on me. They always blaim it on me.

Greetings,

Anuion
________
PENNY STOCKS TO BUY (http://pennystockpicks.net/)

Mithadan

02-15-2003, 05:43 PM

Now, you guys are apologizing for...what? Proffering criticism when we solicited it? Particularly when I conceded that your comments are valid, at least from the perspective of appearances.

Some people are just too polite...

Helkahothion

02-16-2003, 04:37 AM

Mith, you can't be to polite. In this world, any form of it is valuable. That is one of the mainresons why I am staing here.

Greetings,

Anuion

P.S. Yay, I am the precious of Amanaduial the archer. Go me.
________
RD56 (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_RD56)

Amanaduial the archer

02-16-2003, 06:56 AM

Hmmm, apologising....nope looking through my post, I see no mention of the word sorry... smilies/tongue.gif

Helka- smilies/smile.gif

Helkahothion

02-16-2003, 01:39 PM

I little suggestion about the Rpg sections.

We have the seeds already, but what if a downer can't put the short summaries onto a story. Many are affraid to ask the mod's for this. Maybe we should set up a section where we can assist downers with making an RPG story or a character. I here by volunteer(sp?)to do that. If you think I can be of help that is. What do you think?

Greetings,

Anuion
________
Suzuki tl1000r (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Suzuki_TL1000R)

Burzdol

02-18-2003, 06:22 PM

Hi,

I don't know the old layout, but these RPGs are awesome.

~Burzdol Laioreion of Mirkwood

*Varda*

02-19-2003, 05:26 PM

I would definitely agree that the RPGs have much improved. The old system was just sifting through the mass of long running, or even dead games before you could find one you were interested in, and even then there was no guarantee it would ever get off the ground.

It seems a lot easier to stay interested in a game with the new system, and to work out where you feel comfortable.

Palando

03-15-2003, 12:43 AM

Greetings all downers,

WOW

Reading through this thread makes me realise how much work and thought has gone into the RPG structure and just how successful it has become.

As a new member of the downs only a few weeks ago I was first shocked at how much there was to read, and then impressed with the simplicity of the layout. I have struggled for many years to find an online roleplay format that allowed for high quality prose writing, but without success, and now here it is, laid out on a plate for me... cool! smilies/smile.gif

Now, only a couple of weeks later, I am running a roleplay in Rohan! All thanks to the moderators who were friendly and welcoming from the start, without their help and enthusiasm I would have fallen at the first hirdle, who answered all my questions no matter how stupid...

So basically thank you, especially Bethberry, Squatter and Estelyn for all you have done so far.

Peace

Palando of the blue robe

[ March 15, 2003: Message edited by: Palando ]

Tinuviel of Denton

06-11-2003, 04:21 PM

I'd never RPed before discovering the Barrow Downs. I haven't played a game yet, though I'm working on that, but I am immensely enjoying posting in the Green Dragon and the White Horse.

Just as a response to something someone said about a page ago, none of my characters are Half-Elven, Elves, vampires, etc. Two are human and one is an Enting (no, I'm not entirely sure how he came to exist. smilies/wink.gif ) In the two RPGs I'm hoping to post on, both my characters are human. New posters are not necessarily going to have fantastic creatures as their characters. (Incidentally, while my characters in the Inns have mysterious pasts, it makes them more interesting. Besides, I couldn't think of a history for the first one. smilies/smile.gif )

Wren

07-02-2003, 01:52 AM

I love to rp especially in Tolkien's perameters, but I am really struggling. I posted in the Green Dragon, and applied for a role in the Corsair story which is just starting up, but it is difficult for a new person to be creative in such a strict envirionment.

I compare this to perfoming Shakesphere to doing improvisation. I actually love improvisation, but Shakesphere is much more difficult to create.

So far my experiences with roleplay have been where a gm controls almost everything, (a style I'm not too fond of), and free form boards such as you have described the old style of the Barrow-Downs to be. I have spent quite a bit of time rping on one such board, where there is little moderation, and plenty of chaos. Moderators do become involved when a member is very naughty, however, breaking the forum rules, etc. (There not many rules, though. smilies/smile.gif)

So coming to this style of forum is a difficult transition, but I love that there are no one line posts, or god-like characters, or people controlling other people's characters. What I am wondering about is can there be some sort of less controlled board? I don't mean complete chaos, but somewhere where beginners can get there feet wet, and start their own stories?

I apologized if this is out of order, but I am hoping someone will bear with a newbie, who is also a fellow rper and lover of all things Tolkien. smilies/smile.gif

[ July 02, 2003: Message edited by: Wren ]

Amanaduial the archer

07-04-2003, 12:03 PM

I'm going to get this one out of the way first. A suggestion about possibly a new part of the RPG section: in the future, maybe there could be a section of RPGs especially for slightly less Tolkien orientated RPGs? Its just a thought, but it would be quite interesting to have a fantasy RPG section for this- many people I have found do have good ideas for games which would involve worlds or creatures that do not appear in Tolkien, and with the standard of writing here, I think these would be able to thrive and prove to be quite a valuable part of the RPG section. Thoughts?

Now, Wren:

Of course you're not out of order- it's your opinion, and God knows everyone is entitled to that.

The controlled way of the forum is just the way it has evolved to be, and it seems to work quite well. There was a freestyle RPG room before the changes made to the RPG section, as mentioned before in this very thread, and, I admit now, although it was much more relaxed, it was rapidly descending into 'complete chaos' as you said. It did work for a fair amount of time, and games were started by anyone, and anyone could join with whichever character they wished. But this did soon lead to problems- lots of games were created, and many were left unfinished, when the owners got bored, or had other things to do, and the players lost the plot, didn’t have any real guidance, or lost interest. Characters were sometimes not really thought through- they would be slammed hastily together, and could only have profiles consisting of a few rather sparse sentences. Because there was no one to check up on this, they could get away with this. Sometimes games turned out well, very well even- in the case of The Lonely Star, for example, and Rivendell, although neither of those RPGs would be allowed now, as one included creatures not featured in Tolkien, and/or places not featured, and Rivendell, for one, had no real storyline at the start. But there were soon far more unfinished games than such successes as these two; both of these have produced excellent gamers, many of whom still game here, but there were others- you know, ‘Mary-Sues’- perfect, beautiful elven witches, who can shoot flames from their hands and do every imaginable sort of magic, who are wonderful and always have hundreds of admirers, but at the same time can sword fight better than Aragorn and Eowyn put together and shoot more accurately than Legolas, while all the time not putting a hair out of place.

The way the freestyle room is set out now is really going to the other extreme, but its settled down nicely now. There are fixed storylines for games (these don’t need to be entirely revealed to all gamers in the discussion thread by the way), a discussion thread and RPG thread are necessities for all games, there are moderators and reviewers to sort out the real rubbish that may come in, and all games need to be within Tolkien’s limits (although a few further up may slightly stretch these limits a little). This way of doing things does of course have its downsides- the moderating is quite strict, especially in the Shire, and proposals do have to be quite detailed, but the moderators are always there to help, with games or general information. There are only certain characters you can play, and the storylines are prefixed, but this does mean that you don’t end up with half breeds between Shelob and a dwarf who can have all sorts of powers, and morph into any sort of creature, but have somehow decided to join up with an elf going on a quest for the Eru only knows what, for no apparent reason, and one the same point, games don’t end up with several different storylines at once, all of which are completely random, none of which make very much sense, and all of which seem somehow to include all the characters in several different places at once.

Sure, its strict, and does come as a shock to many people like yourself who come from other places, or who haven’t played before, and it does sometimes take a wee while to get used to- it came as a shock to the system to many of the gamers who played here before, including myself, and caused a few problems initially. But, when you measure up its success, it must be admitted that it has worked out well- its settled down nicely.

Look, a sample from earlier on in the thread: I do not think you will find a site with Role Play this well moderated, with this level of care, respect and attention, anywhere on the net. No substantive post is deleted or edited silently. They are important points, and that and the standard of writing found here make it such an excellent forum.

And the best bit: real Mary-Sues are only seen in parodies such as The Revenge of the Entish Bow and its sequel, thank Eru. It’s a pity that things aren’t as free as they used to be, maybe, but it’s a good system really, now it has settled down. The teething problems are long gone, and the Downs has grown into probably at least one of the best RPGing sites on the net.

The Barrow-Wight

07-10-2003, 10:55 AM

A suggestion about possibly a new part of the RPG section: in the future, maybe there could be a section of RPGs especially for slightly less Tolkien orientated RPGs?

This won't happen at the Downs. We have always been completely Tolkien focused, though many times people have requested an 'off-topic' forum or section. Adding such an addition to any portion of the Downs (discussion or RPG) would lead down a dark road we have never been willing to tread.

There have been many previous discussion on this topic in our other forums, so I won't give a long explanation. But I will say that if we were to allow games to go somewhat off-topic, how long would it be until people began to ask for permission for completely non-Middle-earth games?

We've drawn a line of excellence that has worked fabulously to date. To change our standard would serve no purpose except to regress to a a lower quality.

Helkahothion

07-10-2003, 11:00 AM

A suggestion about possibly a new part of the RPG section: in the future, maybe there could be a section of RPGs especially for slightly less Tolkien orientated RPGs?

As a lover of the RPG's on the barrow downs, I don't like the idea of it. But since people want it badly, maybe it is an idea to try one at Middle Earth Mirth. Just to see how it goes. I think that if it is less middle earth related, it should still be bound to most of the rules of the RPGsection. So they can draw lightsabers, but not defeat an army of 200 orcs by themselves. (this considering the no superhero character rule)

Just an example. Of course it could prove a great laugh, but it should be well discussed, planned and guided by someone experienced, Rimbaud, or Mithadan for example.

Abedithon le

The Barrow-Wight

07-10-2003, 11:06 AM

This is off-topic, but must be addressed:
I think that if it [Middle-earth Mirth] is less middle earth related
That is why Mirth is constantly on the verge of being closed and deleted. People confuse being allowed to be less serious with being allowed to do anything. That's a mistake that results in periodic purges of frivolous posts. Freestyle RPG suffered the same problem and had to be changed. Perhaps it is time to use the RPG template as a starting point to reform Mirth.

*** Please, do not continue this line of thought here. Back to topic. ****

Estelyn Telcontar

07-10-2003, 11:11 AM

I would like to reinforce the answer that The Barrow-Wight gave with one more comment - The Barrow-Downs is only one of various Tolkien-related forums. There are others that allow for more general discussion or non-Tolkien related RPing. So there are plenty of possibilities for people to choose what they prefer and find a place to do it. The limitation to Tolkien discussions and RPGs is what makes this site unique.

Amanaduial the archer

07-12-2003, 12:58 PM

Alright, it was just a suggestion. Withdrawn.

Sophia the Thunder Mistress

08-12-2003, 01:37 PM

It’s been a while since this thread has been active, and I think it’s probably been open longer than it was intended to run for. But this is good, because I now have found my feet in the Downs RP system, and have had a chance to step back and look at the system as a whole. I’ve looked about a lot, I post in games in the Shire, and at the inn in Rohan and I’ve also read much of what goes on in all three forums.

This is what I’ve observed: a bustling and smooth running Shire, a struggling Rohan, and a largely empty Gondor.

I realize that the purpose of Gondor has been discussed ad infinitum on this thread already, and that it is fully intended to be the most slow moving of the three, but seeing a total of one new game open during the course of my half-year of gaming is not encouraging. The purpose of the levels (in my opinion) ought to be to encourage improvement and upward movement among the members. This is not what I see happening. What I have seen, in my half-year of gaming on the Downs, is vast improvement in my own writing, and in the writing of the majority of the Downers with whom I have gamed.

However, this hasn’t contributed to a sort of mass migration to Rohan where my “generation” so to speak, moves upward and leaves the Shire to a new batch of baby-gamers, perhaps paying a few visits back to help the newer players learn. What has happened instead is that the overall skill level of the Shire has gone up. The games which are being started now (including my own) are of a much higher complexity level than the ones that I was playing in when I first began. I can imagine that most of the maturing writers are feeling a little frustration with the (intentionally) beginner oriented standards of their playing environment, and as a result the games have become much less beginner friendly. In fact, gamers that had previously been playing in Rohan are coming to the Shire looking for well plotted games. This seems somehow off kilter.

Why aren’t we moving on to game in Rohan? Bethberry’s recent revision of the White Horse Inn has been a huge success, becoming overnight one of the most well written threads in the RPG section. Why aren’t we building our games there as well, crafting stories there where the standards are a little higher, and we don’t need to worry about taking on a few newbies to even out the playing field?

Here’s what I think. 1) The gamers in the Shire are abundant. There are always enough people looking to take on another game that we can feel confident about filling our rosters. All the action is in the Shire right now, “go where the players are” seems to be the mindset.

2) The new requirements of gaming in Rohan (while understandably designed to up the standards of writing there) make it necessary for any aspiring Rohan gamer to lead a game in the Shire. These gamers are people who are wanting to move on to Rohan because they are tired of gaming at the Shire level and want to move upward. They don’t want to play in another Shire-level game, much less run one. Therefore the game they start might be Rohan-level (my own included, though I didn’t realize this until well after it started).

***I don’t have any realistic suggestions for changing the standards, as anything that based movement on actual assessment of writing skill would make more work for our already overworked innkeepers and also put them at risk of accusations of bias. However, I think the idea of “running a game in the Shire” before moving to Rohan sets an unnecessary block in the way of mature writers and opens the way for less experienced (but more confident) writers who might still need time in the Shire.***

3) Many of us lack confidence and need a nudge out of the door. The mods might want to be on the lookout for this and encourage people to make the switch when it is time.

The inactivity of the Gondor Forum makes it an unattainable goal for most of us, I am more inclined to move forward if I have something achievable to reach for. Gondor isn’t this kind of a goal for the majority of the Downs RPers. While it needs to be fairly exclusive to maintain the high level of play (and freedom) that I have seen there, it also needs to be open for people who honestly want to work toward those standards. While the people currently on the list of founders decidedly deserve their positions on the list, they are (as Mithadan pointed out), some of the busiest among us, and therefore don’t have the time to lead new games. I believe there are other gamers currently playing at the Downs (many in the Shire, unfortunately) who could maintain the standard of play in Gondor, but who can’t get there, simply because there isn’t a game to prove themselves in. At present there isn’t even an inn that is active in which to test the waters. I think that making Gondor an attainable goal would encourage more gamers to leave the Shire and help make the three-forum setup what it was intended to be.

Sophia

Note: I have been slightly concerned about posting this, lest it be taken as a long string of criticism without any attempt at finding solutions. That isn’t how I intended it to seem at all, but to avoid making my post too long to read and follow, this post is really just the first few “cars” in a long train of thought on the subject.

Mithadan

08-12-2003, 02:26 PM

HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE THE BARROW-DOWNS, SOPHIA! smilies/eek.gif

Actually, you raise some valid points. I am not troubled about the dearth of games in Gondor. It was always anticipated that there would rarely be more than two or three games in that forum at any time.

However, there have been far too few proposals submitted in Rohan. This has resulted in Bethberry opening planning threads as an experiment to work up game plots. Can anyone suggest any reason why there are so few proposals if people do want to RP in Rohan?

The requirement of running a game in The Shire was put in place for two reasons. First, we consider the mechanics of running a game are the key to being able to RP at a higher level. Second, The Shire needs game owners or there will be no Shire games. Pio, Aman and Child simply can't help run every game. If there is an alternative to this approach, I'm willing to listen to it.

Beren87

08-12-2003, 03:06 PM

The three tiered system does have it's problems and advantages obviously, as those have been stated, and on the whole it works quite well. The problem being people just seemingly don't want to move ahead, as there are too many limited options in the upper levels. Being able to play in Rohan and Gondor is one thing, but actually proposing games in the sparsely populated fora is another.

I think, and this is just being thrown out on a whim by me, that we need a new system for moving up. I was thinking of this, and when reading Mith's post I realised why our current system is in place, the fact that we do need game owners to take burdens off the Moderators, something I had never considered. While making it to Rohan is supposed to be considered a goal, it seems to not be considered one by quite a lot of people in The Shire, for reasons Sophia pointed out.

I think we obviously do need to keep the game ownership system in place, but, I think having moving to Rohan be the reward for running a game is unneccesary, as that doesn't seem to be the reason people are starting games. They seem to be starting games simply for the benefit of seeing their own ideas in action, which, is a perfectly wonderful reason.

One idea that occured to me is that we could have a reviewal board of certian RPGers. People who wished to move to Rohan and above would submit pieces of their RPGing to the board, that would then review them, and decide whether or not the poster needs more time in the current place of residence, or that they deserve to move up. One of the obvious problems would be favoritism of the people on the board, but I'm sure if we can have a more than one person on it, that favoritism would be near nil, and the members would be objective. I realise this would be a certainly voluminous amount of work, especially on the part of the reviewers, but it does work, and if enough candidates for the board could be gotten...well, then I think it could actually work. I think people would be more inclined to try and move up, if the system worked something like this.

Like I said, this is just one proposal, so far there hasn't been a terrible lot of new suggestions...so, this might as well be posted. Feel free to criticize or add to it as you will. Any thoughts?

Edit: A lot of this is probably incoherent, and not to mention irrelevent, but some solution need proposing, and being I'm now a member of the Green Dragon, and want to move to Rohan at some point, I felt this in some way applied to me.

[ August 12, 2003: Message edited by: Beren87 ]

*Varda*

08-12-2003, 05:22 PM

I have to agree the majority of players seem to be lingering in the Shire, or even moving down to play there. I notice this mostly in my own rpging habits - I started off in Gondor, in Castle Maladil. Once that finished, I went to In War in Rohan - that never finished, and there was a lack of games to play in, so I felt that if I really wanted games to play in, I had to go to the Shire.

This seems to mean that the Shire is becoming less and less about a beginner level - Corsairs and Corsets, for example, does not seem Shire game quality - I'm sure it's higher than that. There are many people currently playing in the Shire that are certainly at Rohan standard, or Gondor.

I do agree Rohan needs more games - the problem is getting people to submit proposals. I feel a tad hypocritical saying this, as I often mean to do that myself smilies/rolleyes.gif but never get round to it. I also think there is a lack of confidence among the players to a certain extent - like I said before, a lot of games started in the Shire, I feel could be in Rohan. Perhaps if the Shire moderators feel a game may be up to Rohan standard, it could be started there. This would mean more activity in Rohan, a place I really only go for the Inn.

The board could be a good idea, but it seems quite time consuming and a lot of work, and it seems the moderators in the Shire have a lot to do already.

The X Phial

08-12-2003, 06:23 PM

I like the idea of gamers owning games, but I think that many of the games being proposed in the Shire (the only forum open to many) are not really suited for beginner play. The games being proposed have multiple storylines and require a good deal of politics and internal characterization on the part of game players. To my way of thinking, ownership and moving up should be separate.

I like the idea of some sort of non-affiliated writing standard. (Good idea, Beren). Volunteers could be found, there are plenty of qualified people. I also believe that people should be required to play a certain number of Shire games before moving up (I suggest at least two) in order to get to know the Barrow Downs system.

My idea for the game ownership is as follows. Proposals would be made to and assisted by someone not affiliated with any particular gaming forum. In other words, there would be a central proposal process that would not be associated with the Shire, Rohan, or Gondor. Once developed, the proposal would then be assigned to a forum based on several characteristics, some of which might include: complexity and number of the storylines, amount of freedom needed by the characters, how external or internal the action would be, and what level of the fora the game owner will be qualified for by the time the game begins. In this way we keep the ownership system, have more appropriate games for each level, and have a draw for people in Rohan to propose and join games.

I hope this is all clear and sensible. smilies/smile.gif

[ August 12, 2003: Message edited by: The X Phial ]

Nurumaiel

08-12-2003, 07:21 PM

Perhaps if the Shire moderators feel a game may be up to Rohan standard, it could be started there.

Just a quick thought which I suppose could only really be answered by a mod.

That's a great idea, but what about Bethberry's list? You must be on that list to actually play a game in Rohan. I'll use C&C (Corsairs and Corsets) as an example. I do think that could easily be a Rohan game, but here's a thought. When Child suggested the idea of a 'women's RPG' on one thread, Manardariel, Sophia, and I all PMed her proposing to start a game like that. The three of us became game owners, and we began to plan the game. So let's say that while reading through the C&C planning thread, they thought the game might be better suited for Rohan and they decided to move it there. Would this mean that the players who showed interest in the game and were not on the Rohan list would be told, "Sorry, you aren't on the list," and that I would be removed as a game owner, or would an exception be made?

I felt as though I had to write this, even if only to satisfy my curiousity. smilies/smile.gif

Child of the 7th Age

08-12-2003, 10:10 PM

Nurumaiel,

I read X-Phial's suggestion, went away to scribble out a reply, and then came back to post. But you've already put your finger on the problem.

As long as we maintain the present three-tier system, I don't think a centralized proposal board would work. Whatever credentials you adopt, the present ones or others, you'll have some people authorized to play in the Shire, while others will also have their names on the Rohan list or even be qualified as a founder in Gondor.

Let's say the board felt that the planning thread for Corsairs and Corsets was of such complexity and depth that the game qualified for placement in Rohan. What would happen to the many posters and founders on the planning thread who worked long and hard, but who weren't on the Rohan list? (You could have a similar situation with dedicated characters listed on an application even without a planning thread.)

It wouldn't be fair to catapault a game forward and leave those people behind. It also wouldn't be fair to "promote" someone permanently to the next level (or even two levels up) merely on the basis of a single RPG proposal. Whatever requirements are applied, they should look at a person's entire contribution.

And if you simply let games fall where they may according to the reviewers, and grant "temporary" promotions to whichever posters happen to be listed on the proposal, there's really no reason to keep a three-tier system at all.

There's another problem. Many game founders on the Rohan list have chosen to submit a proposal to the Shire. This happens frequently; of the 18 current and past game founders in the Shire, 8 (almost half) were on the Rohan list and might have submitted a proposal there.

I would guess some of these individuals wanted to game with friends who might not be on the Rohan list. Again, I would not want a centralized board to take away that option and require a person to go forward with a game to Rohan if that truly wasn't that individual's choice.

Having said that, I do think Sophia and others have pointed to some important issues. I am speaking here only as an individual rather than a mod. There are already discussions under way about trying to encourage Rohan posters to come forward with more game proposals.

Before we get into any questions of changing the system or the rules, I personally feel our first obligation should be to those individuals who have met the current requirements for promotion to the next forum, or will meet those requirements in the next month or so.

Bethberry would be the one who can and should determine those on the Rohan list. I do know that this is something she's giving thought to with help from those of us who primarily work in the Shire.

In a sense all of us have been caught in the summer doldrums. The new rules were put into effect right before vacations started so implementing them has gone slower than expected. Hopefully, the process of review and discussion will speed up now that most of the mods and posters have unpacked their bags and settled down to business again.

Again, thanks for the ideas. Don't hesitate to list more suggestions here or write us individually (at least after we get our pms fixed!).

Cami

[ August 13, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

Bêthberry

08-13-2003, 12:25 PM

I guess it is now my turn to add some ideas to the pot which is bubbling here. Not Stone Soup but something just as creative I hope. smilies/smile.gif

A crucial point, to my mind, is how to encourage and inspire people to start games in all the forums. After all, the writing's the thing wherein we catch desire's imaginings. It was to that end that I tried to create a new White Horse Inn which would make writing there attractive.

I think that Beren's point, that people start games for the fun of the idea, is crucial. I game for the enjoyment and challenge of interactive writing and I would hope that all the rules which come into play would support this creative urge in everyone as well as myself.

I still think that the three tier system is viable and important; even with fewer forums, we would still be faced with the questions of different writing and gaming interests and abilities. However, I won't into that now. My interest here is to think about how games can best work.

Rohan needs a more responsive proposal system. I have not been part of that in the past, but we are now working on creating a process which encourages game development. I would like to see Rohan be the place where gamers learn to trust themselves as gamers, where they can feel comfortable if they make mistakes and where they can learn from those mistakes, and where they can demonstrate that they can follow a game's vision with some supervision and help. This is, I think, the next level up from learning basically what is involved in gaming--which is alot in itself, as witnessed by the tremendous work which The Shire Mods do.

With the new list of Rohan gamers, identifying new gamers has become crucial also. In the past, I did this informally, via PM. Now, with pio's and Child's help and advice, it will be done formally and regularly. As Child acknowledges, summer brings RL obligations which cut into time spent here. I am really appreciative of their help because keeping up with two forums is a scramble. Sophia, if you want nudges, I'll be giving them!

The list has made it difficult to fill places in games which have come up when gamers have been called away by RL obligations. This has affected all of the Rohan games. Speaking for myself, perhaps we need to think of how to augment that list in special cases, or expediate movement from The Shire to Rohan, always being careful to preserve fairness, in truth and in appearance.

And, speaking of RL forcing disappearances, In War is on hiatus because the game owner faced serious family problems. We are trying to contact him so somone else can take over the game, but his PM box is full!

I would say that, if someone can provide major input in developing a multiple-layered story with well-developed characterization (and in the process show some sense of interpreting Tolkien), then something is out of kilter if that person cannot be categorized as writing for that level of game. Surely the basis ought to be the evidence of that person's posts and contributions to games. Is the complexity of the system creating problems?

I guess we are still working on the question of how games can work best.

Bethberry

Susan Delgado

08-15-2003, 12:32 PM

Perhaps we should do away with the list of approved gamers. I know that it was a lot of work to compile, and that it was created to prevent Shirefolk who aren't ready to move on from doing so, but as been previously noted, there are many current Shirefolk who could move on and play in Rohan, but can't because they aren't on the list. It seems to be limiting Rohan's potential.

Mithadan

08-15-2003, 12:39 PM

The RPG forum's moderators have hammered out some new rules for the operation of Rohan and The Shire which will be posted shortly. Thank you all for your input!

Durelin

02-04-2007, 08:17 PM

Alrighty, I think this thread needs to be used again...

I love RPing here. Love it. So everything I say in criticism is not meant really negatively. Really they're more concerns. I care about the RPing here, and so I have concerns for its longevity. They say (whoever this "they" is), "if it's not broken, don't fix it," but personally, I think it's starting to feel just an itty bit brokey around here...

Anyway, down to business:

My first concern is with getting new gamers involved. The forums have been far from void of this, but it still seems like new gamers and few and far-between. I love writing with all the RPers on here, but we need new faces to keep things moving. I think that it really has become sort of "clique"-like, which was a concern voiced earlier in this thread. To an outsider, I think games don't look like their open. There's been a lot of inviting and "dedicated players" so that the roles are filled up quickly, and the use of "planning threads" where only invited people can post I believe deters people who aren't already established as players from looking into it.

The Inns are great for just jumping in (well, the "Golden Perch" is...the "Eorling Mead Hall" is great, but I don't think it's as good for people just to jump right it, which is understandable as it's the Rohan "inn"), but I do think people get bored. Unfortunately people do tend to get bored rather quickly. Should the RP Forums cater to those people? No, but perhaps things need to be a little more open.

Then there is the "moving up" in the forums. While having the different forums for different levels allows for definite growth and for good writers/RPers to focus their efforts together, it also can have a "reward system" feel to it. Unfortunately, becoming a "Rohan Gamer" and being on the nice, nifty list becomes like a merit badge, and "getting out of the Shire" might well become a goal. At least, it can.

My other major concern deals with the distinction between "Fan-Fiction" and "Roleplaying" which is growing less and less, and which has been an issue I think practically since people started realizing that "Freestyle RPing" was just not working. I agree, trust me. I like fan-fiction, and I think displaying writers here on BD's work as true "fiction" is a wonderful thing, but turning a RPG into a fan-fiction practically before it's even started is an issue for me.

Forum roleplaying is great because it's writing and storytelling. But it's not the same as writing fiction. Roleplaying is about reactions, about being "in-character," not about writing about a character. You are the character. Sounds nerdy...well, I guess it is. The plot must be character driven, which means it must be driven by all the writers. Of course you should have a basic plot, of course a free-for-all is a waste of time, but you can't write a character based on a story. Once you have created the character, they're the ones you're writing the story as.

Writing fiction as a group takes a more cohesive group than roleplaying. Fiction is more definitively planned, and while stories can be character-driven, you're more mindful of the story as a whole. The window which you look through is widened, as writers plan out the path the story will take, and not necessarily just what their character will say or do next. Again, still sounds like fun to me, but it's different.

The story of a fiction becomes someone's or multiple people's baby. There's no way around it. It's not going to be left as open to others as an RPG is.

I wanted to address one game in particular that has me torn. It's probably pretty easy to guess, because it hasn't even started yet...yes, Estelyn's "REB." I love the concept, I really do, and I'd love to be a part of such a parody, and the idea of "cameos" sounds really great (cameos are such fun! though actually I don't think I've ever written one...), but...is that really an RPG?

Yes, of course there will be character interaction between the cameos and the characters Esty plays, but, why are those cameo characters, if they are but cameos? I think they become - and I know this sounds really negative; I'm sorry, it's the only way I can manage to express it - "pawns" to the story. In RPGs, when cameos come into the game is determined by the game manager, and largely cameos have a decided upon "purpose." I don't know if this is quite what "cameos" will be like in this game, but they could well become that even if it's not the intention.

Now, does that mean it's bad? No. But I think it does mean that it's losing a lot of RPG qualities.

A lot about the RPing on BD has lost some RP qualities. In particular is the idea of writing "briefly" for another character. I don't think writing for another character should be allowed at all, and I regret having to do it to carry things along sometimes. So perhaps it should only be allowed when one needs to move the plot along (such as wrapping up a battle, bring a group to a destination, etc.). Also, I must admit I hate "saves." But again, they are good for when the plot needs to be moved along, whether it is because someone needs to get something in before the plot is moved along, or if it is already determined that the post that will fill in the save will move the plot along, having a specific purpose. And I do think "moving the plot along" has become a part of almost every action. I really like having the ability to just sit back and have some character interaction for a while, rather than always just trying to keep events and characters moving. I think it's often difficult to get around all the moving plot. Is it because there is too much plot? And if there is less plot, will that mean it is less interesting to RPers?

I don't know. Maybe the issue really is that things are more "plot-driven" than "character driven." And I think fan-fiction is more the former, while roleplaying is more the latter.

Now, as I said: I love the idea of writing group fan-fiction...but I want to roleplay in roleplaying forums.

No, I don't have any solutions for anything, and if I did, I still probably wouldn't post them until I found out I wasn't crazy, and the only one who sees these problems...which I very well may be.

I do have a wild idea, though - there is a fan-fiction forum, right? And it seems in need of a little more activity? Perhaps an area could be set up for facilitating "group fan-fiction" writing? This might blur the distinctions between RPGs and Fan-Fics even more, but perhaps there is a way to divide them both "physically" and conceptually.

To wrap things up, finally...

1. I have no idea if any of that was coherent. My thoughts are scrambled, and I believe that my concerns for what is going on now and what might develop in the future got mixed up, so...

2. I really, really hope I didn't sound angry or even irritated. I'm more worried, and also very intrigued by what I find when actually taking a step back and looking at the RPing that goes on here.

3. I really don't want to offend anyone, and I am definitely not blaming anyone, nor do I mean to be criticizing anyone. Really. My intention was only to question.

4. Even if this is completely ignored, I will continue RPing here and loving it, as always! :D

If you did bother reading this...wow, what a los-...I mean, thanks very much for your time.

-Dury

Estelyn Telcontar

02-05-2007, 03:23 AM

I did read all of what you wrote, Durelin, and I understand your concerns. As it's my Entish Bow story that prompted your thoughts, I will reply to those. As I am not currently involved in other RPGs, I cannot speak to the other issues.

I have long considered whether or not there was a future for the REB "franchise". There were three possibilities facing me:
quitting completely
continuing by myself as a fan fiction
attempting to achieve something as close as possible to the original RPG concept

1. "The End" was definitely an option, and the second part of the story was finished without plans to carry on. However, there still is a story begging to be told, and I have the impression that there are enough interested readers who would like to see it happen.

2. I first thought of writing further adventures as a fan fiction, since the original writers of several characters vital to the continuing plot are no longer active, and I had their permission to use their characters. However, this would have meant that the third part of what would then become a trilogy would be located somewhere else, thereby losing its connection with the first two parts. I would also then have excluded the influence of other writers, much to the detriment of the story.

3. I wanted continuity, since this was not a completely new story, independent of others. Therefore, after long consideration, I decided that this was the option most appropriate to the story concept.

I know that REB is an exception to several of the principles upon which our RPG system is based. However, the Gondor forum allows for considerable leeway, and exceptions can add to the colorful flavor of storytelling here. It's not like this particular game is taking away writers or space needed elsewhere - there are still plenty of possibilities for newcomers and others to find games in which they can participate.

REB is a parody - not every writer can handle that kind of narrative tone. That's the main reason why I have reserved the right to choose the participants. I have always been open to additional writers who have asked to join and of whom I know that they can write this kind of humor. The cameo idea is there precisely for that. However, I know how quickly other priorities take precedence, and that is why I do not care to struggle with long-time "save" posts and missing authors again.

If other members have new ideas for "genuine" RPGs such as you suggest, more power to them! It would also be nice if someone took interest in reviving the Seventh Star Inn. There's still lots of space left in Gondor...

Durelin

02-05-2007, 02:37 PM

I really hope I did not offend. Though, obviously, I probably did, as I know I singled out your game, a continuation of what can probably be described as "your baby." I apologize profusely.

But I didn't mean to tear it down or criticize at all. It probably sounded that way (how many times can I use "probably" in a post? hrmm...), and, again, I apologize. It was meant to be an example of where it seems to me that many people's views of RPGs here in general are going. I have nothing against the idea, nor do I think it is somehow out of place or "doesn't belong" on the forums - but, as you have acknowledged, it is different. But as something new, it will be quite interesting.

I understand your frustrations regarding "waiting" for people, and I have been on both sides of the waiting...unfortunately more often on the making people wait end. I feel terrible when I make people wait, and I get a little irked when I feel like waiting for people is definitely slowing things down. It is not uncommon, really, for a RPG to ultimately slow down to a halt, so approaching a project that is dear to you in a way that will all but insure that will not happen is an excellent idea.

I'm starting to feel I was delusional in much of what I said... :rolleyes: Ah well, maybe in a day or two I'll remember what my point was...or not...

piosenniel

02-05-2007, 04:05 PM

Let me preface my responses by saying these are my personal biases as an RP’er and are not how I might approach these concerns as a moderator of the RP forums (although, I’ll waffle here, and say I might throw in a few “moderatish” observations).

I love RPing here. Love it. So everything I say in criticism is not meant really negatively. Really they're more concerns. I care about the RPing here, and so I have concerns for its longevity. They say (whoever this "they" is), "if it's not broken, don't fix it," but personally, I think it's starting to feel just an itty bit brokey around here...

I love RP’ing, too. (yesss.....my precious, we knows you do.....who else would be harebrained enough to take on the job of moderator *NOW, PIO......SURELY THAT REMARK IS MEANT TO EXCLUDE CHILD AND RIM AND THE VOICE FROM THE PAST, B.B.)

& along with Dury, I too have hade that creeping sensation that the style of RPG’ing here is changing

My first concern is with getting new gamers involved. The forums have been far from void of this, but it still seems like new gamers and few and far-between. I love writing with all the RPers on here, but we need new faces to keep things moving. I think that it really has become sort of "clique"-like, which was a concern voiced earlier in this thread. To an outsider, I think games don't look like their open. There's been a lot of inviting and "dedicated players" so that the roles are filled up quickly, and the use of "planning threads" where only invited people can post I believe deters people who aren't already established as players from looking into it.

New gamers seem to be less plentiful now than they were in the olden days. (*cue goldeny light here). To be honest, just a few years back we were tripping all over new gamers, eager to play. Speaking as a moderator, now, whose business it is to get players for a game’s roster, I’ve started to rely more and more (insist and prod, even) that game owners shop their game idea about with their friends to see if they can generate interest for some of the Character Roles. Beyond that there’s my job next of advertising the game and PM’ing like heck all the fledging players and those more experienced to see if I can drum up enough interest to fill the rest of the slots. It’s a labor intensive way of getting people interested in a game. And it goes on behind the scenes, so no one knows how many prospective players are contacted and then cajoled, wheedled, whatever needs to be done, to at least have them think they might like to look at the game and perhaps play in it.

The Inns are great for just jumping in (well, the "Golden Perch" is...the "Eorling Mead Hall" is great, but I don't think it's as good for people just to jump right it, which is understandable as it's the Rohan "inn"), but I do think people get bored. Unfortunately people do tend to get bored rather quickly. Should the RP Forums cater to those people? No, but perhaps things need to be a little more open.

I’m really quite unclear here about how you mean the gaming process should be a little more open. As you know, those who want to lead a game can always ask for a planning thread to get a game in shape for approval by the mods. Sometimes the planning threads are closed, so that the game leaders/proposers can work exclusively on the game. It’s always an option to leave the planning thread open.....

Then there is the "moving up" in the forums. While having the different forums for different levels allows for definite growth and for good writers/RPers to focus their efforts together, it also can have a "reward system" feel to it. Unfortunately, becoming a "Rohan Gamer" and being on the nice, nifty list becomes like a merit badge, and "getting out of the Shire" might well become a goal. At least, it can.

I’ve always detested the idea that a gamer “moves up/grows out of” one forum and need abandon the “lower” forum for the “higher/better” forum.

Here’s how I see it:

The Shire is very labor intensive for the moderators. It’s the place where gamers (players & leader/proposers) can get the most assistance from us as they learn to game using the BD process. Some gamers enjoy that sort of hands on approach by management; some after a few games played and run want to try their own skills at managing a character or the running of a game. By the time one is considered by us ready to game in Rohan, I expect them to have a thorough grasp of the rules for gaming. Games are less moderated there (at least that is my expectation, goal, ideal).

My other major concern deals with the distinction between "Fan-Fiction" and "Roleplaying" which is growing less and less, and which has been an issue I think practically since people started realizing that "Freestyle RPing" was just not working. I agree, trust me. I like fan-fiction, and I think displaying writers here on BD's work as true "fiction" is a wonderful thing, but turning a RPG into a fan-fiction practically before it's even started is an issue for me.

Forum roleplaying is great because it's writing and storytelling. But it's not the same as writing fiction. Roleplaying is about reactions, about being "in-character," not about writing about a character. You are the character. Sounds nerdy...well, I guess it is. The plot must be character driven, which means it must be driven by all the writers. Of course you should have a basic plot, of course a free-for-all is a waste of time, but you can't write a character based on a story. Once you have created the character, they're the ones you're writing the story as.

Writing fiction as a group takes a more cohesive group than roleplaying. Fiction is more definitively planned, and while stories can be character-driven, you're more mindful of the story as a whole. The window which you look through is widened, as writers plan out the path the story will take, and not necessarily just what their character will say or do next. Again, still sounds like fun to me, but it's different.

The story of a fiction becomes someone's or multiple people's baby. There's no way around it. It's not going to be left as open to others as an RPG is.

You’ve hit one of my sore points as an RP’er here. I completely agree with you on this. In fact, I find myself withdrawing more from RP’ing here because so many of the games do seem to me to be more like cooperatively written stories than they do Role Playing. There seems to be more of an END GOAL for the games and players in a lot of the games.....& I should narrow this down to me.....I feel like there are too many constraints put on my characters in order to meet the needs of the game in reaching that end goal. To be honest, I like those games where there is some basic location/history/plot starter and the players, through their characters, determine by the course of their writing what happens at the end. This sort of gaming focuses on the individuality of the characters and takes away (a good thing in my opinion) the use of one player’s character by another player to “move the storyline along”. I could rant on for reams about this, but I’ll stop here

& no, you’re not a nerd about this “being the character” approach. That’s what I do with all my characters and heavens-to-betsy I’m no ne..... (yessss, precious......of course you’re not.....despite the section of your closet devoted to Middle-earth outfits.....and that sword.....

I wanted to address one game in particular that has me torn. It's probably pretty easy to guess, because it hasn't even started yet...yes, Estelyn's "REB." I love the concept, I really do, and I'd love to be a part of such a parody, and the idea of "cameos" sounds really great (cameos are such fun! though actually I don't think I've ever written one...), but...is that really an RPG?

Yes, of course there will be character interaction between the cameos and the characters Esty plays, but, why are those cameo characters, if they are but cameos? I think they become - and I know this sounds really negative; I'm sorry, it's the only way I can manage to express it - "pawns" to the story. In RPGs, when cameos come into the game is determined by the game manager, and largely cameos have a decided upon "purpose." I don't know if this is quite what "cameos" will be like in this game, but they could well become that even if it's not the intention.

Now, does that mean it's bad? No. But I think it does mean that it's losing a lot of RPG qualities.

I have to disagree about this game. I think it’s more difficult to write a quality parody RPG. But I think the players have succeeded so far. And I do feel, when I read the game, that it is character driven.

Can’t say what the next installment will be like. We’ll have to wait and see on that.

A lot about the RPing on BD has lost some RP qualities. In particular is the idea of writing "briefly" for another character. I don't think writing for another character should be allowed at all, and I regret having to do it to carry things along sometimes. So perhaps it should only be allowed when one needs to move the plot along (such as wrapping up a battle, bring a group to a destination, etc.). Also, I must admit I hate "saves." But again, they are good for when the plot needs to be moved along, whether it is because someone needs to get something in before the plot is moved along, or if it is already determined that the post that will fill in the save will move the plot along, having a specific purpose. And I do think "moving the plot along" has become a part of almost every action. I really like having the ability to just sit back and have some character interaction for a while, rather than always just trying to keep events and characters moving. I think it's often difficult to get around all the moving plot. Is it because there is too much plot? And if there is less plot, will that mean it is less interesting to RPers?

Another one of my bugaboos --- using another player’s character. And the only time I think it should be done is if the two players have arranged beforehand that one’s character can be written for by the other. I don’t think it right to do it “to move the plot along” and then say “sorry, I used your character a little; tell me if I need to edit”. Geez, I can feel all those players cringing in remembrance of PM’s from me about this”no-no”.

I don't know. Maybe the issue really is that things are more "plot-driven" than "character driven." And I think fan-fiction is more the former, while roleplaying is more the latter.

Now, as I said: I love the idea of writing group fan-fiction...but I want to roleplay in roleplaying forums.

Couldn’t agree with you more.....as a player, that is. On the other hand, as a moderator, there seem to be a number of game proposers/leaders as well as players that really like the idea of plot driven writing.

So what could we do about that? Perhaps a disclaimer of sorts at the start of a discussion thread on how the game’s proposer feels he/she wants the game to be played? That way gamers who don’t relish this sort of writing/playing can opt out of considering the game. Don’t know how this would work. And of course, those proposers who are wanting more character driven games can make their own intentions known.

About the Barrow-Downs Middle-earth Fan Fiction forum (http://69.51.5.41/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi)(Good gravy, Pio, you’re not about to tell them you’re moderating there, too, are you.....nerd!) ---

Not sure a cooperative fan-fic would work there for me as moderator – it might. I’d have to think about it more. Logistics, time, etc.....

Anyway – thanks for bringing this all up, m’dear! Do keep the thoughts and comments flowing.

~*~ Pio

*her own disclaimer: I am not a loser for having read all this & commented on it.....just mildly obsessive/compulsive :D :p

Nogrod

02-05-2007, 04:56 PM

I don't know. Maybe the issue really is that things are more "plot-driven" than "character driven." And I think fan-fiction is more the former, while roleplaying is more the latter.

Now, as I said: I love the idea of writing group fan-fiction...but I want to roleplay in roleplaying forums.
Couldn’t agree with you more.....as a player, that is. On the other hand, as a moderator, there seem to be a number of game proposers/leaders as well as players that really like the idea of plot driven writing.

So what could we do about that? Perhaps a disclaimer of sorts at the start of a discussion thread on how the game’s proposer feels he/she wants the game to be played? That way gamers who don’t relish this sort of writing/playing can opt out of considering the game. Don’t know how this would work. And of course, those proposers who are wanting more character driven games can make their own intentions known.This difference is a tough one. When I started writing here I had a lots of concerns about the storyline (and I still do, at least somewhat) - and thence I think was more like a fan-fiction writer. But I think I have learned a thing or two on the way. Hopefully.

I was told that the RPG's are about interaction and playing the roles, yes I was. I don't deny that. But I must also say, that I was never introduced to this difference properly and the whole concept was a bit vague so that I had to learn to grasp it by trial and error by judging from how different people reacted to what I did. And I'm afraid I had certain people a bit frustrated with me on those early days of mine... :(

Now, reading what Dury says, is kind of opening my eyes to the problem the first time in an enlightening way. It seems so much clearer as it's formulated thus.

This is no reclamation. Far from it. The work the mods do here is just absolutely fantastic. I just think that if we wish to stress the playing of the roles -part of writing here we should make this difference more clear to anyone coming into these games - and cling to it ourselves as well.

And if people wish to make more plot-oriented stuff, let them do it and make that clear in the beginning of the game that is about to start. I think both ways of writing are interesting ones and can be highly gratifying, but a conflict easily ensues if people thrive for different goals within a same game.

Thanks Dury for this opening!

Durelin

02-05-2007, 05:57 PM

Yes, new gamers are much fewer...and I guess I was trying to figure out a reason "why," if there is one. Ah, yes, I did forget that...it seems a possibility that the games, though they are definitely open to everyone, the RPGs on here might seem daunting to new players. Yes, that is their problem, I agree...people have to jump in. And I think it has been made as easy as possible for them to do so.

Really I suppose it's just the fact that we have fewer RPers these days and so there are fewer games. That is also related to what I was trying to say when I was talking about people getting bored: newer gamers often aren't satisfied by simply playing in the Inn, and want to get into a game.

Estelyn is right about "The Seventh Star." And I do wish I spent more time in the "Inns" in general. Unfortunately I'm attracted by the prospect of new game storylines and character possibilities involving death and destruction that you can't have in the Inns...I fail! Besides, I'm trying to keep my emo characters away from the cheery hobbit-filled Golden Perch...yes, that's it...

The Shire is very labor intensive for the moderators. It’s the place where gamers (players & leader/proposers) can get the most assistance from us as they learn to game using the BD process. Some gamers enjoy that sort of hands on approach by management; some after a few games played and run want to try their own skills at managing a character or the running of a game. By the time one is considered by us ready to game in Rohan, I expect them to have a thorough grasp of the rules for gaming. Games are less moderated there (at least that is my expectation, goal, ideal).

I really like this description of the supposed "moving up." I personally don't view "moving up and moving on" as the goal, but I think it's easy for people to see it that way. I think the Rohan Gamers vs. Rohan Game Owners list is helpful, but I also think it can be harmful. It's not like your name is on a plaque, but, again, it can easily be seen that way. Perhaps part of less moderating in Rohan could be less moderating by the moderators in determining specifically who may and may not join games in Rohan (starting games is another matter). Maybe it should just be successfully playing in at least one Shire is required, and then whether or not a player who has met that simple requirement is actually ready to play in a game is up to the game owner's discretion, though the game owner obviously still will have to give way to the moderators' decision if they feel they need to step in?

I really don't see it as a big issue at all; I just had the thought, so I put it down...

To be honest, I like those games where there is some basic location/history/plot starter and the players, through their characters, determine by the course of their writing what happens at the end.

I agree! Such a game takes even more cooperation, more really playing together than just writing a character's part of the story. Obviously there can be problems, but...not if you can pull off that cooperation.

have to disagree about this game. I think it’s more difficult to write a quality parody RPG. But I think the players have succeeded so far. And I do feel, when I read the game, that it is character driven.

Can’t say what the next installment will be like. We’ll have to wait and see on that.

Again, I did not mean to criticize the game, or make any comment on past installments. I agree that it is much more difficult to write good parody (particularly since, if parody is even slightly bad, it is just...well, pretty painful), and the invitation-only basis makes sense.

Another one of my bugaboos --- using another player’s character. And the only time I think it should be done is if the two players have arranged beforehand that one’s character can be written for by the other. I don’t think it right to do it “to move the plot along” and then say “sorry, I used your character a little; tell me if I need to edit”. Geez, I can feel all those players cringing in remembrance of PM’s from me about this”no-no”.

Yes...I don't very often actually get upset at all about people using my character, but I'd rather they didn't. (I do recall one time getting extremely upset when a character, though I agreed to have him killed, was killed off hastily and barely mentioned in a post...*shudders*) I'd also much, much rather not use anyone else's characters even a bit...and of course, I say that, but have been guilty of using and borrowing characters right and left in RPGs. I try not to use them too much, but, particularly when I am a game manager and I feel like the plot and driving it along is what people expect, I find myself doing that more. I think I need to rethink my playing and managing style in that sense.

Couldn’t agree with you more.....as a player, that is. On the other hand, as a moderator, there seem to be a number of game proposers/leaders as well as players that really like the idea of plot driven writing.

And I like the idea of plot driven writing quite a bit, too, and am certainly not adverse to writing in a plot driven story. But I also really want to write in a character driven RPG.

So what could we do about that? Perhaps a disclaimer of sorts at the start of a discussion thread on how the game’s proposer feels he/she wants the game to be played? That way gamers who don’t relish this sort of writing/playing can opt out of considering the game. Don’t know how this would work. And of course, those proposers who are wanting more character driven games can make their own intentions known.

Yes, I think it would help, at least. And that's all it needs to do. Nogrod makes an excellent, excellent point...perhaps the point underlying everything I've rattled on about: communication. Perhaps that is what we are lacking. Not communicating about specific games - well, we all know those discussion/planning threads get their use! - but just communication about this whole RPing thing in general. I think this should be part of the communication on discussion threads, and perhaps is overlooked. (I know I overlook it...I get too caught up in the details a lot, that I fail to see the bigger picture. Of course, I've also been known to get stuck in the reverse.)

Pio's suggestion of communication regarding what "RPing" is in terms of a specific game has got to be a good thing.

And Nogrod - No one was upset with you! I know I was just a tad frustrated because I had trouble seeing things from your angle, and then expressing my own view. This is all difficult to talk about.

Thanks for listening to me, and for this discussion. It's great to have!

I am very pleasantly surprised to find that I have successfully communicated an idea, Nogrod! Thank you!

*continues to proudly display her nerd-dom...

-Durelin

littlemanpoet

02-09-2007, 10:17 PM

Yes, new gamers are much fewer...and I guess I was trying to figure out a reason "why," if there is one.

Not sure but I have a hunch that this plays into it: did RPs begin to lose the number of new players roughly about the same time that 'werewolf' started at the Downs?

Firefoot

02-10-2007, 05:54 AM

I think you also have to take into account the fact that the Downs itself has not gaining as many new members.

Himaran

03-18-2007, 05:13 PM

I'm not sure if anyone brought this up already, but the sudden surge of new members and players (including myself) directly coincided with the systematic release of the Lord of the Rings movies. That was a huge publicity boost and suddenly everyone was interested in LOTR again. I think now we are seeing a gradual shift back to a balance, where fans of the books remain and fans of the movies will disappear.

Bêthberry

10-06-2009, 12:18 PM

I do think Werewolf bit into the rpg urge and redirected it. However, it might be possible to inspire some action at The Seventh Star, even if only to provide a bit of documentary nostalgia about Oxonmoot.

Hmm. . . .

Mnemosyne

10-06-2009, 01:59 PM

(Am I even allowed to post my thoughts here?...)

For me a large part of the issues with the RPGs is that the ones that we do have going take up so much time and energy from the players that they last far longer than the original "expected time commitment."

For me the difference between WW and RPGs is that WW is like a very long sprint, whereas the RPGs are more like marathons. And since you must rely on other people to remain just as committed it's hard to even make that first step when you see so much else (even in inns!) flag as people's personal circumstances change. I do have a couple of characters and even an idea for a game or two, but I don't see enough other people who have the time to help create a game right now--especially if they are involved in other games that are ongoing and flagging...

It's a downright shame to me, because (as I've mentioned on the WW threads) Werewolf is often far too exhausting for me, whereas I think I could manage something "slow and steady" for an RPG. But you know that a Werewolf game will only last for x amount of time, so if you have that time you can commit to that.

I love the verbal talents of the 'Downers--their writing styles and their takes on Tolkien's world are much more consonant with mine than with the more regular community of writers I'm involved with, and since even before I've joined I've longed to create something together with them.

At any rate it seems paltry for me to even post on a thread like this one, in a forum that is reserved only for the most ancient and venerable of 'Downers. But that's my two cents on what's happened to the Roleplaying community here.

Bêthberry

10-06-2009, 03:40 PM

(Am I even allowed to post my thoughts here?...)

Of course you are! See the comment on Rimbaud's first post here.

If I recall correctly, all members can post in the Inns at any of the rpg forums (or fora if you please) or even a discussion thread such as this one.

mark12_30

10-07-2009, 02:07 AM

For me a large part of the issues with the RPGs is that the ones that we do have going take up so much time and energy from the players that they last far longer than the original "expected time commitment."

Me too. And I'm the one CAUSING the protracted play... can't bring myself to end it. Love the characters too much.... That said, I doubt I'd start another one. Or even play in another one, these days; even a three-monther in the Shire. Crazy busy with family & work.

But oh, how I miss the better games. They were more than games. It's like writing a fanfic, and finally ending it and essentially going into mourning or grieving. (Who, me???) And it's also the characters (as well as the team writers) that I miss.

Durelin

10-14-2009, 03:11 PM

I do miss the days when there were several RPGs moving along at the same time - certainly not always as quickly as people would like and often going beyond the set time-span, but not lasting for a year...or two...or three as they are now.

But that being said, I was always slow with RPGs, and didn't do well with the pressure of others depending on me for the story to keep moving. And I must say that the reason the Downs is the only place I RP anymore (and is the only place I've 'consistently' RPed), is because I am one of those people who can work at that pace because, really, I can't fully commit to a project even for a few weeks (partially because I do have to fully commit to projects like schoolwork), even though I try.

The 'lack' of writers is probably in part because there aren't the same number of games being started up to be a part of. Because games aren't good at ending. But...do you force a game along, or do you let it become whatever the writers make it into? Really, if you look at some of the finished games, some of them were forced along to meet (or at least somewhat meet) their deadlines. Did that make them bad? No, but they certainly could have turned out differently, even if they never finished. If you know what I mean.

I've plotted many a new game. I love starting them (keeping up with them is another matter entirely, of course...). I'm thinking of doing a game over January that I will (hahaha) force myself to keep short. Riiiiight.

Durelin

10-28-2010, 10:09 PM

I am embarrassed to post on here for at least two reasons...one, that at my age (or is that at every age?) I look back year to year and think 'what was I thinking?' Two...because I am the worst at keeping my commitments in (parts of) the RPing realm of the Downs. (I just got back from yet another disappearance and here I am posting this stuff)

But I'm going to anyway...as you've noticed...

RP activity on the Downs...revisited.

I know it's not my place to suggest major changes to the RP sections here, but...I'm feeling like there is a need for it if they are going to survive/serve a purpose.

How to make the RP forums easier for newcomers to get into, how to make them appear more active and more welcoming, how to reignite interest, how to keep things faster paced... Anything anyone would like to discuss?

Also I miss our RP mods soooo much.

Snowdog

12-21-2010, 08:06 PM

Having only been in on creating and starting one RP story here on Barrow Downs (Lingering Darkness in the Shire - had to quit due to real life issues), I have to say I found it hard to open up with a free-flowing creativity. It seemed to be more 'RP story construction' than 'RP story creation'. The supposed tale 'time limit' and requests for re-edits of posts, moderator re-edits of posts, and PM questions over some minor details did little to encourage my creativity, and it actually felt more like work to write instead of enjoyment. Its likely why I didn't re-enter the RP realm here after I managed to get life sorted and was able to spend more time online.

That said..I'm full of ideas on Tolkien Middle Earth RP story outlines and settings, and even have some few post Ringwar mash-ups, but I again have to say I'm not really comfortable writing RP here on the Barrow Downs.

Just my 2¢

Edit: A month later and I guess nobody wants to, or is here to discuss this. Oh well.

Durelin

02-04-2011, 12:16 AM

I agree with you, Snowdog. You find yourself bogged down with all the planning and details, and of course by all of the expectations. For some time now RPing here has been about meeting certain expectations, performing in a certain way. It does end up feeling like work.

I spent a lot of time here and am very fond of the Downs but there's a reason I found it hard time and again to keep up with RPs, to find inspiration to write here, to return to RPs after being busy or losing inspiration for a time... I used to stress out about RPs all the time!

I appreciate RPing that is 'realistic' within the world (to a degree); I appreciate good writing...I think rules are necessary, but there is such thing as over-structuring. And what develops on any site/forum is a certain mindset or style. Am I to say a certain mindset or style is wrong or bad? No, but I may or may not enjoy it.

And what do I matter? I don't. Not everyone is going to enjoy/agree with what rules, style, whatever you come up with. But the RP sections here have been struggling for some time now, so I thought it might be a good time for opinions to be discussed (rather than me just posting a complaint that you're not doing things how I want you to).

Mithadan

02-04-2011, 07:38 PM

Hmmm. Durelin (and anyone else who might be following along or interested), the "conditions" that led us to create the present RPG structure do not currently exist. The whole thing began when someone spontaneously started a virtual party. It was creative, well-received, and, by and large, everyone was pretty well-behaved. Soon a few odd and end RPGs were started in the Barrow-Downs announcements forum and, after interest seemed to develop, we opened a new RPG forum, as an experiment. We admins generally ignored that forum (I was the only one that RPed with any frequency).

When the movies hit, the RPG forum exploded. Games were started, lasted ten posts, and were abandoned. Others went on forever, effectively creating cliques that excluded new players. People who could barely string five sentences together were randomly butting into games run by more advanced RPers. Members demanded access to games when no new ones were starting. People began misbehaving, fighting, etc. RPGs started that had absolutely nothing to do with Tolkien. We got more complaints from that forum (at that time) than any other. Something had to change (and banning RPGS was definitely considered).

We invited a group of members to caucus and, after a lot of debate, came up with the current system. The idea was mutliple levels for different skills. Prove yourself and you graduate to the next level. Higher levels have less restrictions. Games have to be based upon a definite Tolkien-based plot or theme with a definable end (no more never ending stories). We decided that Moderators were needed to ensure good behavior, help avoid fights, and act as mentors for newbies. It worked pretty good -- at least the chaos was over and it was better than no RPGs at all.

ANYWAY. The movies are years behind us (for now) and things are quiet again. If there is sufficient interest and someone can come up with concrete suggeations, I'd be willing to speak with the other Admins and what mods remain (if I can get anyone's attention) to discuss changes. No promises.

Durelin the floor is yours. Let's hear it...

Feanor of the Peredhil

02-04-2011, 08:44 PM

Me. Once upon a time, I was an active RPGer. I've taken part in Shire games (Prisoner of Númenor, Assigned to Mordor (ATM), Island of Sorrow) and I ran Assigned to Mordor II (ATM 2); and I've taken part in Rohan settlements (I was a frequent participant in The White Horse Inn, one of the founding folks of the Eorling Mead Hall, and a regular of the Scarburg Mead Hall (where characters I created are still Very Important, though they've been inherited by others), and I took part in most or all offshoots thereof); and for a time I was an active writer in Gondor's Tapestry of Dreams.

I still lurk as a non-participatory consulting gossip. RPGers with questions shoot me PMs or pounce on me on Facebook, and I like that level of participation: I get to help out, but I don't have to take responsibility.

Now that I've spewed my credentials, here is how I read the situation:

There is one basic Very Big Problem that keeps people from committing to anything:

RPGs take too long.

This is caused in part by (and in return, causes) the secondary Very Big Problem:

Players are unreliable.

Obviously the constraints of everyday life are going to go a long way to determining how often and how much any one writer can contribute, but when most RPGs begin with maybe ten writers, and have an expected time line of two months, and then two years later you've got two writers typing furiously, trying to just finish the stupid story so that they can have some mental closure even though it's turned into a chore instead of anything fun... That's unpleasant.

In all honesty, can we really expect anybody to commit to an ungodly number of years to finish a project?

I think one way to revitalize the RPG forum is to impose a stricter expectation that games will not go on into eternity unless (like the Inns) they are designed to do so. If you say your game is going to be done by December, by Eru it needs to be completed by Thanksgiving.

I submit that this would provide a more manageable expectation. You can't expect players to maintain enthusiasm for a story with no direction or end point. That's like expecting an audience to remain cognizant through a full showing of the movie Australia. ;)

While subplots are excellent (and typically helpful when it comes to adding nuance and complexity to a story arc), a STORY is:

-a series of related events with a clear beginning, middle, and end, with a defining moment which causes a significant change in the character or characters.

If we can focus (for a time anyway) on simplifying each RPG into a cohesive story with one solid, identifiable plot line, perhaps outlined with specific plot points as achievable milestones that the writers work actively toward, I think we can get writers to commit. I'm tempted to run a clearly outlined game to test this theory. I have one in mind, in any case. But that's not entirely relevant.

Dury? I know I swiped your podium... take it back and give us a rousing speech?

Mithadan

02-05-2011, 07:41 AM

Thanks Feanor. Other comments? Durelin? We need more than 2 people expressing interest to even begin thinking about this.

Bêthberry

02-05-2011, 08:26 AM

Thanks Feanor. Other comments? Durelin? We need more than 2 people expressing interest to even begin thinking about this.

For the record, Counselor, you have 3 Downers commenting here, not 2, although I suppose you could say one expressed disinterest. ;)

Mithadan

02-05-2011, 10:34 AM

Objection overruled. Proceed.

Mnemosyne

02-05-2011, 03:30 PM

As someone who got here "too late" to be involved in much of anything, but who would really love to do some concrete RPs, I hope you don't mind my ducking in.

First of all, what Fea said. The RPs that never end have to go, because the longer an RPG lasts, the more likely people's RL circumstances are going to change and they're going to have to drop out of the game. This, in itself, isn't a problem per se--this happens in Werewolf all the time. It's a problem of critical mass. Even if not everyone can be playing at one time, enough people need to be to keep the plot moving forward. This is more complicated in an RP situation as well, because if you have three players who have the time and desire to post, but they're all playing minor characters who don't really interact with one another, it's going to be harder to keep the ball rolling.

One way around this situation (and it's not a very desirable one) is shared characters, or at least understudies. In March there was a month-long RP challenge thing for Back-to-Middle-Earth Month, and because I knew my commitment time would be spotty, I shared a character with another author. We emailed one another to see who would post next, depending on our time and commitments, and luckily my really busy/not feeling inspired times were all times when she had the time and energy to post for him--and vice versa. Because I have a number of characters who are much closer to me, that I wouldn't share, I understand if that feels weird, but we created the character together with the expectation that we would have slightly different ideas of what we wanted to do with him, and we ran with it. Certainly character quality goes down in this situation, but I would prefer "okay" posts to no posts at all.

In any case I think that the RP fora need to be leaner and meaner. Gondor has long been naught but a dusty mathom room, and that breaks my heart. I don't know whether that means we should consolidate all of our playing into one forum, though, or keep Rohan and the Shire separate. The elitist in me wants to keep the two separate, because I really do feel that the net writing quality in the two is different, but if we want to jump-start this thing we may need all the help we can get.

So, 1). Definitely have shorter games. That means not only having a deadline, but also having a cleaner plot. I'd love to see some two-week RPs (okay, we can make them longer) that cover the plot equivalent of one chapter in LotR. If the players can dedicate another two weeks to the plot, move another chapter along; if not, put it on hold. There's nothing saying you can't keep the same characters, setting, and big plot between two RPs, and I think a lot of people would be happier with ending an RP on a concrete episodic note than trying to drag it out to the Grand Finish. Keep the subplots to a minimum.

1). will mean having a dedicated core of 3 or so players who don't mind moving the plot along and not waiting for the others to post. Players should be familiar enough with each other's characters that they can carry them with the party even if the writer isn't there to post, trying to take the middle-road between forgetting them and god-modding. Obviously the RP founder should be one of these, and no one should found an RP if he or she won't have the time and energy to see it through. Smaller chunks of time should make predicting that easier.

The other thing is, once and whenever we settle on RP reforms, we need to test them out immediately and prove that they work. If they do, and if we get enough people who are willing to play to keep them running, then we can add back in some of the longer timelines and more complicated subplots.

Well, those are my thoughts, and I'm more than happy to admit that I don't have nearly enough experience in these matters to know whether they'll be much good. But I do want to see the RPs get some life in them again, and see a finished RPG in my Downsian lifetime!

Durelin

02-05-2011, 04:50 PM

I doubt this is going to fit with the Downs overall style...but here goes...

I guess I'll just toss out possibilities. But basically what I think is necessary is a more open field. Certainly you have rules. Certainly you guide people to RPing canonically (which includes not messing around with canons, which I have been guilty of myself in the past :x). But...the style of, here is a game project. Someone has to run it. You have your plot set out, perhaps even in great detail. You need a certain number of players. Those players create characters that specifically fit in your plot and will play out your plot. They may or may not affect the plot at all. It puts a lot on the person running the game, and it takes a lot away from the players. When a game owner disappears for a time, the players are lost. When you lose a player or two, the game can be derailed if they played important characters.

I understand (though I did not witness) the change from an open RPing forum to a very firmly structured system. If you want to encourage a certain 'level' of RPing, you have to have certain rules. But I think it went too far. I think that it went too far into the realm of elitism. (A natural result of having different 'tiers' of RPing, for one thing.) And it's just clunky.

So, ideas I'll just toss out there. I'm trying to fit what I've seen work for RPing into the setting of the Downs discussion forum.

Return to one open RP forum. Maybe keep an inn, maybe not. Keep the same basic rules/expectations of what a 'post' is. Make it clear that no one is to RP any canon characters or involve them (except perhaps a passing mention or something) in their RPs. (This rule will help keep players from starting plots that turn into crazy fan-fic.)

Then let anyone start an RP -- let that be a RP with a plot, or an open-ended RP. Maybe have a separate 'RP Discussion' forum in which people can use to plot RPs or look for other RPers. Maybe someone doesn't want to run a specific storyline, but is interested in collaborating with just one, maybe two other people on some RPing and see where it goes. (They choose a setting, figure out how the characters meet up, and then they're off to doing things.)

Those who are looking for a specific 'level' of RP can pick and choose who they RP with, as they wish. Those who aren't looking to dedicate themselves to someone's plot can do something of a smaller scale.

And what about RPs 'ending' or not? Well, that's up to the players. If they don't ever reach an end, they don't reach an end. Periodically remove threads that have not been posted on in however long, and leave it at that. If the players want to return to a thread that has been removed, it's up to them to restart it.

And then there's the question of character bios... You can continue with the current method and have people post character bios to the discussion threads in which they plot their RPs. If you keep an inn (or multiple inns, if desired, to have inns in various areas of ME), you can continue a list of characters there. Players can choose whether they want to use a character just for a specific plot, or if they want to play a character throughout different plots. They can either re-post their bios for whatever they're involved in, or they can refer people to the bio posted elsewhere (and whoever's running the plot can ask them to re-post their bio, or can ask them to make a new character).

A lot of RPs have an 'application process' you do in order to play. That only works in a certain type of RP. Here you could continue to use the idea that players have to post in the inn first, if you wanted some kind of application process. They'd have to create a character that would be accepted to the inn thread, and that would be their 'test.' But that's a lot of work for whoever is moderating/running the inn thread.

Basically...loosen things up a bit. Allow for more spontaneity, which is not inherently bad. Reduce the amount of paperwork, the procedures. Let players feel less like they're being graded. Yes, this will take moderating, but not as much on the back end. It will be about stepping in when necessary rather than having to handle everything from the start.

And once you have a RPing section established, it becomes clear what kind of RPing takes place there. So, if you have an established group of players in your RP section, everyone who joins is going to see how they RP, what the protocols are, etc., and they are going to realize that they have to follow those protocols if they are to 'fit in.' So if you're afraid of a bonanza of warrior-princesses and vampires and werewolves (Sauron's buds, ya know)...that's not going to take root if you have RPs going on that are more 'realistic' to the setting/canon and RPers who aren't at all interested in those things. It's very hard to establish that from the get-go, but since the RP sections were established and reestablished years ago...hopefully a lot of that will carry over?

Does having a certain 'level' of RPing make things more fun? Yes, but how do you determine that 'level' from the get-go? Encourage good writing, 'realistic' RPs, and leave it at that. There's a trend in the forum RP world that is to call yourself an 'advanced,' 'intermediate,' or 'beginner' RPer. As soon as you put labels on it, or structure your RP around supposed 'levels,' it just stops being welcoming. It takes away from the fun. It's daunting to new players, and keeps current players edgy, wondering if their posts are going to live up to the standards 'advanced' RPers. Etc.

So...that's why I think it's better to just allow a level and style of RPing to develop based on what the moderator(s) and existing players are doing.

As Mithadan pointed out...the movie-craze is long over. Those who are spending time on the interwebs talking about or RPing Middle-earth are a different breed. The dynamic has changed...I think it's safer now to open things up.

It's always a challenge to make a RP section work...and if the feeling is that an open RP section dirties the reputation of the forum, then of course there shouldn't be one. But...this is all just for fun, isn't it?

And you're probably reading this (especially as a mod or admin) thinking...you expect someone to keep up with all this? I know it seems like a lot of work. I don't know how much it will be. It all depends on the kind of players and number of players you end up with at any given time. It also depends on how tight of a rein you feel you need to have on everything. How pristine you want every thread to look. How well you feel everyone must write. How much you want to moderate 'chattiness.' So...yea, it's a lot easier to just leave things as they are, especially since there's barely any activity so not much to keep up with. And so asking the admins and mods to make changes is asking them to do work. So I understand completely if it's just not worth the time to make any changes, regardless of who suggests them.

Re Fea's suggestions: RP ending dates used to be much more strictly enforced, but I don't think that encouraged people to keep up with them. It becomes less about writing/playing the game and more about just *finishing it* somehow. Just working through the steps of the plot as quickly as you could (which often meant the game owner just pushing things ahead periodically until the set 'end' was reached). That's not fun to me, but that's just me. Anyway, having a timeline and end dates and the like just makes it feel more like work to me.

I guess one of the big underlying problems is getting new players and keeping them. I'm not sure how to do that. You can make the RP forums more welcoming, have more open opportunities for RP, but at the same time...they have to get here somehow. And a lot of people are looking for forums dedicated entirely to RP, when they're looking to RP. The age of the RP section in a discussion forum seems to be long past, as RPs now more commonly take up entire forums. So this discussion may be kind of pointless. (Random note, if you search 'middle earth forum roleplaying' on Google, BD shows up on page 3)

(I hope this is coherent. I'm battling a cold so I'm a little empty-headed.)

Thanks for reading (especially since it's ridiculously long). I am surprised to find any responses and I really appreciate your response and openness, Mithadan.

Edit: Crossed with Mnemo.

Folwren

02-05-2011, 08:32 PM

Howdy. I just noticed there was activity on this thread and decided to look in. Glad I did, although I admit to only speed reading the posts. (Sorry.) I think that a lot of the ideas put forth are good.

I would like to see more activity on the RPG threads. However, I kind of wonder if changing the rules and loosening things up will really be effective. I mean, we don't have very many new comers anyway. If loosening up means getting some old players back, I'm all for it. But it won't necessarily bring in any more new players.

Quite honestly, I think that there would be more RPing if WW was not such an over-arching part of this entire forum. So many people will spend HOURS every other day on a WW game and not show up at all for weeks on any RPGs they're part of. Is that a problem? Well, no. As Dury said, the whole purpose of this forum is for people to have fun. Is it annoying? Heck, yes, for those of us who aren't obsessed.

And that's all. I don't have anything to add to what Mnemo and Dury said. I'm all for any ideas that will improve activity in the RPGs. Only, please don't stop the Mead Hall thread, I am having so much fun there.

-- Foley

Formendacil

02-06-2011, 09:18 AM

My own RP credentials are somewhat thinner than others here, but I've been reading along, and hopefully you'll forgive me contributing. As a RP mod from a (somewhat poorer quality, writing-wise) forum elsewhere, I don't have any solutions... but I do have my two pence.

I would like to see more activity on the RPG threads. However, I kind of wonder if changing the rules and loosening things up will really be effective. I mean, we don't have very many new comers anyway. If loosening up means getting some old players back, I'm all for it. But it won't necessarily bring in any more new players.

Quite honestly, I think that there would be more RPing if WW was not such an over-arching part of this entire forum. So many people will spend HOURS every other day on a WW game and not show up at all for weeks on any RPGs they're part of. Is that a problem? Well, no. As Dury said, the whole purpose of this forum is for people to have fun. Is it annoying? Heck, yes, for those of us who aren't obsessed.

Folwren makes a couple good points here. The first, in particular, bears noting, I think. The Downs is not attracting new members in droves, and those it does are not always likely to be RPers. While I think it's possible they stay away from the RP fora because they're a monolithically daunting, separate, and rule-laden part of the forum, the fact of the matter is that we don't have enough new members to really be focused on getting them into RPs.

Thus, I agree with her about needing to focus on player retention/getting back old players. Speaking for myself, the never-ending games are killer, and need tighter--and shorter--timeframes (in this respect, I agree with Mnemo generally). Not only would I be more likely to sign up for a two-week campaign or a month-long story that I actually thought would take that long, I think everyone would be more likely to actually participate, once joined.

Folwren's point about WW is valid... but I have no more solution than she does, though I do want to go on record as saying that WW siphons off a lot of RPing energy from the stable, committed members of the forum, and that as long as it continues, we're going to have a personnel problem here.

*IF* we could relatively sure that a two/three week or month-long game would actually last that long, I think one could reasonably ask players to refrain from playing WW at the same time... but, obviously, that might detract from people's desire to RP.

Folwren

02-06-2011, 10:55 AM

I brought up this subject with my sister, who was here at one time as Finduilas. Anyway, she said that ensuring shorter games would make it easier for players to commit. She said, "If a game was going to last two weeks, I could commit to posting once a day for two weeks. But if it's going to last two years, I can't commit to that." So, she thought shorter games would be a good idea.

Nogrod

02-06-2011, 02:48 PM

I do warmly welcome this discussion taking place.

There are so many things to comment on... but let me make a few.

I think one of the main reasons to many games stalling (besides WW :rolleyes:) is that the ambitions of the mods of the games - and the possible "inner circle" of writers - have sky-rocketed.

My first RPG was Arry's Outracing the Flames on 2006. There was a simple mission for the players and the mod had planned a few obstacles on the road. Even if it went for longer that had been planned, it ended in 5 months and in an orderly fashion. The last one here I think?

Now as it was my first RPG ever, I might feel some warmth to the experience it would not deserve otherwise, but it was well-run game that stayed focused. And the thing was; it was kept simple.

I have written in a few RPG's after that (Treachery of Men & The Fellowship of the Fourth Age come to mind as experiences), but they were already quite complicated in what came into the plotlines and detail. So many players dropped off when time went by as it took so long and they required such involvement.

Now one could say that hey, that's why we have these different "levels" of RPG'ing. In Shire (Outracing the Flames) we have these fairly simple games and in Rohan the more requiring ones (ToM & FotFA). And it is a fair point.

But it seems we have not have those easy and straightforwards Shire-games in years - and the ambitions of the Rohan-games have gone maybe too far?

Don't read me wrong here, I love those multilayered and sophisticated games that have a lot of complexity myself (and I couldn't see myself writing in something so tightly mod-guided/dictated & simplified game as the "Outracing the Flames" was anymore).

So if we have both a) less new people joining, and b) nothing to offer them (the simpler "first stage" games), then no wonder the renaissance will not dawn on 'Downs roleplaying section. I've seen many newcomers joining those more ambitious games and dropping off... (to be honest a few "seniors" did drop off as well - mainly because of time constraints, which should be telling...)

Also I think it's important to remember that the Mead Halls should be basically very different from the more focused RPG's. And at least on paper (well, on screen) the idea of there being two different Mead Halls, one for the "beginners" and one for the more "advanced" is a good one as they can then have two different focuses.

When I joined the Green Dragon back in the days it was more or less just one party going on where the idea was to socialise with others, learn the basics of RPG'ing with other players - and then move on to the "real games". Like you pop in at an inn, meet some people and have a drink with them - and continue your journey, maybe with a new friend. I haven't followed the Golden Perch that much but from the little I have seen, it is different.

Also I think that it is a good idea in principle that the Eorling Mead Hall / Scarburg Mead Hall should be more plot oriented while still retaining the air of being a place you can just put your nose into and join the game anyday.

But as a co-mod of the current Scarburg Mead Hall I must say that the concept isn't working anymore that well it could, or it did. The open-endedness of the plotlines and timelines, added with the different RL situations of the players over long periods of time, individual levels of interest in particular plots being played etc. make a plot driven Mead Hall kind of a hybrid between the "just socialising" games and the real "plot driven" games. It could take on the best features of both (and at times it actually does it) but it can also take on the worst features of both.

But if there are considerably less new people joining in, it is clear there is no return to the ongoing parties of the old Green Dragon, after which those keeping it up naturally & understandaby turn into more plot- or friend-based writing which further scares outsiders away from posting.

At the same time there is the danger that the Rohanian Mead Hall will stagnate into a game played by the few "striders" already known to each other and where newcomers don't dare to come into as it looks to complicated and too much of an insider thing. (We actually had a burst of fresh blood ;) there when the modship changed there two years ago and managed to recruit a host of new writers there - sadly only a few of them are left today.

So what am I suggesting after all this rambling?

I think we should do well to open some fairly basic games and try to lure the new 'Downers into them. I mean we do have them all the time - and I actually think we have gained a lot more active 'Downers the last half year than in a long time...

That would require a mod who was not trying to fullfill her or his ambitions there but being more like an experienced fellow encouraging the newcomers to delve into RPG'ing while keeping it simple and doable. And this is not pointing fingers at anyone. What I think is that we need someone to mod those "Shire-games" who would be not too enthusiastic about it being her/his game, but like a pedagogical person as a forum for the ones who play to learn their skills and get excited about it. (Okay, the teacher-me speaking here, I can see)

Also we should consider the role and meaning of the Mead Halls again. How to make the Golden Perch a place new people would crave to go into? How to make the Scarburg Mead Hall take the best features of both open and plot-driven games while avoiding the bad ones?

And in the end, we should also acknowledge that the world is not the same it was five or ten years ago - and thus also people and their interests are different. So not everything is the fault of you and me - the mods and active players of the RPG's. It's just the wolrd that changes - and we all with it. :)

EDIT: SOrry this became this long. I never seem to be able to be concise...

Feanor of the Peredhil

02-06-2011, 04:05 PM

a few of these principles, I have a game written up that would take two months/eight weeks. The plot is simple, and there are built in check points each week in terms of where the writing needs to aim. The construction is simple in terms of required characters, so it would be easy to write people out if necessary, but probably wouldn't be necessary.

And I have no problem cracking the whip to keep things moving along. As Nog says, the game wouldn't be an epic adventure, full of modly grandeur and personal fulfillment; it would be a basic example and/or pedagogical experiment.

Is this something there is interest in watching play out? With it we would see pretty easily and pretty quickly if making changes to game length and complexity requirements would draw a firmer commitment from more people.

After all, it's very well and good to discuss potential solutions, but without seeing if they work pragmatically, it's all just hot air...

Nogrod

02-06-2011, 04:43 PM

A very good idea Fea.

And I would also like to see some "recruitment" taking place - like asking the new 'Downers to join and try it out - whilst having a few "seniors" around in the game to give an example (like either parties involved all the time or as "visiting characters" - which we used to have back in the days). Not too high or ambitious or self-serving, but like they were not too interested in their own characters doing the best game ever, but playing it thus the newbies could get the max out of it.

If we're going to try that, I could try to find time for it to participate in that mode of playing it for the others.

And really, when has there been a Shire game on offer the last time? Valier's game* starting like three years ago?

* That's actually a telling case. I remember Valier asking me if I would like to join the game, it was something like early fall, and I had to decline it as I had so many things going on that time both in RL and 'Downs. But as I was interested in the game we decided that I should then make a character that would come in at a later stage, quite like on the first new twist of the game planned. Well, the game has never reached the point my character could come in - even if it has been near it a few times during the years... :confused:

Bêthberry

02-06-2011, 08:56 PM

Just wanted to pop in and say that, as I have lurked from time to time at the Scarburg Mead Hall, I've been impressed with the way that it is being modded.

I like how Noggie asks questions of the characters, basing action on the characters' behavioural traits, as well as offering other open-ended possibilities. My guess is this approach has been responsible for the on-going participation of many of the new Rohan gamers. I think I see a teacher's hand at play here--and I mean that in the most positive light and not at all a pedagogical pedantry. :D

It's been years since I read anything in The Shire and just as long since I've had much time to devote to RPGing, so that's about all I can add.

It's good to see some discussion here and that people still care about gaming on the Downs.

Mithadan

02-06-2011, 09:22 PM

Agreed. It is good to see some needed discussion. Frankly, we need a bit more.

There are a few relatively active RPGs on the forums, and I'd like to see more players post and give their views, before beginning to try and focus our considerations. I note some obvious holes or omissions in people's posts, whether intentional or unknowing. Can anyone guess at what I am talking about?

Firefoot

02-06-2011, 10:40 PM

I just wanted to pop in here and say that I've been following along with the discussion, though I don't have a whole lot to add myself...

I've been back at the Downs and posting in the Scarburg Meadhall after only being around very spottily for the last couple of years, and I'm remembering how much I used to love the RPG's here. I would love to get involved in a game, if we want to try and start up a new one or two.

As far as the plot-driven vs. character-driven argument goes, I have played in both sorts and really enjoyed both types (I think my favorite RPG that I've ever written in was Shadow of the West which was extremely character-driven, but that was also what could be called a much higher-complexity game for the purpose of this discussion). For the purpose of drumming up some new players and trying to bring the RPG fora back to life, though, I think some simpler, plot-driven games would be better - something fairly ready-made like what Fea was describing.

As far as the structure of the fora go, I think it would be good to keep two levels anyway... Rohan for somewhat more complicated games and the Shire for more basic games. I don't think it needs to be quite so regimented with who's allowed to play where, though; the distinction would more be for the type of game and the commitment level that each would require. The emphasis shouldn't be so much on "the good gamers go here and the noobs go there." Rohan (and especially Gondor!) always seemed so intimidating to me when I started RPG'ing and I don't think that's how it needs to be. Actually, the whole RPG thing was so intimidating to me when I first got interested that I actually read along with an entire game before joining one myself - there are an awful lot of rules, so it sounds a lot more complicated than it actually is.

Durelin mentioned the idea of getting rid of character bios. I don't like this idea at all. One of my favorite parts (I'm not even kidding) of RPG's is getting started and making up a new character to fit into the story. For me, writing the character bio really helps me get into character from the start, as well as giving me an idea of what other people's characters are going to be like and how mine might interact with them. If you will, it jump-starts the creative process.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that at least for now, things need to be tightened up a little on the game owners/moderators side in that a couple of shorter, well structured games might do a lot to drum up some interest, but also maybe loosened up a bit from the perspective of new players. I was daunted at first, but I don't think there's any need for that - it's really not that complicated, and new players shouldn't feel too intimidated to try.

Durelin

02-06-2011, 11:18 PM

I didn't recommend getting rid of character bios, just allowing character bios to be re-used (which I don't think there's actually a rule against currently, but perhaps a sort of un-stated rule that you should use a new character every game unless you're doing a sequel or something of that nature). I apologize if it came across differently.

Mithadan - Can't say I enjoy guessing games. The biggest 'omission' from this thread (and not necessarily from individual posts) currently in my eyes is our remaining active RP mod, piosenniel, whom I expect is waiting to pounce on us at any moment. (PLEASE DO)

*sits on hands because she really has nothing to add*

Firefoot

02-07-2011, 09:39 AM

Durelin - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Folwren

02-07-2011, 09:44 AM

I'll chime in with Fea's post and say that if a simple game needs to be put up no the Shire, I've got an idea tucked in my sleeve which I've had for more than a year now...

-- Foley

Mithadan

02-07-2011, 10:59 AM

Durelin, I have asked Pio to peek at this thread -- I doubt that she'll "pounce" on anyone. Sorry if I was cryptic. I am still trying to gather some information.

Everyone, please feel free to continue voicing your views.

Thanks.

Thinlómien

02-07-2011, 02:35 PM

Glad I realised I can read this thread although I'm not a Gondor poster. ;) I think that pretty much sums up one of the problems we have: it's too bureucratic and elitistic. Mostly we simply don't have enough players to keep RPGs going on three different "levels". I would be for having just one RPG forum but I won't protest to having two. Even with one level we could keep a novice inn where everybody would have to start and we could have RPGs where you need certain amount of experience to take part.

Now, to ramble a bit about my personal history as a RPer here because I think it's quite a good example: I have played in several RPGs since something like 2005 or 2006, both finished and unfinished. If I discount the inns, the RPGs I have played in are:

-Númenórean Blood Runs Black (closed after the owner and several key writers disappeared)
- Life of Gold (owner and several key players disappeared, but the game was finished after a few years of slow posting, mostly thanks to my stubbornness)
- Blood Run (had major difficulties and periods of inactivity until was a bit clumsily but beautifully finished upon the return of one of the game owners)
- Tears of Mirrormere (originally owned by Groin Redbeard and me, future questionable thanks to GR disappearing and me being inactive)
- An Adventure of Hobbit Proportions (game owner had a baby so we put it on an indefinite pause)
- Homeward Bound (game owner disappeared soon after the start of the game, players gave up)

I think the fates of these games tell a lot about the RPGs in the 'downs. In effect, I agree with Fea&co - our games have become too long and complicated.

Speaking from experience, I think the game owners should be more committed and have a firmer hand. I'd adore it if the game owners had to make a rough weekly plan about the proceeding of the plot. That would help them know what happens and keep the RPG from totally getting too big. The players should also know the schedule so they could post according to it. There's been too much secrecy - surprises are good but players should not be kept ignorant. I don't mean we should lose the flexibility, but there should be more guidelines. I would be a much better game owner if I knew exactly what I was doing. :rolleyes:

I think what I'm aiming at is that I think we should have two kind of RPGs:
1) short term RPGs which take several weeks and you're required to post say every other day. These would be ideal for those who have lots of time in their hands but can't commit for a long time.
2) long term RPGs, meaning about half a year length. The game owner should have the weekly plan I discussed above and keep the thread moving. This would be better for those who can commit but don't have more than an hour or two per week to commit to the game.

I'm not sure if the divide should be made official or not, but players should have a clear idea of what they're signing up to. I think both types of RPGs would have their supporters and that we still have people around who can commit to longer games, as long as they don't take years instead of say 3-10 months.

...comments?

Thinlómien

02-07-2011, 02:51 PM

Oh and a few more things regarding the game owners making stricter plans:

this would mean the game owners really need to commit their own games. They should also send their draft week-by-week (or fortnight-by-fortnight if that's better) plan to the moderator of the forum so in an emergency case they really need to give up their game, the mod can PM the plan to the next game owner (who can of course alter it if s/he wants to).

Every game should have a game owner who keeps it in schedule and order. The players feel safer and better when someone is there to navigate the whole thing, and the RPG doesn't fall into pieces so bad if someone clearly takes the charge. In the event of a game owner disappearing, there should always be a new game owner emerging from among the players, anyone who has sufficient time and will to finish the RPG.

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm trying to make RPGing less fun by making them authoritarian, but I'm afraid that unless the players are extra enthusiastic, there really needs to be an auhority to keep stuff going on smoothly. Mods have an important role in the werewolf games and tabletop RPGs and larps collapse without a game master who has the reins. I don't mean that the game owner should be a dictator - discussion with players about the plot developments and going along with the players' ideas are vital - but his/her role should be bigger if we want to have any games finished. Or that's how I see it.

Kind of in nutshell, I'd rather have game masters or game leaders instead of game owners, and I'd require them to commit to their own game. (Maybe people shouldn't be allowed to own games if they haven't proven they can commit to a game for that kind of period of time, whether they are planning a two-week game or a half-a-year game.)

Durelin

02-07-2011, 03:32 PM

I meant pouncing in a good way...like Tigger-pouncing...

So the consensus from others is that games need to be forced to very specific timelines/forced to completion? Who's going to want to stick to any timeline (there have always been timelines, which in the past were enforced) if they aren't enthusiastic about what they're writing/playing? How do we get the enthusiasm back?

In a way I agree with people who have been talking about shorter, smaller scale games. But I don't agree with shorter, smaller scale games that are planned out to the details so it's easy to just work through the steps of the plot. Let players do smaller scale things on their own, rather than establishing *short games* vs *long games* and each having to adhere to a specific structure and timeline.

In the event of a game owner disappearing, there should always be a new game owner emerging from among the players, anyone who has sufficient time and will to finish the RPG

And for this you need interest/enthusiasm. The game can't feel like work that's being passed from shoulder to shoulder. Players need to feel like they have more invested in the game. They have to have more invested in their characters. And for that I think we need to reduce the emphasis on *game owners/game masters*. Let people just collaborate on something and start writing. Forget about forms and leaders/owners. Let them all be players. At any given time, different players might then take the lead.

piosenniel

02-07-2011, 03:42 PM

Taking it one step further than the actual game players or the game leaders/game masters, how do you see the role of the RPG Forum Moderator changing?

~*~ Pio

Thinlómien

02-07-2011, 03:42 PM

I think I disagree, but I believe we have both stated why we think the way we do. :D

I personally believe people would be more enthusiastic if they knew where the RPG was heading and if there was more action (ie if at least one person aka the game owner kept "feeding the plot"). I think the inns, on the other hand are/would be ideal for relaxed, slow-paced writing with nobody "leading" it much. Why couldn't there be more inn-style RPGs? Meaning RPGs with a centered location and no set timeframe, where times just floats on and stuff happens, big and small.

But I think it has kind of been proven that the slow-paced and nonmarshalled RPGing (in most cases) leads into slowly decaying RPGs whose original plot is either crudely cropped for the sake of finishing the story or left totally unfinished. In an inn-type RPG it of course doesn't matter the same way as it always goes on and it doesn't have any set plot, but I do think it's a big problem for the regular RPGs.

Thinlómien

02-07-2011, 03:48 PM

Pio -

I think it depends on what kind of other changes we settle on. I would love keeping the Shire policy that a mod has to "accept" all new RPGs and discusses them shortly with the game owner. It's good for the game owner to have feedback and assistance, especially if s/he is new.

Also, we will still need the all-around handy(wo)men who can edit posts and close and move thread. Of course you need to discuss in your high modly abode (;)) if the number of mods should be decreased or increased if the number of the fora is changed and who is responsible for what.

Basically, I'm not sure it has to change much. It's one of the things that I feel really works here. :)

Nogrod

02-07-2011, 04:55 PM

I do hope we don't have to choose between dictatorially run games where every player has to comform to the game-master's minute-plans and free-floating games where no one takes responsibility of driving the story forwards... and I know you Lommy and Dury were not advocating those views as such. But I thought of taking the liberty of stretching your points to the edge just to open the basic difference between them.

I think we all agree that something between the extremes would be the preferable course to pursue.

And here I do once again see at least a kind of Shire - Gondor separation still being relevant.

Just from the POV of getting new RPG'ers along we'd need some quite down to earth and more mod-driven games (plus a lively and appealing Shire Mead Hall) easily accessible to anyone, even just for a whim to begin with. Only after that can we think there being more players willing to take part in the more complicated and freer games which I think all we vets prefer as players.

But as Lommy says, even the vets at times disappear from lengthy games - and like I said, oftentimes it's the question of a too ambitious a plan that just takes ages to get moving forwards. So either we just accept the fact that "this game is so complicated it will take years to finish" and just hope for the people to keep their interest in it regardless of their RL situations changing etc. or then we need to restrict our ambitions in the "Rohan games" as well.

Or maybe we could open both kind of games when there are enough dedicated people to play either kind of game?

Mithadan asked nicely indirectly whether we have omitted certain important factors here - which I find pedacogically a superb move, like he tried to make us speak our minds and bringing forth all the taboos while trying to guess what he meant... :)

But as this is a thread now for thinking what shoud be made better and so on, I think I'll venture forwards to make two short points.

Firstly there is a kind of dilemma involved as many people who have played with each others for years and like to do it together naturally wish to keep posting & playing together. But that may feel to an outsider as repelling or turning down anything she or he wishes to do. We really should make everyone feel welcomed even if we had good time writing with just one or two close friends of ours.

Secondly, if there are no preliminary stages or "try-outs" (fex. a requirement to first post in the Shire Mead Hall and play a Shire game first before going into Rohan), whole games, and thus great efforts of a host of people for a long time may be compromised. I think we all have seen these enthusiastic new players who wish to take a central role in a game and are happy about it for a short while and then disappear as it was not that fun after all to them. And thus they leave the others who have played the game a long time into an awkward position as to what to do with that deserted character (or not knowing if that character has been deserted in the first place).

Okay, that's for it this time (time to bed now).

Feanor of the Peredhil

02-07-2011, 05:28 PM

I like the concept of a back up game owner. Having played in a game where the owner bailed, as did half of the writers, I can say from experience that leaving the responsibility to players who signed up to be players, not Big Decision Makers, is neither fair nor kind. After all, if you love the characters that have been deserted, you want to do them justice. Also, you wonder, what happens if the game owner comes back and hates what you've done, and what gives you the right to take charge anyway, and etcetera. I think that the mindset of a game as a small business is hurting us.

Here's what I mean by that: the game is an entrepreneur. S/he has this wonderful idea, and gets together a crew of people to staff the enterprise. They get a solid thing going, and then one of the staffers is offered a better job elsewhere. Maybe you hire on a new employee, maybe you just all do a bit more work to make up the difference. You're still pretty okay, though, because it's all the kind of work you feel qualified to do, even if it's a bit more than you originally signed up for.

Say your small business owner trips on a puppy and somehow incapacitates his or herself entirely. They're in a puppy induced coma. Can't make decisions, can't come to work, can't do anything. They're gone.

You're left with premises populated with people who are really good at their jobs, but definitely didn't sign up to become responsible for paying rent, back taxes, employee health insurance. They signed up as writers, not managers, and there's a huge difference between being in those positions.

With the concept that a game has an owner, we either need to ensure that there's a second in command with the ability to take over as needed, or we need to frame games more efficiently as a collective, belonging equally to all of the players.

Granted, I'm a hippie. I believe in gardening, and goats, and community living with shared chores and cabinets stocked with miso and tea. So the concept of a collectively owned story wherein every player has equal ownership and equal responsibility appeals to me. In the case that the game leader (a bit more democratic of a position than game owner or game authoritarian, don't you think?) needs to step down, the players can choose who will be the boss from amongst themselves.

Bwahaha, I've just realized what I'm proposing.

Shire: a benevolent dictatorship. Games are structured by owners, with predetermined seconds-in-command. The structure of these games provide a basic framework for the writers to work within, giving them a firm but generous place to write. The games are owned, more or less, by one person that makes key decisions, and the players are obligated to work within the game owner's constraints.

Rohan: hippie commune nation of love and voting and sharing. Games are proposed, players sign up, and responsibility is shared. Decisions regarding plot, time lines, and any other game related issues are made by everyone, who will have equal stakes. It's more work for everyone involved, but also provides a greater since of investment, since it becomes OUR game instead of His or Her game.

Regarding Pio's question, if we worked in this manner, the role of forum mod would possibly be unaltered.

With regard to my proposed Shire plan (guiding the players by the hand), we already have it set up so that game owners write out proposals for the admin. That would not change, except maybe it should be required instead of suggested that a rough outline (weekly? biweekly? monthly?) of how much should be accomplished in certain increments of time should be sketched in. The work for the game owner would go up, but the work for the forum moderator would remain about the same.

For the Rohan plan (players guiding themselves), the forum moderator's work would possibly decrease, because players would be taking more responsibility onto themselves. Perhaps the basic premise would be proposed, but the details would be hammered out by the players themselves?

Bêthberry

02-07-2011, 10:54 PM

Well, I'm going to throw in another 2 cents worth (those of you who have been around here long enough out to get a laugh out of that reference--that won't be many of you--and therein lies one problem with RPGing) and see where my thoughts fall between those two stretchers of Noggie's. ;)

First of all, some history. Not all of you might know that I was the Moderator of Rohan when the new three-part system was instituted. So I go back to the bad ole days when irresponsible kids would try to write indulgent, self-flattering Lego luvah and Mary Sue fanfics in the worst forms of text-ese. And when some of the more senior members of the Downs would laughingly let games go silly. Yes, it was a habit of even the most illustrious of us. Not good role models. ;) So the present system was designed to counter the blatent bad writing of many fly-by-night posters and to provide a gaming equivalent of the best of the discussions in Books and N&N. Whether the Hobbit movie will reprise those days, we don't know. As Noggie says, times change.

More history . . .

My son, an avid RPGer, joined the Downs, as Tharkûn, for the first game in the early days of the new system, An Audience with the King. He was looking forward to gaming here, despite the fact that his mum was here. ;) Yet he was completely turned off by the requirement--and the reminder--that he was expected to post daily. That requirement ruined that elusive thing which Durelin has called enthusiasm. And just so you understand what his committment to gaming is, he is now in post secondary studies learning to program and design computer games. In his spare time with his buddies, he works on story boards and illustrations. So the Downs lost that kind of committment and enthusiasm. There's a million stories out there, and his is but one--which I'm telling here for the first time--but I don't think it's the only one like that.

Rohan was/is a difficult forum to define because it was supposed to be the place where responsibility and independence was to devolve naturally to gamers, who cut their teeth in The Shire, but it wasn't supposed to be as complex or (for want of a better word) as literary, as Gondor. As such, I didn't see it as my role as Moderator to undertake the incredible and very laudable efforts which The Shire Moderators did to attract new gamers and to supervise game development. The Books Moderator doesn't do anything to encourage threads in Books, so, once gamers have got the gist of things, why should the Moderator in Rohan? There was supposed to be more freedom here in Rohan. Well, that was my line. So when I go back and read the start of the Scarburg Meadhall thread and see gamers posting character bios and asking if they are accepted, I'm a little bit nonplussed. That was for The Shire games sure, but for an Inn in Rohan? Maybe it's a matter of old habbits once learnt in one forum stay with you in the next. But as I say, I'm of the old stock and my time is passed. And in many ways I'm deeply impressed by those who have run the new Rohan inns, Littlemanpoet and Noggie, especially because they have brought new gamers in and developed a bond amongst them. That's not an insignificant factor in making RPGs attractive.

So how do fora (NB: that's another old joke from days gone by. Forums) develop? As I've already said, no Moderator sets out topics in Books or N & N. Nor in Mirth. Or accepts submissions before threads are started. The Chapter by Chapter and Sequence by Sequence fora have their Moderators starting discussion because the discussion was supposed to be focussed and it was a way simply to keep track of the discussions. And the Werewolf games, they have an interesting history. SaucepanMan started a rules procedure for them because of the heated emotions they were creating amongst the players. Yet just recently, when there was another quite heated discussion over rules and procedures, most of the WW gamers came together to discuss the rules and create some further guidelines which Morm oversaw. It was really a community effort and I was impressed with how the WW gamers themselves resolved the problem without authoritarian intervention by a mod. But there, they had already come together as a community with a shared interest in the game. Still, it was a community procedure.

So I look at Rohan and wonder why that cannot happen here, when Downers have already proven themselves in The Shire? Which is not to say that I think the well-defined time frame of WW games should be carried over into RPGs. There's a reason why WW has set time limits and it all has to do with the plot, the conspiracy, and the highly structured nature of the endeavour.The timing is part of the appeal. But fantasy-driven, narrative driven role-playing games--where characters aren't stereotypes of cobber, villager, werewolf, etc-- are not like that.

What I think is crucial is something Fea mentioned: allowing gamers to have more of their own investment in the games, allowing gamers to "hammer out the details" amongst themselves. Not quite a Borg collective, but where every gamer has (like WW) a vote in the proceedings.

mark12_30

02-08-2011, 07:51 AM

... I want to make a lengthy reply but Real Life at the moment is screaming for attention. And I have only read the first four or five recent posts (apologies; RL again.) :eek: Let me just say this: I am glad I landed immediately in Gondor when all of this started, because although I played in a Shire game or two, I don't know if I would have survived the structuralization. Many did and some admirable games were played. But I am far more comfortable in Gondor.

And yes, I am painfully aware that my recent game is over two years old and still dragging. ... and I still intend to wrap it up!....

But I miss the life that was here once.

Off to real life again, but I do hope to return to this thread...

Estelyn Telcontar

02-08-2011, 08:55 AM

I have very ambiguous feelings about the role of WW games in the development of the Downs forum. On the one hand, they have drawn in new members and formed a feeling of community that is positive for the site. On the other hand, they have taken a lot of energy away from the Books forum, which is my main concern, and from the RPs, in which I was also involved in the past. Formy makes a valid point:

I do want to go on record as saying that WW siphons off a lot of RPing energy from the stable, committed members of the forum, and that as long as it continues, we're going to have a personnel problem here.

*IF* we could relatively sure that a two/three week or month-long game would actually last that long, I think one could reasonably ask players to refrain from playing WW at the same time... but, obviously, that might detract from people's desire to RP.

I wonder - is there any way to get dedicated WW players interested in "normal" RPs again? Could a story be devised that is as much fun for them as a TiG game? After all, WW *is* roleplaying.

...our games have become too long and complicated.

I remember being involved in a game (Corsets and Corsairs) that was fun at the start, then got so involved in subplots that it became unwieldy, slow and complicated. I don't even remember if it ever finished - I lost interest.

Probably the most interesting game I played (aside from the marvellous Entish Bow series, of course, which was something special that can never be repeated - like Yavanna's Trees or the Silmarils) was a two-person RPG involving Rimbaud and myself, with occasional guest appearances by Bêthberry. It had a clear objective and a simple plot, a minimum of characters, and a time limit. We told our story (in this case even without a discussion thread, since we did our plotting by way of chat and PM) and had fun doing so.

Isn't the time committment factor one of the central strengths of WW games? I think we can learn from their success and try to adapt their best ideas to RPing.

Thanks to Snowdog and Durelin for getting this discussion going: I'd love to see RPs being more active again - not just for involving newcomers, but also for getting more of us oldtimers active again. I had signalled interest in a game some time ago; unfortunately, it never got off the ground.

Dimturiel

02-08-2011, 09:19 AM

I too agree with the fact that the games need to take a shorter while. I usually start playing an RPG with quite a lot of enthusiasm, but if the game stalls, I tend to lose interest, whether because real life problems take over or because I decide to focuse on my own stories, or maybe simply because I tend to have a shorter attention spam:rolleyes:. And once the interest is gone, it is harder for me to get back on track. A fixed timeline would help me concentrate better.

I also have to say that I do not mind the rules and structuralization and I tend to agree with Lommy that some degree of commitment and ethusiasm needs to be shown. I don't think rules would interfere with us having fun (although I admit that my ideas of fun are rather nerdy, after all I had fun researching for my diploma paper, although in my defense, it was about Tolkien;)). And after all, any kind of game should have some rules.

Mithalwen

02-08-2011, 11:05 AM

I write this in full awareness of my many and varied inadequacies as a RPGer. I am aware that many respects that I fail - yes my personal life has made writing genuinely impossible for sixmonths (and I have been correspondingly quiet across the forum) but I cannot claim that there have not been lengthy absences with less reason. Anyway I have participated in several Shire RPGs, dipped my toe in Rohan and have tried to encourage activity in the Perch. Anyway for what it is worth these are my observations.

I do think Werewolf is a factor. It does take a lot of attention and creativity and before its inception the RPG discussion threads were possibly the more sociable ones on forum where chat is strongly discouraged. Personally one of the reasons I stopped playing regularly was that I wanted to RPG more. H Yes it has brought some new members but they often don't get further than mirth. However it isn't the only thing and WW does show that it is possible to write a lot in a short time. Most ww games are longer than most RPGs.

Another factor is that a lot of players simply moved to a different stage in their lives - the young teenagers who perhaps came to the books via the films had important exams and went to unversity and so forth and I think we did lose a lot at the same time and so a lot of impetus is lost and a downward spiral becomes a vicious circle. For this reason I think we do need to review the structures before the likely influx from the next lot of films.

The problems with actual games I have encountered or observed are game owners bailing out, games as "star vehicles" - if the other players are merely a backing chorus for a Prima donna or uomo you may as well just write fan fic. You can't expect people to show a lot of commitment to someone else' s ego trip.

The structure of the game can also make a huge difference. It is harder to keep things going and up together if the roles are divided into various factions operating semi independently, it is harder if the game is set in a very specific time and place -especially if you are nerdy like me and want to work with or at least not against what Tolkien wrote. You can also hamsting yourself with your character. So basically easier games are the ones where you aren't bound by a very specific geography or history, the players are able to interract fairly freely un hindered by race or status (it will be long ere I saddle my self again with a character who is the servant of the only other person who speaks the same language :rolleyes:).

I certainly don't think the location of a game is an automatic indicator of standard - Island of Sorrow was a Shire game presumably only because Anguirel was a first time "owner". It had a group of highly skilled writers and extremely literary. Inexperienced players benefit from writing with the more skilled - I know I learnt a lot from writing with people here even if if it hasn't manifested itself in m own efforts yet! There are players who are generous in their writing - while developing and playing their own role they give opportunities to others to build theirs - in my own experience Aman and Envinyatar stand out in this respect but there have been others - Folwren in her role as Innkeeper particularly.

I haven't finished - I just have to be away for a bit but I do have a few more constructive points to add to the observations.

Anguirel

02-08-2011, 01:33 PM

I certainly don't think the location of a game is an automatic indicator of standard - Island of Sorrow was a Shire game presumably only because Anguirel was a first time "owner". It had a group of highly skilled writers and extremely literary. Inexperienced players benefit from writing with the more skilled - I know I learnt a lot from writing with people here even if if it hasn't manifested itself in m own efforts yet!

very nice of you to say so Mith. But in his next owned game Anguirel proved to be one of those awful absentee fathers. I'm still pretty ashamed of that. It was difficult re: real life, but everyone has that excuse. I've been quite commitment light as a player in other games too. I'm very proud of Island of Sorrow but really it's the only thing of its kind I've seen through, and I had a lot of exceptionally expert help...

yup, so dropping out is a problem. I've done it often and it's bad for the soul. It should be discouraged as much as in Werewolf. It would be nice if that meant faster games, I agree

Mithalwen

02-08-2011, 05:43 PM

Don't be too hard on yourself Ang. Sometimes life gets in the way and that is especially likely to happen when a couple of months turn into a couple of years.

It is hard to make rules for this kind of thing because so much of it is a balancing act - you need some discipline to keep things going and maintain a reasonable standard, but also flexibility to cooperate with others and allow for interesting diversions, the confidence to progress stories and the humility to allow others to do so.

I do quite like the idea of The Shire being a more structured and supported place and Rohan being more where you stand on your own two feet. I think you do have to have somewhere where new players can find their feet without spoiling the enjoyment of others. And while noone likes their character being bunnied you do need to make it possible for people to interract with your character and not have a hissy fit if they don't psychically respond to your character in the way you want them too (sorry I may be venting years worth of frustration and minor irritation!).

Would it help to say game facilitator rather than owner, or steward? Obviously if you plan a game you have plans, you can lay out a framework of expectations but give the players rein as to how they are achieved.

I did quite a bit of work developing the seed called "Golden and Proud" back in the day (and still have the notes somewhere if anyone is interested) until it was effectively if not perhaps deliberately sabotaged (did I mention I was venting?) andif you have planned a journey to Dol Amroth for a specific purpose you might be miffed if they took themselves off to discover the source of the Anduin but you do need to allow some freedom.

Different "owners" may have different expectations and it rather depends on the game. Personally if I ever run a game I'll be only too grateful for plot ideas (I am stronger by far at character than action) but give your horse an inappropriate name and I may have to kill you (have never recovered from a game elsewhere where Elrond's horse was called Peanut).

It is alright..the nurse is coming with my pills now :smokin:

Nogrod

02-08-2011, 06:09 PM

Okay, I have tried to push this issue of werewolfing in contrast to RPG'ing away as I have thought it's quite hard to compare the two as they have such different qualities - and maybe also because I have thought it more being driven by some envy on part of those who don't play WW for the enthusiasm and involvedness people show in WW-games - and maybe the limited time active ww-players might show for RPG's while a ww-game is on; two things I have not been too keen to express openly. Well it's done now. :rolleyes:

But after reading all these recurrent references to the ww-games I must say I have been forced to think about it again, and hopefully in a constructive manner.

Even if there is the same problem with ww-games, that some people join in and then do not play actively enough to the majority-tastes (or just drop out), there clearly seems to be a kind of enthusiasm, energy and commitment one rarely finds in the RPG's. Although I do remember more or less as hectic feelings with RPG's as well, but those have been rare occasions.

So which are the strenghts of the ww-games and which of them could be carried into RPG'ing?

1) The prospect of winning or losing & having sides where your effort does not only count as your own succes but also as all your fellows' success.

Okay, I'm not sure I'd wish to play an RPG where there would be two sides trying to win the "game". That would be nightmarish - unless it was something like a very special game between very good friends in good humour (so not anything like a general guideline to RPG'ing).

But what we could bring from there is the idea that every individual player has a stake and feels responsible for the success of the game as such. And I do actually think that some of those old-time Shire RPG's actually had something of this in them when the mod threw all kinds of obstacles into the way of the players' characters and they had to come over with them together.

2) The ww-deadlines are sharp and decisive - and fast. If you don't make it you really stand for apologising.

Even if I can't see a 24-hour deadlines in an RPG, it is clear strict deadlines do help. Now how that could be transformed into RPG-world is another matter. If you lose a DL in an RPG then just part of the story stays untold, but in a ww-game it can really affect the outcome of the game - for you and your side (all those who rely on you as well as you rely on them). So we come back to the earlier point: the stakes are higher in a ww-game.

Also one knows from the beginning the time-limit the game will take - which ranges from a week to two or three at most. So it is quite a clear-cut thing: you don't have to commit yourself into a game for an unlimited time - and if you get killed it might even end sooner for you. So in a ww-game you play for the right to be able to play on the next day - the possibility of being thrown away from the game works as a big incentive to try your best.

I can see no humane or literarilly satisfying way of applying this to the RPG's...

3) The ww-games can give a player very strong emotional kicks (for good or bad), but most of the time they stay within limits.

These emotional "kicks" in ww have turned a few times into personal tragedies making people leave the playing community - and that is sad. And it's not too uncommon that on some stage of a game people's feelings get a bit overheated (I should know it as I have been guilty of that a few times), but generally people do overcome those and in the after-game discussions they are already congratulating the other side and giving high-fives to everyone.

The problem with the RPG's clearly is that if you get people emotionally as bound as you get people bound in a ww-game, then the bad side of it can be just devastating (as we have a few very bad examples in the RPG-fora). I mean, after the baddies drive a lynch to get rid of you as the seer of the village in a ww it feels soo terrible, and you feel like you'd wish to curse the whole world - but you are able to look at the game with fresh eyes after you have slept one night. In an RPG, on the contrary, when your character and all you have invested in her/him gets somehow sidetracked or denied in any plot-driven happenstance it probably feels so much worse that it will be much harder to come over it by just sleeping one night on it.

4) In ww the game rules are from one point very clear and decisive and make it easy to play, but on the other hand the social rules are much looser than in an RPG. In a ww game you can just socialise, have fun with people you know already or get to know new people - in a way you seem fit in that particular game. Also in a ww game you can just make a fool out of you on one post and then get "dead serious" the next. It's up to your every whim...

In an RPG it feels different... in a RPG you're anticipated to write coherently: as others can use your character to ease the storytelling - which is a good thing to my mind - your character needs to be somewhat predictable for that to work. I mean, sure a character in an RPG can surprise others but the general requirements are much tougher even if they are not exact rules as such. This is somethnig we have nothing to change - and need not change.

Okay, I have been thinking about these things while writing these down so I had no clear view about what is it I would come out with... But what I have learned is that my initial feeling of the comparison being hard to make is even stronger I thought.

But is there anything, except the lengthy ramble?

WW-games manage to make their players involved and feeling they have a stake in the game. So here I should go Fea's and Durelin's way. Give the players more stakes and they might feel more involved.

But also, the question of some real timelines could help - in the case there is the motivation to make a difference: otherwise the DL's will just hamper the game setting up further obstacles to some players.

Getting people more involved emotionally is a double-edged sword. In a way it could make people more involved but then we also risk more personal catastrophies we really don't want. Getting too involved is as bad as being uninvolved, well it is worse.

Looser "social rules" of feeling free to play in totally unpredictable manner might be tried in Mead Halls (well, in Shire), but I'm afraid nowhere else - if not in some special game. But basically that freedom doesn't seem to fit the RPG's in general.

The problem of mainly socialising with others you like vs. playing as trying to be able to play for the plot is actually a big question with the RPG's we should think more about.

Also, part of the appeal of the ww-games is competition / competitiveness - even if I think most of us regular werewolvers do not take that as the primary motivation to those games (as we just love to play itr together), I think it has a role to play there. And competitiveness is quite far away from my idea of a good RPG... quite the contrary.

~*~

A short add-on in respect to Gondor role-playing (in response to mark12_30)... I have always thought that to be the most elitist writing-ground of all, only fit to the English majors or at least to the well-educated and literary excelling humanists who have English as their native tongue. So I have never even peeked in as a non-native speaker, as I have felt it's beyond my level of writing-skills in English. I have nothing against there being levels of playing that reach above my skills, but I do feel the attitude you show is not exactly welcoming to anyone outside some closed circles... which exactly is one of the problems in the RPG's.

Heh, don't read me wrong, I'm not aspiring to write to Gondor myself and make a case for it. I think there is a general problem here - not your fault mark, or anyone's in particular - that the diffrent levels of writing also create castes we tend to follow... I mean, if I think like this about Gondor roleplaying while being quite at home with Rohan and feeling a bit too old to take part in Shire... then what does it tell us about the situation? How many people think Rohan too high for them? How many people think a Shire game too low for them?

Why I speculate about willing to partake on a Shire game first and foremost as in an advisory role, like not playing it so much to myself but to be a kind of pedagogical aid to the newcomers?

I think this thing you oldies talk of as the re-structuring of the RPG's is the only reality to us latecomers... and it structures our thought about the RPG's quite heavily.

Mithalwen

02-08-2011, 06:22 PM

The other thing I meant to say was that when a game gets very strung out it makes it harder both because you have to remind yourself of what is going on and you feel your post has to be amazingly good becasue it has been so long since your last one. I am not saying that many poor posts are preferable but that maintaining momentum perhaps makes it easier to post to a reasonable standard since you don't have to spend so much time working out who is doing what.

Durelin

02-08-2011, 09:13 PM

I really don't like the comparison with Werewolf. It really isn't roleplaying because...people don't really take on roles. They have secret game roles, that's it. Sometimes they have for fun roles, but it's not like people 'play in character'...when people have attempted to, other players get upset. If I use the Col Mustard playing piece in Clue, I move around the board as Col Mustard, but I do not pretend to be Col Mustard or make decisions as Col Mustard. It's a completely different mindset, and a completely different culture. In my experience it's a lot more about egos than RPing ever is (and I know well that egos get involved in RP).

My problem with saying, let's enforce timelines/posting requirements strictly (or fairly strictly) and change some language (game owner to game leader, etc)...is that to me that doesn't seem to be fixing anything. Or really changing anything. Maybe nothing needs to be changed, I don't know. But the timelines were enforced to varying degrees in the past. I don't think enforcing that was successful. If people don't post, they don't post. Saying 'I am moving the plot ahead tomorrow, if you want to post you have until then' doesn't make people who aren't interested/don't care post. And if it does it makes people post once or so before they disappear again, just because you brought them back on some sort of guilt trip. But apparently they're still not interested enough to post consistently. Timelines are going to drive some people away, as are posting requirements. As I said in my first post, you're not going to please everybody, no matter what you do. But I don't see the benefit of enforcing timelines and posting requirements.

The other big thing seems to be that we make the games 'smaller scale' or that they have one plotline, or a simpler plotline, or something of that nature. So that they're not too clunky and don't get stuck. That we should change the style of the games. But is that a rule to decide ahead of time? Or should we let people decide for themselves the style of game they want to play? I'm not advocating epic, clunky games. I'm much more interested in more freeform games, games that are less clunky (but do not necessarily have one plot line at all). But regardless of what sort of game you're interested in, or what you think might work...I don't think we want to limit things even more. The current RP structure allows for a variety of games. I think we should open it up to allow more freedom, not limit to a certain style of game.

And there's concern about 'new people'...I think it's better to help new members get involved (which will also help them understand how to RP here) than to set up rules and procedures that keep them from getting fully involved right away. Some sites use mentoring systems. 'Veteran' RPers on the site help new people figure out the rules and get involved in RPs, give them advice. They're not authority figures, but they know their way around. Because frankly it's not just about whether or not they *write well*, which to a great degree is subjective...it's also just about figuring out how RPing works on a single forum. Every RP on a forum/RP forum has a different style, a different feel. Different norms and expectations.

And I guess part of what I feel is that we need to change our expectations a bit here on BD. They have changed a bit over time. A good bit. Early on there was a wide variety of people, different kinds of writers, different ages. Then as things consolidated a bit, the posts started getting longer and longer, and as others have noted, the RPs started getting more and more 'complex', like they were trying to outdo one another... As Mithalwen has said people's egos got in the way a bit. As they always do. But writing here was like a huge project. Every post had to be a book. There are sites out there that require a certain amount of words for every post, some upwards of 500 and more words. They think that makes them elite. I think a bit of that mentality got into things here. There are other mentalities, but, that was one of them.

I guess part of what I've been trying to say is that RPing here on BD is only one style of forum RPing. The games on here that are specific plots a group of people play through with one-time run characters (like mini table-top RPs, but the game owner is not quite like a DM) is only one style. And it may be a style we want to stick with. It probably is, for the most part. But I don't see what harm there can be in bringing in some elements from other styles of forum RPing, particularly those styles that seem to be really quite popular. Most RP forums are open world -- they are of course forums entirely dedicated to RP, though. Of course BD is not, so it is going to be different. But it seems to me that most people who RP on a form these days are used to more freedom, less structure. If that makes sense? And of course that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because we're not necessarily going to attract people who RP on forums/have RPed on forums before. We may only or mostly attract Tolkien fans who then get interested in RPing because of the RP section here. And then we just have to make it welcoming for them.

But if we're just talking about retaining players/getting back old ones, which has been mentioned, than this discussion is a bit different. It does seem like those players still around/lurking don't want to change much so I should probably shuddup nao.

omg, this was supposed to be a quick post. ><

Snowdog

02-08-2011, 09:20 PM

Mithadan

02-08-2011, 09:41 PM

Hmmm. Quite an active thread we have here...

I'm not going to weigh in just yet. I have some ideas and suggestions, but I'd first like to focus and sharpen this discussion. I hear a lot of different and not necessarily uniform opinions about what's wrong (and not a lot of agreement about what's right). Last time a discussion like this was held here it was done by invitation only in a private forum. This time, I'd rather be very open about things. Ironically, some of the comments I hear now are the same as I heard back then: elitist; too structured; etc. And like last time the favorable comments are often about the same things some people complain about.

I happen to agree with Snowdog (NOOO, not that!). Must be an age thing. Too much talk about what's good and what's bad, which is not to say that this dialogue hasn't been valuable. But it's time for you all to do my job for me. No egos, no fighting, but tell me what you would like to see done!

*Mithadan looks over his shoulder at the oliphant sitting in the corner -- strange, no one else seems to see it...

Firefoot

02-08-2011, 09:45 PM

I guess I don't see why there can't be room for both the types of games that Durelin and Snowdog are describing vs the type that Fea outlined. The two types are likely to attract different players (that's kinda obvious, I know), but personally I like both sorts...

The issues that need to be addressed would be: in a more free-form game, how do you make sure it doesn't wend on for years and years so that the players just slowly drop out due to RL constraints? And in a more structured game, how do you give the players some ownership in it so they don't feel like they're just going through the motions of putting a story together?

I think the key is to make the expectations clear at the beginning. If you want it not to have a set plot and you want for people to feel free to introduce twists as they desire, that ought to be explained up front. And if there's a plan for the story, that should be said upfront as well.

Personally, I don't see why all of this has to be mutually exclusive. I've always really enjoyed RP'ing at the Downs, and having been in a rather wide variety of game types and complexities I think there are things to be enjoyed about all of them.

Maybe I should also mention that I've never RP'ed anywhere else so I don't really have a feel for other ways that it can work.

I guess what might better help me conceptualize all this is this: Snowdog, if you don't mind me putting you on the spot, would you be willing to explain more concretely what it is you'd like to do and how it doesn't fit the Downs? How do you see it playing out? Which part(s) is(are) too controlling?

Mnemosyne

02-08-2011, 09:56 PM

*Mithadan looks over his shoulder at the oliphant sitting in the corner -- strange, no one else seems to see it...

In the words of Eowyn, I do not wish to play at riddles. Speak plainer!

As far as what we would like to see done? Well, define "see done." If the answer is "do," I think Fea at least is taking the initiative and getting a game idea up. I myself just sent a game idea off to pio that, hopefully, will take some of the ideas that have been discussed here and try to put them into action. If, however, by "see done" you mean things for the moderators, etc., to do--I don't know how much of this is a moderator solution, since the problems don't stem as much from the rules as they do from the game owners and the players. At least in my estimation.

So the best way to clean up the RPGs is to clean up ourselves first. That, at least, is the tack that I am taking. I am using this discussion to reconceptualize my idea of how RPGs should work, and trying to come up with something that will take those new ideas and test them in the field.

But if there's a problem that no one else is seeing, I'd very much like it if you just let us know what it is.

Snowdog

02-08-2011, 10:21 PM

Snowdog, if you don't mind me putting you on the spot, would you be willing to explain more concretely what it is you'd like to do and how it doesn't fit the Downs? How do you see it playing out? Which part(s) is(are) too controlling?

I don’t mind at all. I would love to do this, but being its mid-afternoon here and I’m sneaking on here at work, I’ll have to gather my thoughts on it later this evening after I get home and settled in with a beer in hand.

I just became aware a couple hours ago that this discussion had finally taken off.

Mithalwen

02-08-2011, 10:22 PM

Dunno - that everyone is talking about it not doing it? He may tell us if he I suppose .. what is really fascinating me at the moment though is how or rather why Crowned Pigeon whe has never actually posted has spent most of the past two days private messaging. I may have more insightful when it isn't stupid o'clock.

Feanor of the Peredhil

02-08-2011, 10:37 PM

*Mithadan looks over his shoulder at the oliphant sitting in the corner -- strange, no one else seems to see it...

Ooh, I know, I know! If the Barrowdowns as an institution actively encourages members to borrow aspects of Middle Earth for their own Tolkien inspired writing projects, it will inspire a lawsuit from the Estate! Am I right?

No, really. I rather doubt any of us are intentionally ignoring something that has occurred to us, since we all appear to be actively trying to pin down a prognosis and a prescription. Playing coy, Sir Mithadan, isn't really helping any of us, nor does it help dismantle the concept of Gondorian writers or moderators as elites who need not share their information or talents with the rabble.

The only thing I can think is that you lean toward saying, "If people want to play RPGs the way other websites play them, they can go to other websites." Which is akin to saying we should allow the slow demise of our own writerly frolics within the realms of this place.

Mithalwen

02-08-2011, 10:53 PM

No can't be that -
http://www.tolkienestate.com/faq/p_2/

I must admit I have mixed feelings about rule making - the WW thing seemed an overreaction to an isolated problem (letting a virtual unknown quantity mod) and I can't help feeling that some people enjoy too much making rules for others. We got a whole statute book when a Denning like judgement might have sufficed. However I stand by the uncanonical or even implausible names as capitaloffences ;)

Mithadan

02-08-2011, 11:28 PM

Snowdog

02-09-2011, 05:48 AM

Snowdog, if you don't mind me putting you on the spot, would you be willing to explain more concretely what it is you'd like to do and how it doesn't fit the Downs? How do you see it playing out? Which part(s) is(are) too controlling?

Well... let me start off with a bit on my one and only experience participating in an RP here on Barrow Downs in what was it... 2003-4... We had a good setting and outline for an RP, and some writers that wanted to commit to it. At the time the "rules" were there had to be a time limit for the conclusion of the RP, and so that in itself put, on me anyway, pressure to develop the story, write it through, and conclude it within a certain time frame before it even really started. But I gave it a go. I got a few posts into it, and I started getting PMs about my posts and requests to edit them so they would fit someone else's concept of what the RP direction should be. The first time was a minor detail and I agreed to 'tweak' my post to accommodate. another post later, I get a Pm request to edit a whole section of my post. I didn't do it, instead told them to work around it. I don't think I continued after that, being real life was drama enough and I didn't need to try and work at writing posts that were acceptable to other writers. I never had this sort of interaction anywhere else on the net I have RP'd. Instead of a free flow of interaction, it seemed that RPs had to be "scripted" here. The whole structure of the Shire, Rohan, and Gondor and how you had to 'work your way up' added to that, along with the extensive character bios and opening setting that had to be set before you could even begin to try and write a tale. Its like I said before... an RP had to be constructed, not created. Maybe that's how an RP "GAME" (as the term so lovingly is used here) is done I guess. Its was a style I obviously didn't fit into. I'm a writer not a gamer. I thrive in the spontaneous interaction of other writers who can take what is posted and use it to carry the story forward and leave hooks for others to use in their posts, etc. I understand why the stringent rules were put into place here, and the three tier forums, etc., but carrying it to the letter, with a forum mod being what I consider, overly intrusive in structuring individual RPs by copying writer's posts and putting then in their omnibus posts seemed a bit much.

Sorry about the ramble. I doubt I will ever partake in RPs here, or even post in the inns. I have tried on occasion in the past, and my ppsts were either ignored because the didn't fit into whatever plot-line had been discussed in an OOC, or whatever reason. I have also been invited to post in the inns in Rohan and Gondor, but never could push myself to put forth the effort to do so because I had to wonder if the effort coming up with characters and posts would be worth it when I had a hard time trying to figure out what all was supposed to be happening in the inn at the time. So it goes. I don't seem to have this issue on other sites, and can engage with minimal effort. I'm not saying how things are done here are worse or better than how they are done on other sites, I'm just saying that it's always been hard for me to find a comfortable niche to write here.

That said, I have enjoyed reading some of the RP threads and inns, and even got some ideas from reading them. I just can't see myself being able to meet expectations of writing here without tremendous effort on my part to 'work' it into acceptability. Barrow Downs RP"gaming" is what it is, and suits many, but not me.

Feanor of the Peredhil

02-09-2011, 06:25 AM

You want Gondor gone? That's an easy one. But it doesn't solve the real issues.

Kind of. But not for the reasons one might think.

I find the idea of a reward for good writing/modding/playing to be laudable, but I also think that due to the slow progress of RPGs and players, it's a more or less unobtainable goal. As you said, there's only one game (kind of), and as most others have mentioned, they usually don't even go into Gondor to READ, much less hope some day to write.

I also think having the seemingly unobtainable 'best' status deters interest from the inherent quality of 'lower' games.

Can you truly claim surprise that people "still" feel left out in a system that classifies by 'new and can't be trusted to know their eyes from their elbows,' and 'still need hand holding and permission,' to 'nobody ever goes here'? In any system wherein there is a concentration of power there are going to subsequent feelings that those without it are either lazy or inherently less deserving.

And this still doesn't address the vibe of 'I know something you don't know' that you're giving off, Mithadan. If you know something of benefit to us (or even detriment), why are you keeping mum about it? What purpose does it serve to make us question the validity of all of the very solid points that have been made by anybody who clearly cares enough to be part of this discussion?

Boromir88

02-09-2011, 07:59 AM

I've wondered whether I should post here, because my last two RPGs (Tears of Mirrormere and An Adventure of Hobbit Proportions) have slowly died to nothing. Despite the sporadic spiritics attempts by Kitanna and Lommy to get the games going again, I've lost all interest in continuing.

I've got no credentials, if anyone asked me why I don't RP on the BD, my first response is, "I'm not terribly interested, and have only joined games when I've been asked, to fill in needed characters." Which is of course a terrible reason to sign-up for an RPG, I don't want to be filler space, and don't want a Game owner to count on me in any way, because chances are, I'll lose interest quickly.

So, why am I saying anything? :rolleyes: Well, I've been a part of a few lovable RPGs (Ungoliant's Children - which I recall being very very short, but a good RPG for a first timer like myself. Siege of Gundabad, and my favorite was probably Sailing Away). And I still have Form's RPG proposal in my PM box, which I would be interested in, if he ever gets started on the thing! Form, I checked the date, that was sent in March, of last YEAR! Get a move on! :p

Anyway, RPGs can certainly be fun and interesting on the BD. I don't think anyone is saying that it's not. And, I'm not sure what any of the moderators and Admins can do about Game Owners and/or players dropping out and the games slowly dying with no end. I mean maybe a Co-owner to games would be a big help, but it's got to be a different role than simply an empty title. I don't know how much you were kept in the loop Lommy, with Groin's game, but I imagine a Co-Owner as one who can step right in and take control in the absense of of the Game Owner. However, the Game Owner needs to let the Co-Owner "in the loop" more if it is to work. Otherwise, the Co-Owner is essentially just another player, only with an empty title like "Assistant to the Regional Manager."

As far as Gondor is concerned. Mithadan, I can see where the good intentions are in rewarding the dedicated and top-forum RPGers. However, when you do that, I think the first problem is the place looks like the Steward's lore archives in the Tower of Ecthelion. It's a tomb, most of those who can be Game Mods have not been active in...how long now? Granted, you don't have to be on the list to play in an RPG, but the list of who can propose a game needs serious updating now. Otherwise, it's just going to look like a dreadful tomb of gone and former, albeit great, RPers.

The other thing is the language of the Gondor-forum is really off putting and intimidating. I mean you're essentially telling people "don't be intimidated. BUT if you are intimidated, this isn't your place. Go to The Shire or Rohan. You can haz more fun there!" It would go a long way to inform people what type of RPing, and the skills you're looking for, in the Gondor forum. Instead of relegating anyone not up to the standard to The Shire or Rohan. I know this isn't your intention for having the Gondor forum, I'm just saying what it looks like to an outsider. The language is far from welcoming and encouraging RPers, it's quite intimidating.

Also, it sets up a tier between 3 RP forums. It's as if, "you're not good enough for Gondor, so go goof off in The Shire." Ok, I am being too generic there, but don't you see the point? It makes The Shire and Rohan look like inferior places, and thus, the games in there are inferior. When you have in this inferiority built in, people are far more likely to slack off and not take the games in the Shire and Rohan seriously.

Anyway, that's my take on the RP forums. Some things like Game Owners and players dropping out, no one can do anything about. Unless if it's a flaw in the system which is making people just decide NOT to care about the RPGing (which I don't think is the case). However, Mithadan, there are certainly things that can be changed with Gondor, and the 3 forums in general which could improve.

mark12_30

02-09-2011, 08:08 AM

the concept of Gondorian writers or moderators as elites who need not share their information or talents with the rabble

I've gotta be honest, I'm surprised that this is still coming up. There's really only one game running (barely) in Gondor. Otherwise its been pretty much abandoned for about 4 years. Gondor was NEVER intended to be elitist. It was supposed to be an award or honor for skill and effort. The goal was that the majority of gamers would end up in Gondor and those who weren't yet would be newcomers.

You want Gondor gone? That's an easy one. But it doesn't solve the real issues.

As the owner of that (barely running) game... I'd like to point out that we carefully recruited participants from Rohan and The Shire; the game began in The White Horse Inn, and indeed once the game left the White Horse Inn and officially began in Gondor, I was the only Gondorian in the game (except for a guest appearance by Estelyn early on.) Littlemanpoet advanced to gamestarter status in Gondor midway through the game; so did Aylwen Dreamsong.

The main requirement in that game was that the game be as canonical as possible; that exceptions to canonicity would be brought before the entire team to be resolved; if that did not resolve the issue, we would bring it before elders of the Downs and seek their opinions as t othe canonicity of the subplot involved. I am proud (of my team!) to state that this was never necessary; all who volounteered for the game were as dedicated to writing *for* Tolkien as I was. In other words, canonicity was the main requirement for the game, and all the Rohirrim and Shirelings who joined were as adamantly pro-canonical as I was. The issue never even came up, unless I am forgetting something.

However-- currently, all but lmp and I have faded from the game completely. This will be moot in about ten or twenty more posts, which is all it will take to close the tale. ( And therein lies the delay-- I don't WANT to close it, any more than I wanted The Lonely Star to close. ) But the game was not a 'closed-to-outsiders-elitist' game.

mark12_30

02-09-2011, 08:57 AM

Regarding the plotline in The Seventh Star: I don't think there is one, or hasn't been one for a long time. People rarely come and go, and few discussions happen. It is a dusty place. Sometimes I have had fun with that (I've played a mouse there, for one thing.) But it does serve as a reminder that a once flourishing place has become tired, quiet, and faded.

Oddly enough, if the posting members of The Coming Of Age Club (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=647389#post647389) were to post, in some sort of character, in the Inn, discussing the same things but in Tolkienese, then The Seventh Star would come to life. At least, I always thought that was what it was for. Isn't that what a real Inn is for? It takes a little work to do it in character-- but that's half the fun. We do that to some degree in "The Coming of Age Club". Be a mouse if you want to, but stop by the inn and say Hello. Have a stout, come on over to the fireplace, put your feet up by the fire, and tell me how you've been.

Formendacil

02-09-2011, 09:40 AM

The point is well taken from some of the elder members that we've discussed the problems in great detail, but we need to start proposing solutions. I would quibble that these have been suggested already, but in very tentative ways, but before I can even quite get to the point of looking at concrete solutions, I think it might be helpful to recap the situation, as I see it.

Problems Facing Us in the Current Situation:

Basically, this seems to come down to a problem of numbers. The current three-tier RPing system--which, as an aside, I think was entirely valid when it started--hails back to a time when there were many more people on the Downs generally, but especially in the RP forums. This numbers problem is somewhat compounded by the popularity of WW games, which draws from the same pool of people. As Nog notes, however, RPs and WW are different in kind and cannot simply be interchanged for each other.

The general mood would add to the numbers problem the additional concern that the three-tier system is "elitist"--and, perhaps, that's a bit of a straw man position, but, hey, this is a recap... The root of the elitist complaint, in my opinion, is that the three-tier system is too much structure for so few people. In an era when the Gondorian players with status to open games were highly active, and were invited people in regularly--and when there was a lot of activity in the lower fora as well--I don't get the impression that it was too much structure or elitism. It may have been off-putting to start out "small"... but we can all list games in the Shire that were not mere babysitting hoops to jump through, but fun, even complex, stories we all enjoyed.

That was then. Now we have no gamers active in Gondor to invite those who have proven their mettle, so the forum looks even hoarier and more forbidding than it should (even if there is truly a high value of licit foreboding involved). Rohan and the Shire move along quietly, but without clear distinctions betwixt them, save the impression to newcomers and outsiders that they are hierarchical and rigid, and somewhat sluggish.

There is also the problem that games often drag on far past their expiration dates in a perpetual limbo, which decreases everyone's willingness to get involved in the next game.

Things Worth Keeping in the Current System:

Despite these problems, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we go back to the days of the Wild West--even though it would be more of a Ghost Town than a Gold Rush. I think other people should really think through what they like about the system as we have it. They should also think, though, about whether or not these qualities are something that need to be present throughout the gaming fora generally, or if they would be sufficiently present if they were only in the rules for a particular game.

Speaking for myself, the one thing about the current system that I would not want to lose is the forum-moderator(s). Pio plays an indispensible role, and I think that in a restructured Gaming Forum we would still want someone to approve new games, with an eye to whether they're sufficiently Tolkien, and to help with general forum maintenance/policing. In case it's not obvious, I don't think we want heavy-handed mods (nor do I think we have them now), but we do need someone to open/close/merge threads, and I think it's important besides that for the forum to have someone who can serve as a Court of Appeals, if disputes break out between players. Bêthberry's anecdote about moderating in a way comparable to the Books forum was very interesting to me. I think the general hands-off, helpful approach is definitely worth emulating, and I certainly don't want to imply that she did things wrong before, but speaking from my own experience as the Gaming Moderator on another (albeit less excellent or literary) forum, I think it does require a special sort of interest... mostly, though, it's about having common sense, fairly regular availability, and a good handle on both Tolkien and RPing.

However, since this is something I want to keep that we already have, perhaps I've been unnecessarily long-winded.

Suggestions for a New Gaming Forum

What follows are my own thoughts, intended most to get the ball rolling.

I think we should have:

1. Two forums, rather than the current three.

2. These fora should be distinguished between "Doriath" (Tightly Controlled) and "Rivendell" * (Loosely Controlled). In a sense, this will parallel to the current "highly babysat in the Shire" and mark's free expressionism in Gondor, but not exactly.

3. Doriath:

a. Games in Doriath may be started by any BDer who wants to start a game (no prior experience required), though they will have to run the game by the Mods for approval.

b. The game must adhere to all the current rules about being Middle-earth based.

c. The mods might also deny someone the right to start a game on the basis of past failures to run a successful game, but this need not be hard and fast rule.

d. The game owner will be the game moderator, and will have a fairly "controlled" game. In plot vs. character terms, these would be plot-driven games, and would be the kind of games that Snowdog can't really play. The powers of the game owner might be considered comparable to those of a WW mod: broad discretion, subject to their own posted rules and those of the forum.

e. They would also be required to have a definite timeframe (3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years, whatever), and players would have a right to expect the game to end at the end of the advertised timeline. If the game was not over, players would have a right to drop out of the game, regardless of its status, or to remain aboard with the moderator (who would also have the right to drop out) and continue--but the continuation would also require a deadline.

f. Games would be by invitation or open to interested comers according to the preference of the game owner.

g. In the event of the disappearance of the game owner, the players could either request and propose a new game owner from among their numbers or the game could be terminated. Alternatively, the disappearing game owner could have a co-owner from the beginning, or appoint one when the crisis arose.

4. Rivendell:

a. The Rivendell forum would be for open-ended games (those with no deadlines) and for character-driven games where collaborative writing rather than a plot idea was the main motivator.

b. Anyone on the Downs could propose a game in this forum, subject to Mod approval. The Mod(s) would be within their rights to refuse newcomers and/or inexperienced players.

c. Because of the collaborative nature, there would be no formal game owner. A game might be, in practice, led and/or founded by someone, but that person's disappearance would not automatically cause the game to be closed or reassigned, since their role would not formally be to run the game.

So... umm... that's a lot of writing. Thoughts?

*For the sake of having a name, Doriath and Rivendell is what I'm using in this proposal. "The Shire" and "Rohan" could be retained or "the Shire" and "Gondor," or new names devised, or whatever... I just needed names.

Mithadan

02-09-2011, 10:09 AM

Formendacil, good post.

Time to focus now. Here's the issues list based upon what people are saying, in no particular order. Some may be beyond anyone's control, but things can be fixed.

- How to increase activity.

- How to get newcomers involved in games.

- How to make the forums more "user friendly".

- Pace of games, frequency of posting, etc.

- Length of games (in my view never ending stories will still not be allowed - I mean short vs. long).

- Procedures for starting new games, planning, proposals, bios, approval (I am not taking a position on these issues yet - just identifying issues).

- Player commitment and recruitment.

- Inns, their format and roles in the scheme of things. Also Innkeepers.

- Responsibilities and roles of game "owners".

- Number and organization of forums.

- Rules generally.

OK, here comes the oliphant. Mods. Their roles, responsibilities. Who will take responsibility and keep up with it? Piosenniel has been doing this for a very long time. It was never envisioned as a lifetime appointment. While she will, I think, continue to help it is not fair to have her continue alone if activity is going to increase.

Some people have posted thoughtful suggestions already. Assume nothing is graven in stone, though its not a true tabula rasa.

Have at it! You want things to improve? Let's do it.

Bêthberry

02-09-2011, 10:39 AM

Its like I said before... an RP had to be constructed, not created. Maybe that's how an RP [i]"GAME"[i] (as the term so lovingly is used here) is done I guess. Its was a style I obviously didn't fit into. I'm a writer not a gamer. I thrive in the spontaneous interaction of other writers who can take what is posted and use it to carry the story forward and leave hooks for others to use in their posts, etc.

I think Snowdog has an important point here, the distinction between gamer and writer, between game and role play. Games are always directed by a manager--think back to Dungeon's and Dragon's--and highly organised. Think of Werewolf, which is highly structured by plot/time. A werewolf game is not really about developing character and seeing how that relates to action. (I differ on this point from others.) It's controlled. But role play isn't so highly controlled; 'play' is not always structured drama, but, well, play--imaginative combinations. Children need both play and game to develop healthily. (I mean this in the most positive way, as an essential nature of the human species.) Maybe we threw the baby out with the bathwater?

I also have some sympathy with 'dawg's comments because in several games my posts were called into question by the game owner. At one point, even my wording was questioned (and no, it wasn't spelling or grammar). In fact, I probably greatly disappointed one of the game owners because I refused to write my character the way he wanted. This meant there was no maudlin resolution between her and her father (which to my mind would have violated the character's psychology) although there still was a climactic resolution.

I also understand well dawg's idea of posting spontaneously with hooks for other gamers to pick up, because I started gaming at an Inn he ran on another forum. The Inn wandered all over the place as it was never expected to have a beginning, middle and end. (Did "Cheers" the TV show have an overarching plot? Or was it just episodic?) But it did inspire several games, as gamers worked on character and came up with ideas, and those games had some sense of direction which the writers worked within.

I've had "hooks" taken in directions completely unlike what I anticipated and this was fun, because it was challenging. I've also had 'hooks' completely ignored, to the point where I felt there were parallel projects going on and my character was being ignored. (sob! ;) ) That happened, I think, because I was spontaneously creating actions for reactions whereas other gamers were following some master, prepared game plan. I've also found it frustrating when nothing happens for an eon after a post, because it's like talking to yourself in a void. Or some kind of writerly interruptus.

I will reiterate: I think gamers and game owners would be more committed if they felt the actual writing accomplished something that the planning hadn't already done.

And to support another point: Mark has clarified a good point about Gondor, which my word 'literary' didn't really get at, with her use of "canonical". Yes, Gondor was where the most canonical (or deliberately non-canonical) games were to be. Good games and good writing can occur in all forums, and be created by all ages, but playing consciously and deliberately with Tolkien's style--getting inside his style as he got inside language--was supposed to be the defining mark. (Sorry, no pun intended on Helen's nick.) :D

EDIT: Sorry, cross-posted with Formy and Mithadan.

Mnemosyne

02-09-2011, 11:06 AM

Okay, on Formy's points.

1. Absolutely.

2. Ehhh... Not sure how I feel on the issue of "control." For one thing, whence this idea that short games need to be "controlled" and "plot-centric"? I understand why people would associate all of those, but how much of that association is due to the system that we already have in place? Why couldn't you have a "shared authority"-style micro-RPG that focuses on character interactions driving the story? And why couldn't you have people work together, for six months, on an Epic Quest plot run more like a D&D Campaign?

I would much rather have both fora have very similar rules and net standards, but only have the difference be in length--say, RPs that take up to a month belong in Forum X and RPs that take longer belong to Forum Y. I think that this would help lessen the perception that one forum is for the newbies and the other is for the more experienced players, particularly if writers frequent both fora.

Okay, those are my big structural suggestions.

As far as rules, and this is going off what Mithadan's Big Questions are:

1). Loosen up on rules that inhibit forum activity
2). Create or tighten up on rules that will discourage forum-killing behavior.

Specifically, what would this entail? Some ideas, and please thrash them thoroughly:

Pare down on the rules to get a game started, anywhere. The mod can still consult and approve, and some of the beginning forms like "You will know when the game is over when" can be really helpful, but that should be it. Ideally I'd like to see the mod take on more of an advisory role in this phase, like, "Well, you can try to save all of Arda in six weeks, but maybe this should be a longer game?"
Pare down on the rules for players to join either forum. Keep the inns as on-going, open-ended RPs, but don't require people to participate in them. Maybe tighten the character sheets up.
When games end up dying--say, someone posts a seed and no one else bites for a month--keep them from stagnating the forum. This doesn't necessarily mean moving them to Elvenhome, although of course you can always move them back. A nursery would work equally well.

About mods, now that Mithadan has let us know what he's been thinking. :)

I like the idea of changing up the mod system, even if the roles don't change. More than anything else (as with changing the forum names, though I really don't want to lose the Meadhall) it would signify a psychological change, and I think that that's most of what we're trying to accomplish here.

I think a lot of what we're trying to change involves our own attitudes as players and possibly as game owners. The main thing is trying to get rules that reflect that.

Formendacil

02-09-2011, 11:31 AM

2. Ehhh... Not sure how I feel on the issue of "control." For one thing, whence this idea that short games need to be "controlled" and "plot-centric"? I understand why people would associate all of those, but how much of that association is due to the system that we already have in place? Why couldn't you have a "shared authority"-style micro-RPG that focuses on character interactions driving the story? And why couldn't you have people work together, for six months, on an Epic Quest plot run more like a D&D Campaign?

Well, I guess I'm simplifying things in my own mind for the sake of convenience. A short game would not, of necessity, be plot-centric. And, since my divisions are between plot-centric and character-centric, and since I'm making this distinction not based on the motivations of the writers but the motivations of the game owners, it would make logical sense to have short, shared authority games ("micro RPGs") in what I've called the Rivendell forum, while you might have some very long plot-driven games in the "Doriath" forum.

I guess, without having seen Bêth's post, I was unconsciously thinking along the lines of a "gamer" forum and a "writer" forum, with the secondary characteristics of "more structured" forum vs. "less structured" forum. One could also look at it as "owner responsible" forum vs. "player responsible" forum. Granted, the lines could easily blur in these respects, and you might end up with a "more structured, game-inclined, player responsible" game... which I would put in the "less structured/writer inclined/player responsible." The biggest distinction for me, between forums, would be owner/creator/progenitor responsibility in the game: length, structure, character/plot are sort of secondary.

It's a bit of a cluster concept, and I'm not sure I've explained it as well as I might...

*Pare down on the rules to get a game started, anywhere. The mod can still consult and approve, and some of the beginning forms like "You will know when the game is over when" can be really helpful, but that should be it. Ideally I'd like to see the mod take on more of an advisory role in this phase, like, "Well, you can try to save all of Arda in six weeks, but maybe this should be a longer game?"

Agreed that the Mod should be more advisory than authoritative, but insofar as they are charged with keeping order in the forum, they would still have a technical right of veto.

Also agreed that it should be easier to start games, at least in one forum.

*Pare down on the rules for players to join either forum. Keep the inns as on-going, open-ended RPs, but don't require people to participate in them. Maybe tighten the character sheets up.

Agreed.

*When games end up dying--say, someone posts a seed and no one else bites for a month--keep them from stagnating the forum. This doesn't necessarily mean moving them to Elvenhome, although of course you can always move them back. A nursery would work equally well.

Agreed.

I think a lot of what we're trying to change involves our own attitudes as players and possibly as game owners. The main thing is trying to get rules that reflect that.

Agreed and agreed again!

Mods. Their roles, responsibilities. Who will take responsibility and keep up with it? Piosenniel has been doing this for a very long time. It was never envisioned as a lifetime appointment. While she will, I think, continue to help it is not fair to have her continue alone if activity is going to increase.

I quite agree that while Pio has done an exemplary job that she ought to have company in a new system, but it's a very tricky business on a forum to go about suggesting moderators--akin to suggesting admins! Even in as comfortable a setting as the Downs, one doesn't want to step on toes by overlooking people, or start political camps--or (God forbid!) put forward one's own name.

If the Admins/Mods of the forum were to raise up a new mod (or more than one), I don't think anyone would disagree that it is timely. Speaking for myself, I think the chief things to look for in a new Mod are less their RPing credentials (though a familiarity with the system as is and as it will be is important) as the general mod credentials that would be looked for anywhere on the Downs: balanced judgment, ability to explain things, ability to keep a cool head, etc... and, of course, someone who's able to be on the forum frequently and regularly.

With regards to the Inns... I think I speak for all the active participants (although I'm not one of their number, playing a rather erstwhile Dwarf in Rohan) when I say it would make sense to important both the Shire and Rohan inns to the new forums... though the Seventh Star might be a different case (and one for the Gondorian veterans to weigh in on).

Mithalwen

02-09-2011, 11:45 AM

Durelin

02-09-2011, 11:59 AM

Length of games (in my view never ending stories will still not be allowed - I mean short vs. long).

When you say 'never ending stories will still not be allowed'...I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean open-ended stories/threads/games will not be allowed (which the inns would fall under), or do you mean games/stories *must* end at some point? Or do you mean, games/stories will be deleted/moved to Elvenhome if they do not end in time? Or only if they stagnate?

I just don't see it being successful to enforce strict timeline rules. If a game/thread/story is not posted on for some time, remove it. Otherwise, let it be.

Do we really need multiple forums? How about just one discussion and one RP forum?

How to get newcomers involved in games

One of the problems here that hasn't really been addressed yet is that the style of 'plan a closed game, run a closed game -- when I say closed I mean it involves a set number of characters and the plot is planned out as such that it is not easy for someone else to join in. Not that the players might not be able to make room, but the newcomer might have a lot to trudge through and figure out in order to take part.

We already have a good start toward getting new players involved in that list of player contacts, so we can make more use of that. And there's the possibility of 'mentors' who help newcomers get into a RP. But in general, more open games/open world RPing allows for newcomers to more easily jump in.

Pace of games and length of games -- in my opinion, leave up to those involved.

Procedures for starting new games, planning, proposals, bios, approval -- starting a discussion thread (anyone can); planning a thread with other players in the discussion thread; interested players post bios to join.

Inns, their format and roles in the scheme of things. Also Innkeepers -- Inns can be open for short RP interactions, and if people feel the need to get their feet wet somewhere. I think inns need to return to being more open ended like the Green Dragon. I am not sure bios should be required. No plot you have to know about in order to really be involved. Let people be able to jump in as they feel like it. Innkeepers...well, I'm not sure how necessary they are. It's a tough job, to be expected to keep up with the inn. And I'm not sure that's necessary for people to RP. Maybe have someone overseeing the inn, but mods could do that. Keep people in line, but let players just interact. Let the In-Character Innkeeper be an NPC.

Responsibilities and roles of game "owners" -- They become nothing more than the person who started the thread/game. We could leave it up to the initiator of the thread/game how much they want to control the thread and its plot. They decide if they want to reject players or only open their game to certain players.

Rules generally -- obviously there are general rules such as etiquette (no 'god-moding'...no controlling other people's characters!! unless given permission OR perhaps if the person is gone for a long time)
--encourage people to write their posts in a word processor to help with spelling and grammar mistakes, encourage a decent post length (we could keep the 2 paragraphs, or go with a word count of 100-150 words or something...encouraged but not necessarily *required* of every post).
--Canonicity...well, make it clear that we want people to stay generally realistic to the setting of Middle-earth. If people want to require that their players not only stay generally realistic but try to write 'for Tolkien' or however it was described, and adhere to strict guidelines not only of plot items, characters, but also of terms and language...well, that's up to them. They start a game/story/thread with those rules attached.

I'm typing from behind a fog of a cold so this is mangled...

Edit: Crossed with Mithalwen and I agree completely. Leave a lot up to the individual who initiates a game/story/whatever you want to call it!

Also on the mod note...that was why I brought up pio, because here we are discussing what to do about the RP forums and she's the only mod ATM who would have to enforce all these things people are coming up with (or adapt to them, etc), so I think her opinion means A LOT and I feel bad for sitting here declaring how things should be and then expecting the mod(s) and admins (Mithadan) to do all the work involved with these changes. So I guess what I mean is that I'm not expecting that.

Bêthberry

02-09-2011, 01:10 PM

Great post, Formy. I can't rep it because I've repped you too recently, but it deserves one.

Because today is turning out to be very busy, I'll comment only on one point:

I think that in a restructured Gaming Forum we would still want someone to approve new games, . . . .

Doriath

. . . .

a. Games in Doriath may be started by any BDer who wants to start a game (no prior experience required), though they will have to run the game by the Mods for approval.

. . . .

4. Rivendell:

b. Anyone on the Downs could propose a game in this forum, subject to Mod approval. The Mod(s) would be within their rights to refuse newcomers and/or inexperienced players.

Currently, gamers in Gondor can start their own games without prior approval of any Mod, even the Gondor mod. It is only in Rohan and The Shire where games must be approved. So this proposal, instead of creating more ownership and responsibility for gamers, would in fact increase the control of Mods and place an absolute restriction on posting rights which no other forum here has.

Frankly, I think there's a place for Downers who have played in many games, have successfully run games, and have participated on the Forum demonstrating respect for the policies, not to have to seek approval if they want to start a game. We don't have to seek approval to start a thread in Books or N&N or Mirth. Are WW games "approved" by the WW Mod?

If there's a problem with a thread, a Mod can always close it, temporarily or permanently. That's what's done in Books, etc. Why can't that apply to games?

When people look at a member's profile, they can ask to see recent threads and recents posts. I tried to find an early game I started, Picnic at the Bonfire Glade, but it's not down under my profile as a thread I started, because the RPG Moderator, Mithadan at the time, "opened" it. That happens for every game in The Shire; none of them are "recognised" as being the thread of the people who actually write them. (That wasn't the case in Rohan, where gamers could start their own threads once the game was approved.) So if you like someone's game and want to read other games the Downer has started, it becomes an onerous task to try to track them down.

Does this state of affairs really need to continue? (I grant it was a solution to a problem back in the day.)

Boromir88

02-09-2011, 01:36 PM

And to support another point: Mark has clarified a good point about Gondor, which my word 'literary' didn't really get at, with her use of "canonical". Yes, Gondor was where the most canonical (or deliberately non-canonical) games were to be. Good games and good writing can occur in all forums, and be created by all ages, but playing consciously and deliberately with Tolkien's style--getting inside his style as he got inside language--was supposed to be the defining mark.

Extremely high standards (but there's nothing bad about high standards, as usually anyone who cares will rise to them - and hopefully above them). So, you've concisely pointed out the expected standards, and reasons for the Gondor forum.

I think though, and why the "elitist" sentiments have come up again, something got lost in the translation to the Gondor forum. I know it's no one's intentions on here to discourage, and make it insanely hard on new RPGers, but I think the standards you've pointed out Beth, aren't made clear enough in Gondor.

Several times it's mentioned that Gondor is the most advanced and expert RPG place. The people posting there have to live up to quality posts and the high standards. There's nothing wrong with having that advanced system, and with an end goal of hoping the place continues to grow and still keep those same "Tolkien" standards of writing. The issue becomes, there is no explanation of what you mean by "maintaining high quality posts." Quality or higher standards are vague, and subjective. Not completely subjective, but what I would call "high quality" may vary from what you call "high quality." We become lost by what the expectations for posting in Gondor are (other than...it has to be high quality!), just as Mithadan was lost when he asked what we want him to do. Combine the high expectations with, "if you don't measure up to these, you may be asked to leave Gondor, but don't feel intimidated!," and that is where the feelings of elitism come up.

We wander in the dark, not knowing what we have to do to get to Gondor, and then finally get frustrated by wandering in the dark for so long. Having an advanced RP-forum, that sets high expectations in and of itself, is not elitist. I don't feel it is, but if there are no clear and explained standards, and "if you can't maintain these standards, you shouldn't be here," does have the unintentional feel of elitism. If the purpose of Gondor is to grow and tap into the talented writers of the forum, we need guides.

Gondor is looking like another Elvenhome. That doesn't mean it needs to be completely tossed out, but life needs brought into it. I am not a writer by any means, but I know (and have met) several talented writers on this forum. Make it easier on the writers and guide members better on the RPG expectations (particularly the high ones for Gondor). I find it impossible to set standards that are too high for people, but we need to know what those standards are and help getting there to reach full potential.

Mnemosyne

02-09-2011, 01:47 PM

Currently, gamers in Gondor can start their own games without prior approval of any Mod, even the Gondor mod. It is only in Rohan and The Shire where games must be approved. So this proposal, instead of creating more ownership and responsibility for gamers, would in fact increase the control of Mods and place an absolute restriction on posting rights which no other forum here has.

However, effectively, this is the situation that's already in place, since Gondor's been a mathom-house for years. You're right about the "posting rights" restriction, though--although I should add that the private Translations from the Elvish forum, while it was active, was much more restricted.

Frankly, I think there's a place for Downers who have played in many games, have successfully run games, and have participated on the Forum demonstrating respect for the policies, not to have to seek approval if they want to start a game. We don't have to seek approval to start a thread in Books or N&N or Mirth. Are WW games "approved" by the WW Mod?

The way I see it, there are two ways we can go about this, if we must have rules: regulating games through control of players (who's allowed to play at what level), and regulating games through control of games. And no, WW games aren't approved, but there's a queue mechanism in place that's existed as long as the game has, and when someone unreliable started up a game but then didn't do anything with it (IIRC) the group had to step in and make lots of rules.

I don't think that modship needs to take the appearance that it has in its most recent incarnation, but I still think it's good for there to be a point of access before games start, even if it's just, "Hey, I'm thinking of running this game, sound good?"

If there's a problem with a thread, a Mod can always close it, temporarily or permanently. That's what's done in Books, etc. Why can't that apply to games?

When people look at a member's profile, they can ask to see recent threads and recents posts. I tried to find an early game I started, Picnic at the Bonfire Glade, but it's not down under my profile as a thread I started, because the RPG Moderator, Mithadan at the time, "opened" it. That happens for every game in The Shire; none of them are "recognised" as being the thread of the people who actually write them. (That wasn't the case in Rohan, where gamers could start their own threads once the game was approved.) So if you like someone's game and want to read other games the Downer has started, it becomes an onerous task to try to track them down.

Does this state of affairs really need to continue? (I grant it was a solution to a problem back in the day.)

You've got a point here with the mod just closing threads. I'd still rather there be some sort of advisory capacity, though, and I don't know why.

But definitely, I don't think the mod needs to start game threads anymore.

I should add that before I joined here, I lurked, and I did use some of the finished games as fan fiction reading. I think that's why I'm more concerned with making sure that RPs are structured in the sense of, yes, they have a story to tell, and that story has a concrete beginning and ending. The Inns are fine for less concrete stuff, but really, Durelin, is it okay to have long-term stories that are more or less free-form, that players can hop into and out of? It's just a concept that's alien to me, probably because I got acquainted with RPs as a reader, and I write fan fiction, and I'm a big continuity geek. That's why I'm so much more interested in lots of short-term, intense games that can have some character overlap, because they allow for new people to get involved more easily without necessarily sacrificing the clarity of what it is we're doing.

I have to run, but I guess the question is if my reservations about an open world system are just me. And even if it isn't just me, is this something about RP culture that we can and should change?

piosenniel

02-09-2011, 01:57 PM

Can someone please clarify a word for me?

How do you mean "mod" when you use that term? Are you referring to my job right now as the overall RPG forum moderator -- or do you mostly mean "mod" as it seems to be used in WW as the game initiator/facilitator.

Thanks!

~*~ Pio

Formendacil

02-09-2011, 02:05 PM

Currently, gamers in Gondor can start their own games without prior approval of any Mod, even the Gondor mod. It is only in Rohan and The Shire where games must be approved. So this proposal, instead of creating more ownership and responsibility for gamers, would in fact increase the control of Mods and place an absolute restriction on posting rights which no other forum here has.

You make a fair point--and I'd not personally have a problem turning my so-called "Rivendell" forum into one where games can be opened without mod approval. However, it's worth noting that I said anyone could start a game in my hypothetical "Rivendell" forum (and the same state of affairs would exist in its "Doriath" counterpart). This is different from the Gondor we currently have, because only those promoted to Gondor can start games there--so there's absolute freedom, under the current model, for a handful of players in Gondor (and it's quite a small hand), while the proposed model would have quite a bit of freedom.

I should probably clarify that when I say "subject to Mod approval" I really just mean running it by the Mod as a formality. One would have to have a rather inappropriate topic indeed to find it vetoed. In this schema, the Mod approval would not extent to the Mod starting all the threads, as is currently the case--merely saying "sure, no problem" by PM to the game creator. Since the Mod(s) has powers to delete and move threads, this need not even be by PM, as the Mod could remove offending threads with the click of a button. The advantage to PMing the Mod first is that you know this won't happen (and thus suffer no embarassment), but it's safe to say that pretty much any active RPer on the Downs could probably start a "safe" thread under this system and not have to worry about that.

Of course, I might simply be projecting too much of my own mental picture of said Mod onto this theoretical Mod, and that a real human being in said position might be in a trickier position than I imagine (though... having said that, I really don't think so... but I'm cocky that way).

Frankly, I think there's a place for Downers who have played in many games, have successfully run games, and have participated on the Forum demonstrating respect for the policies, not to have to seek approval if they want to start a game. We don't have to seek approval to start a thread in Books or N&N or Mirth. Are WW games "approved" by the WW Mod?

If there's a problem with a thread, a Mod can always close it, temporarily or permanently. That's what's done in Books, etc. Why can't that apply to games?

So... either I missed this second half in my first read, or it got converted directly into my thoughts, because I feel like we have much the same position on the amount of action the Mods would be taking... just perhaps a slight difference of opinion on how rules about it would be articulated.

Firefoot

02-09-2011, 02:30 PM

I'm just ducking in here really quickly, but I'd like to say I like Formy's idea a lot.

Another idea I'd just like to throw out there - it just occurred to me and I haven't really thought it through, but what if we also created a place (forum? subforum? or maybe a new place isn't really necessary) where people could just toss around ideas with each other? In my mind this serves a similar purpose to the discussion/administrative thread in werewolf where people throw around ideas for new special rules or whatnot. For example, say I'm thinking about starting an RPG but don't really have any concrete ideas... I could start a thread saying something like, "I'd like to write about x, is anyone else also interested and would you like to help come up with a plot idea?" I'm not suggesting totally getting rid of the game owner model, but this could run along side it as a more collaborative sort of thing... although maybe this is almost exactly what planning threads do now. Just a rambling thought - I have to run now.

Snowdog

02-09-2011, 02:56 PM

I'm off to work, but very quickly I'll suggest that opening up the Shire (or another forum of whatever you want to call it), for free writing without this control or that control may bring in some new people, creativity, and such. There would be general forum RP rules and guidelines that are common sense ones (using other 's characters, no one or two liner posts, etc.) but the actual tale/"game" would be up to the creator to open up or restrict. Apparently this "Wild West" style is adamantly rejected here. But It's my thought on the matter. I have to deal with too much micro and pico-management at work to want to deal with it on my own leisure time writing.

Durelin

02-09-2011, 03:19 PM

I think that's why I'm more concerned with making sure that RPs are structured in the sense of, yes, they have a story to tell, and that story has a concrete beginning and ending. The Inns are fine for less concrete stuff, but really, Durelin, is it okay to have long-term stories that are more or less free-form, that players can hop into and out of? It's just a concept that's alien to me, probably because I got acquainted with RPs as a reader, and I write fan fiction, and I'm a big continuity geek.

You're asking me if it's okay, but you haven't pointed out anything wrong with it. Even if you look at it purely from a story-writing perspective, which RPing is NOT purely (everyone looks at it differently; to some it is story writing, to some it is more like a game, to some it is more like 'acting' in writing so to speak, etc)...a story doesn't begin with all of its characters necessarily. Many characters are introduced later. Some show up for a brief time. If you insist on extreme organization and as you've mentioned, perfect continuity, you can enforce that in a game/story/thread you initiate. But why not let others start threads/stories/games that do not enforce that?

I'm basically with a lot of what Bethberry has said. And Mithalwen as well. Let's leave it up to people to start games/threads and determine THEIR parameters for that game/thread/story. The moderators would then be working on the front end rather than the back end, as Bethberry has suggested. Rather than having to look over every game proposal before hand, they keep an eye on what's being posted and step in only when necessary.

it just occurred to me and I haven't really thought it through, but what if we also created a place (forum? subforum? or maybe a new place isn't really necessary) where people could just toss around ideas with each other

I like this idea. That was part of the organization I suggested in my original (freakishly long) post. One Discussion forum and One RP/IC forum -- which is a typical organization on many discussion forums with an RP section.

Piosenniel - When I say 'Mod,' such as in the note at the end of my last post, I mean forum moderator. I've started using words like initiator and other such nonsense to describe what has been known as the 'game owner' (the person who starts the game/thread)

The way I see it, there are two ways we can go about this, if we must have rules: regulating games through control of players (who's allowed to play at what level), and regulating games through control of games. And no, WW games aren't approved, but there's a queue mechanism in place that's existed as long as the game has, and when someone unreliable started up a game but then didn't do anything with it (IIRC) the group had to step in and make lots of rules.

The thing is, why do we need to control/regulate necessarily on the back end. Let people post threads, begin games -- just like in WW (the queue idea really doesn't apply to RPs, unless we're going to limit the number of threads/games that can go on at once which seems a little crazy to me). If there's a problem with the game/thread -- as in, it breaks some sort of rule -- then the forum moderators step in as necessary. But they are not required to initiate every RP, every thread, etc.

Bêthberry

02-09-2011, 03:29 PM

Extremely high standards (but there's nothing bad about high standards, as usually anyone who cares will rise to them - and hopefully above them). So, you've concisely pointed out the expected standards, and reasons for the Gondor forum.

Actually, I was simply riffing off Mark's post, which touched a point I had made earlier when I said that Rohan was a difficult forum to define and I thought her explanation was better than mine. (And I haven't actually said anything about how many forums I think there should be.)

The procedure for getting to Gondor is fairly straight forward. A gamer simply follows the explanations given in The Shire and Rohan. When I was Moderator of Rohan, all one had to do was run a game in Rohan successfully (which largely meant finishing it), having successfully run a game in The Shire (which got you into Rohan). I don't know if this still pertains but I would expect so. (Why Noggie isn't in Gondor, for example, might simply be that he hasn't had time to finish running a game in Rohan--my guess. Or the inclination.) So, the procedure is I think fairly clear. Play in a game in The Shire, run a game in The Shire, run a game in Rohan, your name goes on the list of Gondorian gamers.

In terms of that more elusive definition of the kind of games anticipated in Gondor, there's always the option of reading games that have been played in Gondor and seeing what they are like. Maybe not all of them will fit that definition of canonicity which Mark suggested and I seconded. But reading them will surely give a person a clear idea of the complexity of the games--complexity on many different levels. (And, to be fair, as I recall when the forums were set up, we couldn't decide where to put the game called Rohan, but finally decided it belonged in the forum of its own name, Rohan. :D ) And as Mark pointed out, a Gondorian game owner can ask any Downer to play in her or his game. In addition to those Mark names, I seem to recall that Diamond18 and Lush wrote for REB, and I don't think they are on the Gondorian list for game owners. I honestly cannot think of one person who, having completed the procedure for gaming in The Shire and Rohan, was denied access to Gondor as game owner. So I don't think it's the description of Gondor which intimidates. It's the failure of gamers in The Shire and Rohan to finish games and ask to be moved on.

Note that neither Mark nor I wrote the description for Gondor.

pio, when I say Mod or Moderator I mean your position, the one I had, Estelyn's, not facilitator or game initiator.

Formy, I really think it would be better to move away from the idea that a game needs to be approved--or nodded at--by a Moderator, because I think the entire atmosphere needs to be changed whereby people take ownership for their rpg-ing. Your "as a formality" is quite different from what I think is the case now with it's character bios and extended plot lines. I mean, right now animal characters are not allowed at the Meadhall. Where does that put the game My Crow Management, which was a Rohan game, where all the characters were crows?

And yes, Mnemosyne, Translations from the Elvish had a restricted list, but that was for very different reasons.

Sorry if I've skipped other points but RL is being very urgent and I have a PM to reply to from pio. :)

Nogrod

02-09-2011, 03:31 PM

I'm getting to like Form's suggestion more and more, especially after his clarifications on it.

But I'd also like to put some flesh on the bones here by way of asking a few questions. So where would you put the following RP's?

1) "I have this idea that a bunch of people should try to get into place X to warn the king about the on-falling war brewing. I have a few obstacles laid out for you guys so let's see can you overcome them?"

2) "I have this idea that we'd collect these bunch of people escaping from enslavement and then let them meet with some fugitives from an oppising race both in as bad condition: then we could see how they would relate to each other if they had a common enemy."

3) "I have this idea we take this group and they go wandering about the forests to see if there is any adventure brewing. Anyone with a god idea about an adventure should cme forwards."

4) "I have this idea of a Mead Hall where anyone could come and go but as not to bore ourselves by just playing only social relations like those morning-soap operas in TV let's invent some plots in there every now and then to liven things up?"

5) "I have this fan-fic story of mine I would like to make you perform. I'l tell you what to do and how to write and then you do the writing under my supreme control. Anticipate me correcting your posts if I don't like them."

6) "I have this idea of a game where this odd bunch (previously unrelated an different characters) would be thrown into a shipwreck being the sole survivors. Let's see then how they would get along with each other and how they would try to get themselves back to the land?"

7) "I have this basic storyline concerning the very first Atani getting over Morgoth's trickery and reaching Yavanna & Oromë. Do you think you're up to the challenge?"

As someone might have noticed, numbers 1-4 are actually near some actual games that have taken place here, and only numbers 5-7 are deliberately invented.

Now using Form's categories, I'd say that game-ideas 1, 5 and 7 should belong to "Doriath" and the others to "Rivendell". Case 2 could be discussed though as the "getting there" woud require some active leading from the part of the gameowner (or whatever the term for the initiator of the game would be), but after it reached the aimed condition it would sound to me more like a Rivendell one.

I don't think the length should be a decisive factor. The one initiating the game should tell others whether s/he's looking forwards to a long one or a short one - and the others could make their decisions to join or not also based on that.

But what I see coming through from these examples loud and clear is that the Doriath games would be much more dependent on the gameowner while the Rivendell ones could be more collectively led.

But that is no way a "writing-quality"-issue! I could see a bunch of creative and involved writers making a great story from 7) even if the gameowner had the basic outline of the story already planned - and I could see big egoes and non-co-operative players ruining story 6).

Also, from the form I deliberately took up there with my examples you can see that I do think we shoud open the ownership of the RP's to anyone. Anyone could suggest a game by opening a thread and if there were enough players interested in it the people interested could play it. And if there was not, then the gme woud not go on.

Okay, I can see a problem lurking here... With a new ruling given there might be a burst of new games offered and there could be something like a beauty or popularity contest involved.

Even if I do also belong to the camp carrying the cards of the "less rules, less regulation" -camp, I do think we should have a few basic rules & requirements. Like that those willing to set up their own game should have played at least in one game before it - so that the others had an idea of the person and her/his reliability as a gameowner etc. (This is something I think the werewolfing community has been wise enough to regulate themselves n that vein after a few bad experiences).

Taking Form's two categories would then leave us to decide on what to do with the Inns. My gut feeling would be the following.

Let's make the Scarburg Mead Hall a Rivendell game with a long history behind it.

The Golden Perch Inn I'm less clear about (I haven't been reading it in a long time so I'm not exactly sure how it goes nowadays). But I do think we should have a "boot camp" of sorts for those willing to familiarise themselves with RPG'ing in the 'Downs - and if it's not the GP, then we'd need to come up with a new one for that purpose (although it should be rewarding enough to the innkeeper and those others of us writing there when there is no imminent flow of new writers rushing in all the time :)).

Mnemosyne

02-09-2011, 03:53 PM

You're asking me if it's okay, but you haven't pointed out anything wrong with it. Even if you look at it purely from a story-writing perspective, which RPing is NOT purely (everyone looks at it differently; to some it is story writing, to some it is more like a game, to some it is more like 'acting' in writing so to speak, etc)...a story doesn't begin with all of its characters necessarily. Many characters are introduced later. Some show up for a brief time. If you insist on extreme organization and as you've mentioned, perfect continuity, you can enforce that in a game/story/thread you initiate. But why not let others started threads/stories/games that do not enforce that?

Which is why I switched very quickly to "this may be just a problem with me and my perspective." I guess I wouldn't mind seeing people try a game like that out, but it's just so different from anything I've encountered on the 'Downs that I don't know if the culture is there to maintain it. Worth a shot, though, and there's no real reason for me to object to allowing such games.

I love the idea of a subforum just running ideas through, though, and seeing if there's enough interest in a particular concept or style before investing time and effort in creating a game that no one else wants to play. That could easily replace a "mod must approve all games" system, and it'd be more democratic too.

mark12_30

02-09-2011, 04:10 PM

The Seventh Star is already a -- excuse the term-- free for all. But few post there. I wish more people would.

Formendacil

02-09-2011, 04:20 PM

I'm getting to like Form's suggestion more and more, especially after his clarifications on it.

But I'd also like to put some flesh on the bones here by way of asking a few questions. So where would you put the following RP's?

I'm actually going to answer all of these--not because I disagree with your guesses (though I've not looked at them in detail), but because this is a really excellent opportunity to explain the distinction I'm trying to make.

]1) "I have this idea that a bunch of people should try to get into place X to warn the king about the on-falling war brewing. I have a few obstacles laid out for you guys so let's see can you overcome them?"

I would say this is a Doriath game: the motivating idea is the plot, which is driven and known by the game owner, and the "I" in "I have a few obstacles laid out" is crucial.

2) "I have this idea that we'd collect these bunch of people escaping from enslavement and then let them meet with some fugitives from an opposing race both in as bad condition: then we could see how they would relate to each other if they had a common enemy."

This looks like a Rivendell game, because the main interest is in the interplay of characters, and its very open-ended in terms of what things will go. Its description pretty much begs for full player interaction to move the story along--the plot is contingent on characterisation.

3) "I have this idea we take this group and they go wandering about the forests to see if there is any adventure brewing. Anyone with a good idea about an adventure should come forwards."

This could go either way. Probably, if I were a mod, I'd nudge it in the direction of Rivendell, since the person suggesting it clearly doesn't want to run things that strongly. On the other hand, this might just be someone with an idea looking for a co-mod to work with in Doriath.

4) "I have this idea of a Mead Hall where anyone could come and go but as not to bore ourselves by just playing only social relations like those morning-soap operas in TV let's invent some plots in there every now and then to liven things up?"

Hey! I actually know what this one is. I'd call it a grandfather-clause exception to the rules, really--but agree it belongs in Rivendell. The mod is very much a facilitator in Rohan, rather than a game director, and the players are all very much involved in the direction the game take and the ownership of the game.

5) "I have this fan-fic story of mine I would like to make you perform. I'll tell you what to do and how to write and then you do the writing under my supreme control. Anticipate me correcting your posts if I don't like them."

Well, phrased that way, I can't imagine wanting to join (actually, not true... I'd be tempted if Fea or maybe Elempi were running it), but aside from that off-topic reality, it would clearly go in Doriath. Even though this could as easily be about character as plot, the game owner clearly intends to run things. As said, even this could be fun, with the right owner.

6) "I have this idea of a game where this odd bunch (previously unrelated an different characters) would be thrown into a shipwreck being the sole survivors. Let's see then how they would get along with each other and how they would try to get themselves back to the land?"

Strikes me as another Rivendell story, because the "game owner" (for lack of clear, accurate, synonym) is proposing the idea rather than planning to run it. Once again, the emphasis on characterisation is a good shorthand way of telling that this will be a player consensus game rather than a owner-rule game.

7) "I have this basic storyline concerning the very first Atani getting over Morgoth's trickery and reaching Yavanna & Oromë. Do you think you're up to the challenge?"

I'd call this a Doriath game in the absence of any more info, but it would depend. There's a clear, defined plot that, to me, suggests the game owner plans to be in charge of the overall arc, nudging things in the right direction... but this could also be run with as a Rivendell game, where it's put forward as a game premise.

I don't think the length should be a decisive factor. The one initiating the game should tell others whether s/he's looking forwards to a long one or a short one - and the others could make their decisions to join or not also based on that.

To me, length isn't decisive, but I do think it needs to be considered, particularly in "Doriath" cases. My reasoning is that when a game's creator is going to have a strong guiding hand in his/her game, then the players should have a clear commitment from that creator to be around for a defined period of time. In "Rivendell" this may be less crucial, since the whole game isn't as dependent on a single leader, but I think it's still fair to have an expected timeframe.

In other words, I wouldn't consign short games to Doriath and long ones to Rivendell (or vice versa), but I do think that Doriath games (at least) should have a planned timeframe. These can always be extended, but whether it's two weeks or two years, telling players how long a game is likely to last is an act of commitment on the part of the game owner, and given the responsibility an owner has in Doriath, that seems fair to me.

But what I see coming through from these examples loud and clear is that the Doriath games would be much more dependent on the gameowner while the Rivendell ones could be more collectively led.

But that is no way a "writing-quality"-issue! I could see a bunch of creative and involved writers making a great story from 7) even if the gameowner had the basic outline of the story already planned - and I could see big egoes and non-co-operative players ruining story 6).

Exactly the idea! I have no problem against particular games being invitation-only, either in Doriath or Rivendell, and if the game owner/proposer wants (and can get!) the best of the best writers, it will be a joy to read... but we don't need a separate forum for it.

Also, from the form I deliberately took up there with my examples you can see that I do think we should open the ownership of the RP's to anyone. Anyone could suggest a game by opening a thread and if there were enough players interested in it the people interested could play it. And if there was not, then the game would not go on.

Agreed--and this was an implicit assumption in my proposal.

Okay, I can see a problem lurking here... With a new ruling given there might be a burst of new games offered and there could be something like a beauty or popularity contest involved.

I... would love to see that. My own bet is that we'll be lucky to have a few ground-breakers to pave the way. As excited as well all are, our numbers aren't dense, and most of us have been around so long (and might be too jaded) that we might not want to go first. Additionally, I think enough of us have played WW that we can see the benefits in "taking turns" to an extent (though we need to be one game at a time, I doubt anyone is up for playing in more than two or so at a given moment).

Formy, I really think it would be better to move away from the idea that a game needs to be approved--or nodded at--by a Moderator, because I think the entire atmosphere needs to be changed whereby people take ownership for their rpg-ing. Your "as a formality" is quite different from what I think is the case now with it's character bios and extended plot lines. I mean, right now animal characters are not allowed at the Meadhall. Where does that put the game My Crow Management, which was a Rohan game, where all the characters were crows?

Insofar as you're quite right that my "as a formality" is intended to be quite different from the status quo, I have no problem with moving away from the idea that a game needs approval. Personally, I think it is still helpful to run game plans by someone else--and having a mod gives you someone with an "official" standing whose job is to listen to such schemes--but insofar as it was only a formality I had in mind, it's easily dropped. My main thought about it was to safeguard the right of the forum mods to close or veto games, and that it would save people embarrassment if this happened before a thread was started, rather than after. If, however, that still smacks too much of the current regime, I (at least) have no problem with post-thread-starting moderation. As has been said, it does seem to work elsewhere on the Downs with little enough problem...

Formendacil

02-09-2011, 04:23 PM

Nogrod

02-09-2011, 04:24 PM

I love the idea of a subforum just running ideas through, though, and seeing if there's enough interest in a particular concept or style before investing time and effort in creating a game that no one else wants to play. That could easily replace a "mod must approve all games" system, and it'd be more democratic too.It might even be just a thread - or two threads (one for Doriath and one for Rivendell - or whatever the names would be)?

I mean here we could use the experiences of the ww-community. There we have the Tol-In-Gaurhoth -thread where people basically keep the queue of who's the next mod, what kind of games people have in mind, what kind of games people crave for, make their general views on the game as such heard etc.

Mutatis mutandis, we could make somewhat similar threads for RPG'ing. People could there offer their ideas for games, probing whether their game ideas would gain interest and players, ask for certain kinds of games, discuss general issues bout the RP's...

On another note: I have been talking about "games" all the time although I do remember I had a real problem with that term in the beginning (now I think I have just grown used to it). I feel the same way as some others here in not thinking an RP is a game but collaboral writing, role-playing, storytelling, having fun together... but not a "game" in a way WW is clearly a game.

Mithalwen

02-09-2011, 05:08 PM

I don't think we need to get to hung up on many game rules on a forum wide level. I do think the person running it (if there is one) should have a degree of control since they are the one putting in the hard yakka. I think in a way this is more of an issue since gaming is so sparse, it has to be one size fits all. To take something positive from the werewolf games you know the style of game on offer before you sign up and if the current one doesn't suit you there will be another that might shortly. So I know I will never get my head around Duelling wizards but can sometimes be tempted by another concept or a short and sweet classic game.

If a set of expectations have been set up at the beginning of a game then any fundamental changes must be by negotiation and consensus not by fait accompli and the "Its my ball and I'm going home now" type of argument. If you don't want to collaborate then go write fanfic.

That said if their is an individual taking the burden of organisation then the WW Doctrine of the divine right of moderators should apply to them! All this talk of democracy I find rather seditious and dangerous. Before we know it the RPG forum will be an anarcho-syndicalist commune and we will be taking turns to act as a sort of executive officer each week whose decisions have to be ratified at bi-weekly meetings.:cool:

Basically there may be games that are like a dinner party - one or two people are organising, providing choosing the menu, setting the table, picking thr playlist etc and games that are like a potluck picnic. And possibly degrees in between.

As for Gondor. I don't have a problem with it but it hasn't really impinged on my life? death? - time on the downs and that is nearly seven years now.

Mithadan

02-09-2011, 05:15 PM

Lot to think about here.

If, hypothetically (meaning no promises), we move to a system where a member can just start up a game, how do we control quantity and quality.

By quantity, I mean this. One of the big problems with the old freestyle RPG forum was that everyone and their assorted brothers, sisters and first cousins once removed was starting up a game and, of course, there were not enough players to go around and 90% of them failed.

Quality is more obvious. Canonicity, a reasonable level of writing effort, if not skill, etc. A workable premise or story. It strikes me that retaining "veto" power would be more potentially embarrassing and annoying to a game facilitator/owner than some sort of simplified proposal process.

I lived through the trouble. The complaints, the chatspeak, the use of RPGs to socialize rather than roleplay. I have no desire to live through that again. I fully acknowledge that everyone who has been posting here has some degree of longetivity and pedigree on the Downs. But once the door is opened...

Mithalwen

02-09-2011, 05:26 PM

Formendacil

02-09-2011, 05:31 PM

By quantity, I mean this. One of the big problems with the old freestyle RPG forum was that everyone and their assorted brothers, sisters and first cousins once removed was starting up a game and, of course, there were not enough players to go around and 90% of them failed.

This problem, of course, had a lot to do with the massive influx of Downers that came with the Movies. Given the much quieter times we have at the moment, I'm not sure this would be a problem at the present moment--most people involved in RPing have been around long enough that we can give them credit for at least a modicum of sense.

Quality is more obvious. Canonicity, a reasonable level of writing effort, if not skill, etc. A workable premise or story. It strikes me that retaining "veto" power would be more potentially embarrassing and annoying to a game facilitator/owner than some sort of simplified proposal process.

Doing away with an intensive Mod-screening doesn't mean that the rules of conduct on the gaming forums need disappear. A Tolkien-valid premise, a reasonable effort at writing, no chat speak (etc) would still be assumed--and, indeed, remain forum-wide rules.

Personally, I think both questions of quality and quantity would be fairly well answered by the common sense of our gamers. I don't think we'd see an overabundance of games, because even if we had scores of game owners wanting to start something... they wouldn't get anywhere if they couldn't find enough recruits. There might be a flurry of threads (or posts on an announcement board -like thread), but the majority would quickly subside, and we'd only be left with those that garnered enough support--and I daresay that we could reasonably expect these to be the best of the pack. The other ideas would either have to be retooled (made better) to attract attention, or be put aside until their were more people involved.

Formendacil

02-09-2011, 05:38 PM

I don't think the game proposal thing is a negative. It does mean the proposer has to think something through which can only help avoid problems. Especially for novices. A more experienced game proposer is hardly likely to be fazed by the procedure.

Obviously, I have no problems with a proposal process. Indeed, I never really imagined there would be no proposals. The freedom to start games without Moderatory fiat doesn't mean that the game doesn't have to be pitched. Proposals could just as easily be made on a public discussion thread for that purpose. This would still allow the rookie game owners to benefit from drawing up a proposal, and it would allow them to benefit from the experience and wisdom of their peers, who could (as a jury) be far more effective in "passing judgment" than the Mod (as a judge) could ever be alone.

Really, the game proposals, as used now, are put directly to the Mod (Pio), but they scarcely differ in content from what we would put out there to attract the other players. The only real difference, under the new system, is that the proposal could be put directly to the players.

EDIT: In other words, the chief point of the proposal in the current form, as I understand it, is to make sure the game owner covers all the important bases. Putting the proposal out for feedback and/or to attract players would undoubtedly result in the same bases being covered--though I agree it helps keep everything in one place if a consistent form is used each time (like the rule posts in WW).

Mithalwen

02-09-2011, 05:45 PM

Mithadan

02-09-2011, 05:49 PM

At least a judge may be consistent....:eek:

What court do you practice in?

Formendacil

02-09-2011, 06:02 PM

By player you mean any random person who happened to be passing or people whose opinion have established validity? I'd rather have Pio. Juries are too unpredictacble and can't think of anything worse than having something you have sweated kittens over shang-haied by a self appointed committee of people who won't do anything but criticise. At least a judge may be consistent....

Perhaps the court analogy is more apt than I thought: the jury may render a conviction, but only the judge may pass sentence.

...in this case, the analogy being that the unwashed masses may proclaim your game a dud, but if the Mod doesn't squash it, you're still completely entitled to play it out.

Mithalwen

02-09-2011, 06:05 PM

I did say may and I don't practise anywhere myself, but in my youth trailed at times after my pa who was a Crown Prosecutor ..he tended to know what to expect from the Magistrates good or bad.. I think there were a few "heartsinks". But that is what 25 years in a rural backwater does for you. More predictable than juries - we can't cherry pick them here and you tend to get numpties who haven't the nous to get excused. Other than that my legal experience consists of working for licensing lawyers for a while and spending most of my time seeing if we could tip our boss into physical or mental collapse first.:Merisu:

Now if there is anyone left who I haven't annoyed or offended, please form an orderly queue and I'll get back to you...:D

Firefoot

02-09-2011, 06:09 PM

I think the hope is that the RPG fora would be able to start self-regulating itself more, like Werewolf does. I think that some sort of discussion forum would be really helpful for this (Durelin - I didn't understand that that's what you were getting at :) ). In this case, I think it would be helpful to have entire forum/subforum rather than just one large thread like werewolf, since it would get confusing if people were trying to talk about more than one idea at once.

Mithalwen

02-09-2011, 06:26 PM

Perhaps the court analogy is more apt than I thought: the jury may render a conviction, but only the judge may pass sentence.

...in this case, the analogy being that the unwashed masses may proclaim your game a dud, but if the Mod doesn't squash it, you're still completely entitled to play it out.

But a proposer isn't actually on trial are they they are trying to do something creative and I think it is rather crueller to have a jury shooting something down in flames in public than have a Forum mod suggein private that a bit more thought or work is necessary. Going for some sort of committee I think could end up with too many chiefs and not enough indians.... like this old tale

I was once in charge of a rowing team and I employed many managers to assess and streamline the strategy.

On our first race we lost by a mile.

On the debrief it was noted that the other team had eight rowers and one cox, where we had one rower and eight coxes.

I then set up a steering committee, sub-steering committee, oversight committee and cost analysis committee.

After one year and thousands of pounds it was concluded that we did not have enough rowers.

However the new managers brought in meant there was no longer any space for rowers and we lost the next race by two miles.

The rower was fired for poor performance, the management team was rewarded for the expert deductions and were paid a bonus from the sale of the oars and boat.

There seems to more interest in organising than doing ...

Formendacil

02-09-2011, 06:38 PM

But a proposer isn't actually on trial are they they are trying to do something creative and I think it is rather crueller to have a jury shooting something down in flames in public than have a Forum mod suggein private that a bit more thought or work is necessary. Going for some sort of committee I think could end up with too many chiefs and not enough indians.... like this old tale

Well, the option is always there for a potential game mod to bounce ideas back and forth with the Mod--or with anyone else, for that matter. Removing the requirement that game owners run ideas by the Mod doesn't mean that the Mod's inbox will be closed to people. And, speaking for myself anyway, it's always exciting to get a PM on the Downs (so rare these days...), and to be asked advice about something.

Perhaps the analogy of the court is a bad one, though, if the image of the jury is one that you're shying away from. The idea of a forum to bounce ideas around on was not (if I may say so, not having suggested it originally) intended to be one of judgment and picking things apart, but one of brainstorming and picking people's brains.

It's possible I have a somewhat rosy view of what a brainstorming forum could be, but I'd like to think (on the strength of the sort of discussion that goes on in the Scarburg Planning Thread) that the RPers on the Downs could be constructive and polite in such an environment.

Mithalwen

02-09-2011, 06:49 PM

Formendacil

02-09-2011, 07:07 PM

Maybe but I look at the Scarburg Meadhall discussion thread and feel that it is completely unapproachable and too much for an outsider to get a handle on. All this bouncing around ideas and discussing what you are going to do just takes energy away from actually doing anything, Reminds me too much interminable work meetings where you end up playing that form of bingo that naming would get me modded. I used to have a sign on my desk that said that meetings were the management sanctioned alternative to work. I can't think of anything much more likely to ensure I never RPGed again. Of course that might be a good thing. :D

I aver that that would not be a good thing. However, I hope it's not looking like someone would *have* to participate in a brainstorming sub-forum, if we had one. There would be nothing stopping you from working up a proposal on your own (as you could now), using a publicly available proposal form (as you could now--I, at least, see no reason to get rid of a useful Sticky, if emended to make it clear that you didn't have to submit it to a Mod for approval). You could still PM it to a Mod (you just wouldn't have to), and you'd still have to find players, either by audition or invitation (which is the case now).

That being said... I can see how there might be a danger of getting a band of people hanging out in the brainstorming room who were always there but never in a game... but I don't think that's a particularly great concern. For one thing, these things tend to police themselves--most people don't comment on the WW planning threads unless they are playing or normally play. Likewise, if I don't intend to play my character "today", I assiduously avoid the Meadhall planning threads (though that may just be me...)

What's more, I think we've got a better chance of sucking people in if we have a sort of "halfway" zone between being deeply ensconced in a game and not involved at all. To rely on personal anecdote again, I tend to get sucked into games two ways: 1. by direct invitation (never happened, the last couple years) or 2. by hanging around too long in a "gaming" atmosphere... and on the Downs the only place I've found for that kind of casual contact has been the Meadhall planning threads, which I faithfully read, but rarely engage out of a fear that I'll look bad for planning all the time and never playing. If we had a brainstorming forum, well... I'd be like I am on this thread: engaging completely with a RP environment and finding myself sucked without knowing it back into a game.

Also, let's just ignore the fact that I've been following this thread all day with more interest and excitement than any of the WW games I've played in the last few years. Anyone with game plans for the "new world order," assuming these discussions come to fruition, bear in mind that I will be ripe for the plucking.

Failing that, I always have that RP proposal I showed Boro last year. :p

Bêthberry

02-09-2011, 07:13 PM

My, this thread is moving fast! Almost feels like the old days!

Without having time to follow all the legal jokes here, I would like to clarify my ideas in response to Mithadan's concerns.

Lot to think about here.

If, hypothetically (meaning no promises), we move to a system where a member can just start up a game, how do we control quantity and quality.

By quantity, I mean this. One of the big problems with the old freestyle RPG forum was that everyone and their assorted brothers, sisters and first cousins once removed was starting up a game and, of course, there were not enough players to go around and 90% of them failed.

Quality is more obvious. Canonicity, a reasonable level of writing effort, if not skill, etc. A workable premise or story. It strikes me that retaining "veto" power would be more potentially embarrassing and annoying to a game facilitator/owner than some sort of simplified proposal process.

I lived through the trouble. The complaints, the chatspeak, the use of RPGs to socialize rather than roleplay. I have no desire to live through that again. I fully acknowledge that everyone who has been posting here has some degree of longetivity and pedigree on the Downs. But once the door is opened...

First of all, I also have no desire to return to the Troubles. I don't mean cart blanche or anyone can start a game or anything goes. So let me backtrack a bit to explain my thinking.

First of all, we have difficulty with people posting regularly and/or dropping out of games. I know that pio and Child have worked assiduously to keep games on track, with regular reminders and even joined in games to keep them going. Their effort has been stellar. So we had the rules about keeping to a time line and that didn't ensure that gamers actually followed the rules. They just abandoned the games. And I think that's for more than just real life conflicts.

So I've been wondering what motivates people, what inspires them to maintain a personal stake/interest in something? One answer I came up with was ownership. Where people feel they have a personal say in the situation, a chance to really contribute, they tend to be happier and more productive.

So I was thinking about what would increase the sense of ownership or responsibility? Maybe the idea that they had to be accountable to themselves and to their fellow gamers and game readers rather than to a Moderator, however benevolent.

I was also working with my own boredom in games where all the fun and creativity went into the planning and then the actual writing of posts was just a formality, which became onerous. There was little room for actually plotting the game or developing character once a really far developed "lesson plan" was in place, and no surprises and unexpected challenges which tweaked interest. I kept looking for the "writerly moment", somewhat akin to teacher's "teaching moment". Are gamers actually reading posts and seeing what is expressed and wondering how that influences what is to come? Or are they just seeing a post done and what's next on the list of the plan? And I also think that writing closely to someone else's idea of what the game is/should be can reduce a gamer's input to being simply a hack or ghost writer. That's not fun or creative.

Would this kind of personal input or personal responsibility help gamers stay in a game? Or help gamers create games?

I don't think this necessarily means that anyone can start a game. I think we can still keep guidelines for clear, correct English, Canonicity (of whatever degree), and the expectation that games/play eventually lead somewhere and have a termination. (I know with my life these days, I cannot commit to anything that is completely open-ended and if a game goes past the anticipated time, likely I would have to withdraw.) And I think we can still ask new gamers to play in X-number of games before they start their own. We can also limit the number of games people join to ensure they actually do write for one. I think we can still have forum Moderators who oversee the forums and provide advice. But I think that once someone has proven themselves, why ask them to submit detailed plans and character bios? We only learn about ourselves and who we are in response to the events and actions which life forces upon us, so why should we expect our characters to be written in stone before they see any action?

Of course, that opportunity for freedom hasn't led to games in Gondor, so maybe that isn't all that inspiring. But I think that less emphasis on procedures and on authority (which will still exist, to close/delete/advice/ban etc) might help create an atmosphere where role players are as enthusiastic as the WW gamers. There the gamers can actually participate in creating the outcome of the game, which is not a foregone conclusion.

Sorry, must go prepare a late dinner now for family. I hope this answers at least Mithadan's concern over completely unfettered chaos.

And, pio, thanks for putting Bonfire Glade on the Rohan list. I looked at the Gondor list and don't think I saw "Lonely Star". Did that finish before Gondor? I thought it was a Gondorian game.

Mithadan

02-09-2011, 07:31 PM

The various iterations of Lonely Star are docked in Elvenhome.

piosenniel

02-09-2011, 07:54 PM

Bêthberry

While the Lonely Star was wonderful game to play, it just can't be counted in the canon oriented atmosphere of the present RP system . . . ;)

Durelin

02-09-2011, 08:13 PM

Re: Bethberry's Post -- YES.

I was going to just post the above but I of course had to add some rambles.

I think we can still keep guidelines for clear, correct English, Canonicity (of whatever degree), and the expectation that games/play eventually lead somewhere and have a termination.

I agree. And I don't think we should have very high expectations, and shun new players/writers. When I started RPing on here at 13, the atmosphere was a little more open to someone of my limited ability and...such.... But things were daunting beyond the Green Dragon and my first RPs with other players who did not RP in such a monolithic, perfect prose style... And the mods were always nice, ENDLESSLY patient with me, and encouraging... As long as we do not put up walls against the unknown 'new' people, including those who might not meet certain people's 'expectations,' but rather provide a place for them to learn and grow and all that jazz....but yes, I agree that rules are necessary for encouraging a certain style (or level if you want to call it that) of RP.

And yes...when I talk of open RPs that do not have a set out major storyline, plot points, etc., and do not have a *set* end...they still end! People like closure. So once you've made it somewhere you like, you end the RP. And if the players abandon a game/thread before it reaches an end? Of course you just remove the thread.

And just to toss this out there...if you're looking for a 100% success rate (meaning every game/thread started is completed in a reasonable amount of time or whatever)...you're never going to be happy. Games/threads are going to fail. They're going to die. People are going to disappear. You just have to have enough interest and momentum in the RP forum overall that it doesn't matter. That *everything* doesn't start to stagnate. No, I don't really know how you get that. But I agree with Bethberry's suggestions.

Snowdog

02-09-2011, 08:27 PM

I agree with Durelin & Bêthberry's last posts. I think it may free up some creativity.

If a fraction of the energy put into this thread the last week or so was put toward RP'ng, it would be an active place indeed.

Mithadan

02-09-2011, 08:35 PM

Good. So we have a consensus that we are going to have rules. That's good because... we're going to have rules. :D Some things are non-negotiable.

Snowdog

02-09-2011, 08:50 PM

... in other words... all this was a waste of time ...

Durelin

02-09-2011, 09:00 PM

I think the point was defending the idea of giving players a lot more free rein. People like to dry a line and say on one side is order and the other is chaos. I can't speak for Bethberry, who had more to her post than this anyway but, I was reiterating that the open forum idea is NOT the 'Wild West' it's so jokingly referred to as.

Mithadan

02-09-2011, 10:14 PM

Waste of time? Hardly.

Yes there will be rules. Sorry. Snowdog, if you can't commit to at least canonicity, commitment, effort, and a definable tale with an end point (however you do it) I don't understand what you are looking for. Honestly, I looked at the posts above and thought everyone agreed there needed to be SOME rules.

You all are trying to convince me that: (1) we don't need as many rules; and (2) that you can not only create your own games without us looking over your shoulder and that your colleagues will demonstrate commitment, effort and a degree of skill with minimal mod involvement.

I will give you enough rope. You will either hang yourselves or make us proud. But there will be rules. What those rules will be is open to discussion. I have my own ideas, but I'm willing to be convinced.

Snowdog

02-09-2011, 11:26 PM

I’m not trying to convince you, or anyone else, of anything. Not sure where you got what you say I want either. I don’t “want” anything. I stated my opinion on how a single RP I was involved in transpired. I failed to ever find much creative RP freedom here, but a series of procedural rules, overbearing “game” moderation, etc. Change whatever you want here, or don’t change anything at all. It won’t affect me one way or another. All this wasn’t a waste of time. It helped me realize that I should know better than to get involved in RP here as I’m not a “gamer”. I have places I can write collaborative RP at, and this isn’t, or doubtfully will be, it. Have a nice day. :smokin:

Mithadan

02-10-2011, 12:08 AM

Change whatever you want here, or don’t change anything at all. It won’t affect me one way or another.

Very well. I trust you won't be offering any more "suggestions" here then.

As for everyone else, let's get back to working in a constructive fashion. We have a forum to rebuild. I would like to have my last set of questions answered. Do we set a limit on numbers of games running, at least until we understand how many gamers we have or do we trust the members to hash things out and if so how will this happen? One thing I would like to see is a requirement that a member participate in at least a game or two here before he or she can open a game on their own. And do we want Mod approval before starting a game or not? If a proposal is being discussed openly in a forum, realistically, how much extra work is it for someone to send PIO or whoever a PM and say "Take a look at this..."

Almost all the people posting on this thread are long time and committed Downers. I think change is needed and and am very willing to take some chances and experiment. If something doesn't work, we can change things again. But we need a framework. I am trying really hard to not impose a framework from "above". So I really want help from you all.

Mnemosyne

02-10-2011, 12:43 AM

Do we set a limit on numbers of games running, at least until we understand how many gamers we have or do we trust the members to hash things out and if so how will this happen?

If we have a thread to discuss new ideas, I think that "when will I have time for this?" will come up reasonably often. Meaning, people can bring up some really great ideas there, but if the writers who are currently involved don't have the time to commit, they can 1). suggest some names to PM, and 2). if that fails, wait till another RP either finishes or perishes and then start up the new one. I don't like the prospect of writers stretching themselves too thin, and thus dragging multiple games down (whereas if they had committed to a smaller number they could have done more), but-- I think that each writer will better be able to police that on her own. If overstretching ends up being a problem, I think we'll be able to tell that after the fact, and reduce the number of games that can run at one time accordingly. But currently, I don't think there's any good way to know.

If we decide to do a public discussion of game thread opportunities, the main thing to do is to make sure that we're all supportive and welcoming of new ideas and new players. The mod would have to be willing to step in and get her hands dirty if we aren't. I don't see a problem with the discussion thread per se, but I do understand the arguments of Mith that a discussion thread could be more intimidating and have a greater risk of abuse and bullying. That's another cultural thing, though.

One thing I would like to see is a requirement that a member participate in at least a game or two here before he or she can open a game on their own.

I don't have a problem with this as long as there are games being offered that encourage new participation. I also think that keeping up at least one inn with nice, low-stress (I'm with Durelin on scrapping the character sheet requirements for the inns) interactions is good, and if there isn't anyone new stopping in, current players in other games should keep the hearth burning--and inviting new people in!

And do we want Mod approval before starting a game or not? If a proposal is being discussed openly in a forum, realistically, how much extra work is it for someone to send PIO or whoever a PM and say "Take a look at this..."

I see your point. I don't care much one way or the other--I'm definitely leaning towards some kind of pre-game-seeding discussion, whether open or closed, or both, but it should be as informal as possible. But I understand the arguments in either direction, including those who would rather just let games be posted and then taken down if they don't garner followers or if they demonstrably break a rule (say, an RP that is not Tolkien related in the least). And I don't think my reasons for leaning towards vetting are entirely rational.

Mithalwen

02-10-2011, 04:02 AM

Snowdog

02-10-2011, 05:02 AM

Very well. I trust you won't be offering any more "suggestions" here then.

No, I won't. Cheers.

Mithadan

02-10-2011, 06:45 AM

Mithalwen (can't call you Mith, too confusing), I'm not necessarily saying no bios or anything yet. These are all issues to be decided. I would suppose that game proposals would be discussed in one thread and bios would be discussed in the RPG discussion thread.

Mithalwen

02-10-2011, 07:12 AM

Indeed, I am aware that I don't have first dibs on the abbreviation but people will use it.:rolleyes: And if I had realised how much time I was going to spend here I might have been more original.

I just meant that when rules are looked at it should be borne in mind what function they serve and if you eliminate them how is the function going to be fulfilled. It may be that a simple character bio is easier than saying "your first post must describe your character" and then somehow indexing that first post for the reference of othet players. I do know that some characters develop as they are played but in the inns in particular it is helpful to have something to go on.. .and to make sure the characters are in the right century.

mark12_30

02-10-2011, 10:34 AM

Bêthberry

While the Lonely Star was wonderful game to play, it just can't be counted in the canon oriented atmosphere of the present RP system . . . ;)

Yes.

And no. For a non-canonical game it had some extremely canonical phases,especially if you can justify the crystal. Doggone it, we did some wild things, but we also managed to keep it pretty Tolkienish. Even if we did have a few knock-down-drag-out fistfights, Mith brought us back in order. Besides, it still amazes me as a player to be able to say "I remember the drowning of Beleriand." Makes me feel ancient.

OK, before I get chat-squerled, I'll return to the topic at hand. I'm not on page six yet obviously. But at the moment I'm getting the sense that 3/4 participants in this discussion only need a good excuse and a reason to boot, and you'd be off and running in a fine Gondorian game. Only Gondorian game-starters haven't started any lately. I suggest a compromise that could easily happen under the present "regime" without any changes at all: write up a proposal just like you would for Rohan; walk in character into the Seventh Star and discuss the venture over an ale; and ask whether there are any Gondorian game-starters interested in such a game who would be willing to start it.

I'm not trying to create anarchy (Mithadan, Sir.) Just bringing this out as a possible option.

Someone also brought up the point that not all charaters need be in the game the whole time. C7A invited me into Lonely Star when it was 3/5 done, for characters that were undreamt of when the game started. Not sure why that no longer seems to happen, but, if there is a rule to that effect, I could certainly see making room for add-in characters.

mark12_30

02-10-2011, 10:42 AM

I don't want to be perpetually negative - really I don't, but if you scrap character bios completely you make it very hard for new people to get started since not only do they have to pick up what is going on if anything (it took me hours upon hours to get a definitive "Story so far" for the cooks disappearance in the Golden Perch when I was trying to pick up that thread. If you don't give people an easy handle on at least what people look like you make if very hard for both new people to get started and indeed existing people to welcome them.

A full life history might be unnecessary, but I do think at least a bit of a description of what a character looks like would make it easier.

Indeed. The phrase "character sketch" comes to mind. Give me enough to go on.

However, do I really need to know where your character attended primary school...? Surprise me once in a while. Please. Enough of Tolkien's characters surprised even him (Aragorn, Faramir) that I think it is perfectly canonical and in the spirit of Tolkien to discover characters as we go. The team should be free to provide guidance-- no Jedis, please-- but I agree also with Bethberry[/] that unexpected twists and turns, including new people, are what make writing a pleasure. What would we have done without came-out-of-absolutely-nowhere-[B]Kali in The Lonely Star?

Formendacil

02-10-2011, 10:45 AM

I don't want to be perpetually negative - really I don't, but if you scrap character bios completely you make it very hard for new people to get started since not only do they have to pick up what is going on if anything (it took me hours upon hours to get a definitive "Story so far" for the cooks disappearance in the Golden Perch when I was trying to pick up that thread. If you don't give people an easy handle on at least what people look like you make if very hard for both new people to get started and indeed existing people to welcome them.

A full life history might be unnecessary, but I do think at least a bit of a description of what a character looks like would make it easier.

Perhaps surprisingly, after yesterday's rounds of pleasant disagreement, I agree with Mith here. While it might be a good idea to truncate the character bios somewhat--I agree with the point that its hard to know what a character is like before you've even met him--doing away with them altogether will make things more difficult. Character bios--especially those grouped together on a planning thread--are a convenient short-cut for other players acquainting themselves with the other people in the game, and they're also helpful for the player in terms of establishing the basics of their character. That is to say, while you may not know the full history and/or inner workings of your character, you're going to know from the get-go if your character is a Hobbit, 56 years old, skilled, unmarried, craftsman from Michel Delving, and you'll know if he's tall, ruddy-cheeked, dark-haired, well dressed, etc.

piosenniel

02-10-2011, 11:07 AM

Would this do? It's the abbreviated Character Sketch used for the Meadhall. It gives just the basics and also allows for those players who want to flesh their character out more fully:

NAME:

AGE/GENDER/RACE/WHERE FROM:

APPEARANCE (very brief physical description/or as detailed as the player wishes to be):

BITS OF CHARACTER/HISTORY YOU FEEL MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN DEFINING THE CHARACTER
(again, as brief or detailed as you wish):

mark12_30

02-10-2011, 11:13 AM

Pio, I like it.

Mithadan, I went hunting for your questions that you want answered-- if I missed some please let me know. I'm reposting them for your perusal and editing.

You all are trying to convince me that: (1) we don't need as many rules; and (2) that you can not only create your own games without us looking over your shoulder and that your colleagues will demonstrate commitment, effort and a degree of skill with minimal mod involvement.

If, hypothetically (meaning no promises), we move to a system where a member can just start up a game, how do we control quantity ....

and Quality? (Quality is more obvious. Canonicity, a reasonable level of writing effort, if not skill, etc. A workable premise or story. )

It strikes me that retaining "veto" power would be more potentially embarrassing and annoying to a game facilitator/owner than some sort of simplified proposal process.

Do we set a limit on numbers of games running, at least until we understand how many gamers we have or do we trust the members to hash things out and if so how will this happen?

One thing I would like to see is a requirement that a member participate in at least a game or two here before he or she can open a game on their own.

And do we want Mod approval before starting a game or not? If a proposal is being discussed openly in a forum, realistically, how much extra work is it for someone to send PIO or whoever a PM and say "Take a look at this..."

Bêthberry

02-10-2011, 11:19 AM

I don't want to hog the conversation here and would like to see others comment on Mithadan's request and Formy's proposal, but I also would like to address Mithalwen's concerns about character bios and the Inns (Note: not games, just inns) because I think her insecurity about posting demonstrates something important and I would hope we can address such issues so players don't have to feel so insecure about joining in.

It shouldn't matter if someone gets someone's eye colour wrong in an Inn. (After all, even Tolkien wasn't consistent on some of his.) It shouldn't matter that something a week ago is vitally relevant to a new entry--if that element is so vital, it should be in play.

Ideally, inns should be more improvisational and less structured in order to accommodate newcomers. It should be possible to drop in and run with an idea or easily pick up a theme already in progress; there should be "hooks" or things that a newcomer can pick up on in recent posts. If something is so complex that it requires extensive back reading, then that something defeats the purpose of providing an informal interactive role playing situation: the inn is already too complex for newcomers.

Character bios even for games can often become similar to police rap sheets: detailing physical characteristics enough that a felon can be apprehended, but really not saying much about how the character will interact. In an inn, it should be the action in play that garners the attention and not necessarily or particularly an all-encompassing view of a character. When we read fiction, we don't get all the details at once up front, but must read selectively to gather what is needed to follow the play. That, ideally, is how an informal inn can operate.

If a player wants to, he or she can write a bio for his character as a helpful reminder, but to ask players to post bios for an Inn sort of defeats the purpose of the improvisational play. It already makes the role playing into something formal, rather than an exploration. And it detracts from what is supposed to be the main or important writing: the actual thread. When gamers become so fixated on external documents, they lose track of how to write really interactive narrative. And that's what an inn is supposed to do: help players learn how to develop a game and action by actually practicing in a small on-going one.

This of course is just my opinion. But I would hope that the rules--necessary rules, I agree with Mithadan--don't sound so much like a reflection of what has stimied games in the past that they continue to create insecurity for newcomers. Someone on this thread referred to The Shire as a place where gamers are babysat. If that condition of being babysat (assuming that statement is valid) continues, then I would argue it will defeat attempts to help gamers become, as Firefoot said, self-regulating and more independent. At the very least, I would hope that at least one Inn would function without requiring extraneous documents like character bios.

And I would hope that in addition to the forms now used for structuring games there would also be some direction about how to develop the more interactive role playing (First, to avoid the free-fall of the Troubles. :eek: And second to avoid the appearance that only that structure is acceptable.)

Okay, I'm outta here.

EDIT: cross posted with pio and Mark.

Durelin

02-10-2011, 02:52 PM

You all are trying to convince me that: (1) we don't need as many rules; and (2) that you can not only create your own games without us looking over your shoulder and that your colleagues will demonstrate commitment, effort and a degree of skill with minimal mod involvement.

I will give you enough rope. You will either hang yourselves or make us proud. But there will be rules. What those rules will be is open to discussion. I have my own ideas, but I'm willing to be convinced.

I understand, you're an admin, you're in charge. You get to decide if we live up to your *standards.* But just remember...you do need members to have a forum.

mark12_30

02-10-2011, 03:35 PM

Whoa, easy. Deep breath, all.

I know what a power struggle looks like. I don't see a power struggle here. Consider this statement:

It strikes me that retaining "veto" power would be more potentially embarrassing and annoying to a game facilitator/owner than some sort of simplified proposal process.

...that is not the statement of a man obsessed with power; that is a statement from a man who doesn't like to see people hurt. That is consistent with the man I know. I have seen him battling to resolve conflicts between players several times.

We are in negotiation. Let's maintain an open attitude, and an honest effort to invigorate something we all value.

Breathe in, breathe out...

Mithalwen

02-10-2011, 03:43 PM

I don't want to hog the conversation here and would like to see others comment on Mithadan's request and Formy's proposal, but I also would like to address Mithalwen's concerns about character bios and the Inns (Note: not games, just inns) because I think her insecurity about posting demonstrates something important and I would hope we can address such issues so players don't have to feel so insecure about joining in.

It shouldn't matter if someone gets someone's eye colour wrong in an Inn. (After all, even Tolkien wasn't consistent on some of his.) It shouldn't matter that something a week ago is vitally relevant to a new entry--if that element is so vital, it should be in play.

Ideally, inns should be more improvisational and less structured in order to accommodate newcomers. It should be possible to drop in and run with an idea or easily pick up a theme already in progress; there should be "hooks" or things that a newcomer can pick up on in recent posts. If something is so complex that it requires extensive back reading, then that something defeats the purpose of providing an informal interactive role playing situation: the inn is already too complex for newcomers.

Character bios even for games can often become similar to police rap sheets: detailing physical characteristics enough that a felon can be apprehended, but really not saying much about how the character will interact. In an inn, it should be the action in play that garners the attention and not necessarily or particularly an all-encompassing view of a character. When we read fiction, we don't get all the details at once up front, but must read selectively to gather what is needed to follow the play. That, ideally, is how an informal inn can operate.

If a player wants to, he or she can write a bio for his character as a helpful reminder, but to ask players to post bios for an Inn sort of defeats the purpose of the improvisational play. It already makes the role playing into something formal, rather than an exploration. And it detracts from what is supposed to be the main or important writing: the actual thread. When gamers become so fixated on external documents, they lose track of how to write really interactive narrative. And that's what an inn is supposed to do: help players learn how to develop a game and action by actually practicing in a small on-going one..

.

I can't disagree more. I said you don't need a full life history but you seem to want people to literally stagger around in the dark, deprived even of the evidence of their own eyes which a person entering a real inn would have. Maybe I am really uptight but I like to be consistent with what others have said as much as what I have already done. I have also had my head ripped or sometimes merely bitten off by people ultra protective of their characters. Your ideal world bears no relation to the one I have tried to operate in.

I don't want to be in some freefall thing I want to have a firm foundation to build on. But now I know Ifall so far short of the ideal I at least know not to bother to take a new character to the Perch. I'll see what I have started to the end and call it a day.

mark12_30

02-10-2011, 03:54 PM

.....Wow.

Peace???

Nogrod

02-10-2011, 04:00 PM

Uhh... *Parrots Mark*

Formendacil

02-10-2011, 04:35 PM

Okay, we seem to be degenerating a little bit into unintentional ad hominems, and perhaps a little bit away from consideration of the rules. If I may play the nosey peacemaker, we seem to be getting a little off-course, and for all that Mithalwen is interpreting Bêthberry as advocating that inn players "stumble around in the dark," I think it's otherwise clear that neither is calling for the removal of character bios entirely. Rather, Mith is emphasizing the importance of the structure that bios provide to new players, and I think she's quite right that new players (and I mean people who haven't RPed before rather than people new to the Inn or providing new characters) want structure. Structure and rules make things make sense, and its usually when understanding the structure of something that newcomers feel safe to join in.

At the same time, however, Bêthberry is highlighting an important aspect of the Inns, which is contingent on their very nature as never-ending inns--namely the intentionally transient nature of those who are not innkeepers and the improvisational character this lends to any "story/plot" that might actually take place there. If I may play on her point that Inns are a horse of a different colour from RPs here generally, we need to be careful to keep the Inns and other RPs distinct when speaking about them--even if we decide on new/different rules for RPs generally, we still need to consider the Inns separately, since they provide a different function. However, taking Mithalwen's point, they ARE major points of entry for new players dipping their feet in the world of Downsian RPing, and I think her (their) concern for structure is important.

Okay, having possibly misrepresented everyone's point of view, may I ask the community to direct their ire towards me, and meanwhile get back to the (highly pertinent) question of structure that Mithadan is pushing us towards.

I've already given a fairly extensive proposal about how the RP forums could be revised, and there was some debate about that. While I hardly think my proposal is without flaws, I'd like to think that the response from those who engaged with it directly suggested that it had some merit. In particular, pretty much everyone seemed to agree that two gaming forums would be better than the current three, and that two would be preferable to consolidating them into one. My suggestion was to divide them between highly structured/strong owner control on the one hand and looser structure/less owner control on the other, which required some clarification. Still, once clarified it doesn't seem too hated, but the big question is: if you want two forums, how is one to distinguish between them? Is it to be acknowledged skill, as between the current forums (a system that most of us seem to feel has passed its time)? Is it to be along game-structure lines, as I'm proposing? Or what?

Or, if you think we just need one forum... well, you should speak up. While I like talking, I don't think mine's the only opinion that needs hearing.

Perhaps people could respond yea or nay (with explanations! Please! Think of it as a chance to use that finely honed WWian rhetoric) to the following questions:

1. Do you think the Downs should move to having 2 forums?
(If no, how many?)

2. Should game proposals be run by the Mods first?
If yes, to what extent?

3. Should we have (a)sub-forum(s) for brainstorming/discussion?

These are the biggest structural questions I'm seeing at the moment... there are probably more (if so, add them to list when you reply!). In addition to these yes/no questions, I can think of the following discussion questions:

Should the Inns continue in the future in their current form?

Should games be deleted/moved/closed after inactivity? After how much inactivity?

Formendacil

02-10-2011, 04:48 PM

To set a good example, and maybe even to get the ball rolling, here are *my* answers to the questions--though I imagine you could guess at them already.

1. Do you think the Downs should move to having 2 forums?
(If no, how many?)
Yes. Obviously, I've already proposed a 2 forum model, and I think it has potential. I'm more than open to distinguishing between the two using different criteria than I suggested, though.

2. Should game proposals be run by the Mods first?
If yes, to what extent?
Yes. I still think it's helpful and can avoid embarassment (and given that most of us run ideas by our RPing buddies anyway, I don't think it's that hard to give the Friendly Neighbourhood Mod a shout either)... but I also think it should be a given that Mods will default towards approval rather than not. I also think it should be clarified that the Mod giving the green light doesn't mean the game will survive--but, as a corollary to that, the Mod should never turn down a proposal just because there are too many games in play. In my opinion, natural selection will take care of them.

3. Should we have (a)sub-forum(s) for brainstorming/discussion?

Yes. I think it's excellent idea, and possibly negates the necessity of running things by the Mod first (though it doesn't obviate the possibility of that being a good idea). I also think it will help keep less "involved" RPers (those who aren't hardcore, major character types, but may only want or have time for supporting roles here and there) involved regularly.

Should the Inns continue in the future in their current form?
With regard to the Scarburg Meadhall, I think it could easily survive as is. As a last-generation RPer to have set foot in the Green Dragon, I admit to not following the Golden Perch, so I really am not qualified to speak there. However, it stands to reason that two forums means room for two inns, and that one may be more "rookie friendly," so we certainly have room for two.

As for the Seventh Star, I think there's merit in what mark suggested, vis-a-vis turning it into a thinly-veiled RP version of the "Coming of Age" thread, both in terms of actually moving along a steady, if stately, pace, and in terms of fun reading. I also don't think it would be a problem to thus end up with two Inns in one forum--or even all three in one forum (I'd put them in my "Rivendell" forum, to keep using that model).

Should games be deleted/moved/closed after inactivity? After how much inactivity?

Personally, I think a month of *no* activity should be enough to merit a Mod posting on the thread with a "Question mark, people?" post, and that if another month went by (with no more progression) it could be moved to Elvenhome (which I assume throughout that we are retaining).

Durelin

02-10-2011, 05:34 PM

...that is not the statement of a man obsessed with power

And that is not the statement I quoted. I thanked Mithadan more than once for opening up to/taking part in this discussion. I really do appreciate that. But his attitude as it *seems to me* is that of 'you may amuse me for the time being' or 'you're on the chopping block now -- you started it, you better finish it right.' (And by this I don't mean me personally. I didn't take it *personally*; it seems directed at everyone.) I understand that no one, admin or mod, as to change anything or even listen to complaints. But I thought he was being antagonistic to the members involved and not just the discussion. I'm sorry, I just wanted a discussion, too. Apparently I'm the only one who's reading things that way, I guess I'm crazy. Which is usually quite possible. (Some edits here to clarify, maybe?)

So some of the questions I haven't answered (if that's how we're going to do it)

One thing I would like to see is a requirement that a member participate in at least a game or two here before he or she can open a game on their own.

A game, maybe. The problem is that's something that's easier to grandfather in once you have a bunch of players. We don't really have a bunch.

It strikes me that retaining "veto" power would be more potentially embarrassing and annoying to a game facilitator/owner than some sort of simplified proposal process.

That depends on if the role of the moderator will be to determine if a game breaks the RULES, or if it will also be their role to determine if the game is "good enough" based on whatever standards. If someone breaks the rules, they get contacted and things get deleted/edited/whatever else. That's how it works on every other forum.

Do we set a limit on numbers of games running, at least until we understand how many gamers we have or do we trust the members to hash things out and if so how will this happen?

I don't see the need. If you need to have rules and guidelines to babysit everyone, to make sure they don't overextend themselves...well that's going to be a lot of rules. Maybe put suggestions in the rules that players not participate in too many games at once. And encourage new players to join active games -- which means of course making it easy for games to be joined. That's really the big problem with the 'game' system rather than an open world setup (which granted only really seems to work when it's a forum dedicated entirely to RP)...it's hard to make it easy for new people to just jump in at any time.

And do we want Mod approval before starting a game or not? If a proposal is being discussed openly in a forum, realistically, how much extra work is it for someone to send PIO or whoever a PM and say "Take a look at this..."

I think it's funny that everyone's taken the "let people start their own games" and turned it into a group approval process. A game is posted. People decide whether or not they are interested, and if so, they join and/or discuss ideas with the game initiator. If the game breaks any rules, it gets removed. That's how I see it. It's not about approval or not. The game is started; if there's something wrong with it, the mod(s) step in as necessary.

And Form's questions...

1. Do you think the Downs should move to having 2 forums? (If no, how many?)

One RP forum, one discussion forum.

2. Should game proposals be run by the Mods first? (If yes, to what extent?)

Nah. Why not moderate on the front end rather than the back end.

3. Should we have (a)sub-forum(s) for brainstorming/discussion?

See #1.

Should the Inns continue in the future in their current form?

Well there's no reason to get rid of them, but we need new inns/the inns to change to be more welcoming to newcomers. They (or it) need(s) to be less plot-oriented.

Should games be deleted/moved/closed after inactivity? After how much inactivity?

Certainly. After a few months? I dunno.

Mithadan

02-10-2011, 06:09 PM

I apparently have been less than clear in my intentions. All I want is to improve a forum that has become somewhat run down and shabby. I do not want to dictate from above and certainly am not taking a "this is not a democracy" approach.

Peace out, all. Let's return to being constructive please, so we can bring this bird in for a landing soon...

piosenniel

02-11-2011, 12:03 AM

1.) Do you think the Downs should move to having 2 forums? (If no, how many?)

~*~ No ~*~

I can see the RPG Forum as 3 fora.

The first would be the section where the Thread for general posting guidelines would be put; The Resource Threads from the present Shire and Rohan; the linked indexes for all the old games played in the Shire, Rohan, Gondor, and the new linked index for this new Forum incarnation. Any general announcements that need to be made could also be posted here.

The second fora would be the section for any brainstorming/planning threads for new games would go up.

The final fora would be the section where the RPG’s and their game-in-play discussion threads would be. I don’t think there needs to be a separation of different sorts of games. This is also where the 2 Inns and their Discussion threads would be – it might be nice to sticky the Inns and their discussion threads to the top of this fora.

2.) Should game proposals be run by the Mods first? If yes, to what extent?

I don’t know what form these proposals are going to take. I suppose if someone had a premise for a game (s)he wasn’t quite sure about, then they could run it past the Moderators first by PM. But, I think if the premise is put out on the brainstorming/planning thread, the Moderators could read along and make suggestions as needed either on the thread, or by PM depending on the tenor of the suggestion(s).

3.) Should we have (a)sub-forum(s) for brainstorming/discussion?

See #1

4.) Should the Inns continue in the future in their current form?

I don’t think we need to change the form of the Scarburg Meadhall. It might be nice, if the Meadhall and the other Inn are moved into the same fora as suggested above, for the Meadhall players to occasionally look into the other Inn and perhaps encourage/mentor a promising player to try their writing skills in the Meadhall.

I think the present Golden Perch Inn works fine as it is. There’s no ongoing plot. Players wander in and out with their characters, interact with other characters, drink, laugh, brood at a corner table . . . We could certainly move to the very abbreviated Character Sketch. I find new players like to think about their characters and get a good grip on them by writing them down. But I’m sure we could come up with a new Inn if that’s the consensus. And one more free-wheeling. Folwren is the Innkeeper at present in the Perch and has agreed to remodel the Perch or open a different sort of Inn as needed.

5.) Should games be deleted/moved/closed after inactivity? After how much inactivity?

Before being closed and moved to Elvenhome (I can’t wrap my mind around actually deleting a game – it just seems wrong.) the gamers should be put on notice that their game has ground to a halt and needs to be restarted. I think 4 weeks of inactivity is long enough to warrant a prod from the Moderators. Gamers can then use the game discussion thread to make some plan to get back on track. In the present Forum structure these periods of inactivity, discussion, and restarts often occur more than 2 or 3 times during the course of a game.

If a game has received a nudge from the Moderators and continues to be inactive for another 4 weeks, then I think it and its discussion thread can be moved to Elvenhome.

Any game in Elvenhome can be resurrected and returned to play if there is enough interest by game facilitator and game players. Though, so far, I haven’t had anyone ask to have the game returned for play.

Boromir88

02-11-2011, 07:08 AM

1. Do you think the Downs should move to having 2 forums? (If no, how many?)

No. I think there are reasons to have 3.

My thinking was a little different from pio's and that was to have 1 forum for planning/brain-storming/ideas to help members write and construct characters. Then the "Doriath"forum and "Rivendell" forum.

Although, I think I like pio's idea better. At this point with members and RPGers slowing, there really is no reason to have two separate forums for games. Even if the games will vary between "lesser-control" and "more-control" this is something that should be explained in the planning/discussion threads by the game creator. Then gamers can figure out there whether that is there preferred RPG or not. (Also, there would be no more ground for claiming the system is elitist, with one forum for games of all varities :p)

2.) Should game proposals be run by the Mods first? If yes, to what extent?

As has been mentioned the planning/brainstorming threads would sort of make "running" a proposal past the forum moderator a formality. I don't know how many would spam pio's PM box with proposals, but if there's a planning/brainstorming forum, the Mods can add their input in the planning threads, as well as any other members. If a proposal is getting hammered out, and developed the game creator and all it's members, I don't see why we'd have to go through the formality of getting a Mod stamp of approval? That's adding unnecessary bureaucracy. :p

3.) Should we have (a)sub-forum(s) for brainstorming/discussion?

See #1

4.) Should the Inns continue in the future in their current form?

I'm not so much of an inn player. I've tried it once, and due to personal reasons just stopped posting for the character I had created. I wasn't sure how the structure of the Inns worked and whether I could just be like..."ok scrapping this character and I'm a gonna create another one here!" So, that's my winded answer to say, I'll leave the planning of the Inns to those who are, and will, participate more frequently in them.

5.) Should games be deleted/moved/closed after inactivity? After how much inactivity?

I think pio's answer sounds good.

Firefoot

02-11-2011, 03:33 PM

I'm not going to specifically answer all the questions because I don't think I would be adding anything new... I just want to say that pio's proposal makes a lot of sense.

I've also been thinking a bit about what Durelin said about wanting to make in-progress games open to players. Maybe one function the discussion forum might serve would be for communication between people inside and outside a game... for example, if someone were to start up a game and decide halfway through they needed a new character, as a cameo or not, they could put an announcement in the discussion forum. Or if a game just wanted to be open to new players throughout its life, that could also be listed somewhere. Or, if a new player was looking for a game to join and none were opening they could post there and open a discussion with current game owners (if we're keeping game owners). I don't know if this would work best as an ongoing thread (maybe stickied) or if it would be better for people to just open up new threads as needed.

Nogrod

02-11-2011, 05:02 PM

1. Do you think the Downs should move to having 2 forums? (If no, how many?)
&
3. Should we have (a)sub-forum(s) for brainstorming/discussion?
I'm not sure if having the actual games and the discussion threads concerning them on different forums is a good idea. It would be easier to everyone to have the game X and the discussion thread concerning it on the same forum. So the question would become whether we feel the need to differentiate between the two different kinds of games that has been discussed here - whether they're Doriath and Rivendell, or plot oriented and character oriented, or gameowner driven and player driven games (or what not)?

There is also the question of the kind of "initial inn" and where it should go?

In a way a three-forum model (or one forum & two sub-fora model) could be argued for.

On the "basic forum" there would be all the rules & regulations -stuff, general links to important places (both as sticky-threads I suppose), as well as general discussions about the RP's... and the "starter inn" (Golden Perch) made as easy to enter as possible.

On the (sub/other)forum(s) there would be the games and their discussion threads (the latter which would begin as suggestions for a new game?). If we decide to make two different fora for the actual games then it would be easy. If we decide to put all the RP's into the same thread we probably should come up with an abbreviation as to name the games with an easy pointer as to which kind of game it is so that anyone scrolling the thread would immediately see what kind of a game it is? Like "PRP - Yavanna's Pledge" (meaning "Plot-driven Role Play") and "CRP - Fishers of Lake Rhûn" (meaning "character-driven Role Play") - or whatever.

If we could make it clear the two different game-forums were not hierarchical in status but just different ways of playing I'd strongly suggest we have two different forums for the games (and one for general issues), but if we think there is the danger there leading to an elite-forum and low-forum impressions, then let's make it just one?

2. Should game proposals be run by the Mods first?If yes, to what extent?
I'm not sure there needs to be a requirement for that, but if I was thinking of proposing a game I would really appreciate the feedback from a mod to point out for possible problems or encouraging me with the things she thinks I'm having a good idea on before suggesting the game openly on public...

4. Should the Inns continue in the future in their current form?
Actually, if there would be two separate forums for RP'ing I could see Scarburg Mead Hall as an open game on the "character-driven" / "Rivendell" -forum. And there should be a clear announcement that everyone is welcomed to join the game whenever they wish. For GP see the first answer...

5. Should games be deleted/moved/closed after inactivity? After how much inactivity?
They should, after the "gameowner(s) / players have been notified about the inactivity a few times and nothing happens. A few months maybe?

Amanaduial the archer

02-11-2011, 05:36 PM

:eek:

What court do you practice in?

Oh, Mithadan. You, who have practiced for so many years, fill me with hope in my chosen profession ;)

Anyway, good evening, chaps and chapesses. Long time no see. Durelin, excellent idea to revive this thread, as far as I'm concerned, the Downs RPGing has long been calling for a bit of a change since the Era of the Werewolf!

While stoically avoiding my rash and untempered 14 year old self on the first few pages (I really didn't want to run into her, she can be so...touchy - however much I might agree with her on some points...), I've been interested to read the more recent parts of this thread. Interesting that it was nearly a decade since the games changed, and lord knows I spent enough time around the RPGs in my misspent youth to perhaps contribute something as it all changes, as Bethberry so kindly directed me to this thread. And it's a pleasure to see so many familiar faces - Durelin, Mithalwen, Anguirel, Pio, Firefoot and of course, Mithadan, along with all the other old hands - striving to do the same :)

Now, obviously I haven't been very evident around the Downs for some time now; I haven't participated in a game, beyond occasional pseudonimical appearances in the Inns, for about four years. But that isn't necessarily for lack of trying: I never made any secret of the fact that I wasn't always a huge fan of the over perpetuation of rules after the 'split' in the game system and beyond, but there is no doubt, as Mithadan says, that rules are unfortunately absolutely necessary in order to run a system like this effectively. Certainly it's worked to the extent that the Downs has produced some of the best openly participatory character-based writing as far as I've seen on the internet, and my my, in the aforementioned misspent youth I certainly saw a fair bit. However, as has been remarked upon, things appear to have...stagnated, a bit. Perhaps, if I may offer my opinion, because RPGing became harder to get into: certainly I know that when I came back and attempted to piece myself into one of the Inns, I found it very difficult when there was so much rather complex backstory, so many existing characters which existed for ten pages or more back. To take Bethberry's point:

Ideally, inns should be more improvisational and less structured in order to accommodate newcomers. It should be possible to drop in and run with an idea or easily pick up a theme already in progress; there should be "hooks" or things that a newcomer can pick up on in recent posts. If something is so complex that it requires extensive back reading, then that something defeats the purpose of providing an informal interactive role playing situation: the inn is already too complex for newcomers.

EXACTLY. I apologise for the caps, but I could not agree more. It's not to say the writing and interaction involved isn't of an excellent quality: the Inn in question was fantastically well written, and the Inn-person was really very welcoming. However, the atmosphere itself wasn't always - through no fault of any individual, I would stress that, not at all! - but it felt closed - and this not exactly from a newcomer, but from a returning 'old-timer' who's participated in....actually, I'm not sure how many games, probably around the 15-20 mark. The rules perhaps have got a bit much. I like improvisation, and I like freedom, and that's what was always so wonderful about being about to write so wonderfully here. Bios on the Inns I disagree with entirely.

Thusly. In the interests of structure, to address Form's questions:

1. Do you think the Downs should move to having 2 forums? (If no, how many?)

Er.... Excellent difference between the 'freestyle' forum and the Shire-Rohan-Gondor structure, is the chance to have a separate discussion thread, makes interaction and a feeling of unity and community on the games so much better. However, in address whether to, basically, abolish the Shire-Rohan-Gondor system...Well. I remember my pride when I was listed as a 'Gondorian': it's a badge of honour to get to Rohan and to even get beyond. Also, it has the same benefits as a 'setting' system in schools: it gives you an indication of who you're playing with, and ensures a comparable quality across the board, preventing frustration and hopefully ensuring maximum output for the players involved.
However, there is a very serious problem, the same, indeed, of that of 'setting': it becomes cliquey, and it makes people feel done-down and part of a hierarchy. Now, there ain't nothin' wrong with a good hierarchy every so often (so speaks the Brit, I suppose), but I don't think it's helpful for new players to come to RPGing and be told that, basically, they aren't good enough to play here, or in this context, or with these players. And please, before anyone jumps on me, this isn't a criticism, I'm not at all saying that that is actually what is being said by anyone in the Downs RPG world - but it's a matter of perception, and that is important if an RPG renaissance is to come about.

So I can really see it either way: one part of me would strongly advocate the removal of the Shire-Rohan-Gondor system, but then, I remember the freestyle forum, and while there is no chance that we would ever return to that chaos, some kind of structure can perhaps be helpful. Perhaps a change of the rules, and a degree of greater flexibility between the forums, then? For example, the removal of the condition that one has to run a game before one can progress to Gondor? And, please, the removal of the isolation of Gondor - it isn't helpful to see that forum beyond and above all else, for new players or for those eligible to play there, as it becomes a ghost town. Hmm.

2. Should game proposals be run by the Mods first? (If yes, to what extent?)

Ah. Now. For a while I functioned as a sort of 'demi-mod' in the Shire, with Pio and Child, helping with approving games and getting new games up to scratch. And boy, were there some duff proposals. I mean, really. They would never have got off the ground without the aid of helpful moderators. So I would say yes, game proposals should be helped along by moderators - but perhaps with less heavy handedness than currently perhaps (maybe, possibly, I'm speculating, I am not attacking) currently exists. A system of advice and help, rather than of 'running' or control? Of course, that becomes a very, very tricky balance to officiate, but...

3. Should we have (a)sub-forum(s) for brainstorming/discussion?

Maybe that would facilitate greater openness, if there was a feeling that anyone could jump in and propose a question or an idea to the community as a whole. Obviously one can always message a moderator or an experienced gamer, but it actually might be a really good idea to make this a more open-say policy?

4. Should the Inns continue in the future in their current form?

I think here I really can't do better than to quote Durelin directly:

Well there's no reason to get rid of them, but we need new inns/the inns to change to be more welcoming to newcomers. They (or it) need(s) to be less plot-oriented.

Bang on, my love, bang on.

5. Should games be deleted/moved/closed after inactivity? After how much inactivity?

Yes. After loss of interest, attempts at resuscitation, and, perhaps as an idea, an offering of the game to other prospective players to see whether anyone else is willing to guide the ship?

Just my few cents anyway, I hope they aren't too unwelcome after so long an absence.

- Amanaduial

p.s. Lord, nearly a decade since I came to the Downs. Gracious.

Feanor of the Peredhil

02-11-2011, 07:56 PM

If, hypothetically (meaning no promises), we move to a system where a member can just start up a game, how do we control quantity and quality.

I don't foresee a massive influx like in the days of yore. LotR has been around long enough now that it's a bastion of pop culture information. It was a game changer in terms of fantasy films, location filming (and scope of shots), length of movie, quality of special effects, casting, music, dialog... It's not a cult film, it's a multiple-award-winning masterpiece series. The eventual release of The Hobbit will likely result in a small increase of members, but no matter how fabulous TH ends up being (or not being), it's not going to turn the world from "Tolkien? He wrote those elf books, right?" to "OMGZ LEGGY SOOO HOTTTTT21!@!" because the world already saw that change.

So quantity and quality won't rely on policing new members, it will rely on the atmosphere of current writers and their beliefs. And we're all actually pretty solid at policing ourselves. In the last Werewolf game, for example, there was concern that some players might be breaking the rules set up by the game mods. The consensus ended up being, if we found out that anybody was cheating, we could shame them forever, as well as institute a Day One Lynch policy to make them feel especially awful that they did something as heinous as cheat. Now that's not entirely nice of us, threatening subversive folks with shunning, but in reality, peer pressure is one of the greatest driving forces in humanity.

Though this thread has shown a rekindled or just formally discussed interest in RPing, it hasn't attracted many people that weren't already actively involved in the website and this corner of it. Quantity can be determined by free market: if there's demand, it can be met. If there's not demand, games should be allowed to fizzle (after all, a game initiator with spunk can always beg, borrow, and steal their way into a cast of writers later on if they really desperately want THIS ONE EXACT GAME to happen). Quality can be handled by a general atmosphere of inclusiveness and openness toward constructive criticism. It's collaborative writing: if you can't handle the rest of the writers you're working with giving you feedback, you should go hole up and write in a private diary.

Which is all to say, I don't think we're going to see a massive spate of new game threads, I think we're going to see a few hesitant experiments to see how a new structure and a new atmosphere will work. Following that, I think we might see a couple games going on at any given time, but nothing overwhelming. And I think the writers of each game can control their own quality pretty effectively: Barrowdowners have a tendency, as a group, to be sticklers for quality. Maybe they didn't used to be, but in recent years? This is a pretty brainy place.

Personally, I think both questions of quality and quantity would be fairly well answered by the common sense of our gamers. I don't think we'd see an overabundance of games, because even if we had scores of game owners wanting to start something... they wouldn't get anywhere if they couldn't find enough recruits. There might be a flurry of threads (or posts on an announcement board -like thread), but the majority would quickly subside, and we'd only be left with those that garnered enough support--and I daresay that we could reasonably expect these to be the best of the pack. The other ideas would either have to be retooled (made better) to attract attention, or be put aside until their were more people involved.

Oh hey, he summarized my thoughts very well. This is what I get for falling behind in the discussion: my thoughts have already been verbalized!

EDIT: In other words, the chief point of the proposal in the current form, as I understand it, is to make sure the game owner covers all the important bases. Putting the proposal out for feedback and/or to attract players would undoubtedly result in the same bases being covered--though I agree it helps keep everything in one place if a consistent form is used each time (like the rule posts in WW).

Yes. The benefits of filling out a proposal as it currently exists outweigh the annoyance some members might feel at having to fuss with details before they ever get a chance to write.

I'd rather have Pio. Juries are too unpredictacble and can't think of anything worse than having something you have sweated kittens over shang-haied by a self appointed committee of people who won't do anything but criticise.

But how many trolls are really going to hover in wait for the opportunity to say WOW THIS SUCKS YOU SHUD GET A LIFE LULZ.?

I think the hope is that the RPG fora would be able to start self-regulating itself more, like Werewolf does. I think that some sort of discussion forum would be really helpful for this (Durelin - I didn't understand that that's what you were getting at). In this case, I think it would be helpful to have entire forum/subforum rather than just one large thread like werewolf, since it would get confusing if people were trying to talk about more than one idea at once.

So the setup I'm seeing outlined here (generally, drawing from many posts) is:

Forum A (Structured Games with Defined Leaders and Plot Oriented Writing): containing game discussion threads (where one pitches one's game to the masses, and players are recruited, and discussions are held between players and/or lurkers (such as WW discussion threads) and also game threads (wherein the writing happens).

Forum B (Open Ended Games with Group Responsibility and Character Driven Writing): containing game discussion threads (where one pitches one's game to the masses, and players are recruited, and discussions are held between players and/or lurkers (such as WW discussion threads) and also game threads (wherein the writing happens).

Forum C (Discussion): in which RPGers discuss their general concerns, their achievements, etc., relating to Barrowdowns RPGing as a whole.

It's possible I have a somewhat rosy view of what a brainstorming forum could be, but I'd like to think (on the strength of the sort of discussion that goes on in the Scarburg Planning Thread) that the RPers on the Downs could be constructive and polite in such an environment.

Mhm. We're very nice people.

I think we can still keep guidelines for clear, correct English, Canonicity (of whatever degree), and the expectation that games/play eventually lead somewhere and have a termination.

Was this being questioned? :eek:

I really think we must have all of these. Whether writing for writers or for readers, clear English is significant. Obviously this doesn't mean we'll draw and quarter our ESL contributors. :) Canonicity should be adhered to because this is a Tolkien website. The last is a little more negotiable: what if the game proposal is, I have this idea that the Dwarves that move into Helm's Deep interact and we explore what's underground there, and how Dwarf relationships work! ? In this case, it's not a clear cut story with a beginning, middle, and end. Instead it's more of a literary exploration of character and setting.

I wonder if we're all a bit hung up on the nature of story.

Here's the definition of story I used in my Master's thesis: "narration of a chain of events." The definition we typically use in the creative writing workshops in my grad school: "narration of a chain of events, with a beginning, middle, and end." Without a purposeful beginning, middle, and end, you have either a scene or a series of scenes. The STORY is the Big Idea that you're trying to convey.

If you don't have a Big Idea, then you aren't writing a story, you're just writing. This is the same difference as between a portrait and a picture of somebody's face. A portrait has a motive: you're trying to get to something, some truth. A picture is just something on a page that looks like something. Stories are purposeful. Writing often isn't.

That being said, I'd like to copy/past part of a private missive between me and Bethberry:

I'm loving the concept of two sections instead of three, with the focus not on beginner versus expert but on structured versus flexible. The game I have sketched out (and carefully outlined with Big Plot Points and writer responsibilities) fits into the structured concept: I think it would appeal more to beginning writers that are looking for somewhere to practice skills before taking responsibility for Big Ideas, but it would also appeal to anybody that flat out likes writing from an outline.

Something I'm not sure has been mentioned yet is that structure versus free play isn't just a Barrowdowns issue, and it has little to do with a writer's skill level: we discuss it a lot in my Master's program. I know a lot of writers that outline their stories before they start writing any scenes, and they take their pleasure in fleshing out the skeleton, bringing it to life. Knowing the amount of space they have available to convey certain ideas, to develop characters, to work in general, gives them a poet's eye for the significance of every word. I also know a lot of writers that don't want to know how the story is going to end until they get there: their delight is in the discovery. Neither way is right or wrong, and I work in both ways.

I think a lot of the discussion has bordered on this idea of some people liking to write with a plan and some people liking to explore. I think there's no need to choose, and I think it's possible to do both at once. But I also think it's pretty important that in collaborative writing, the expectations are made clear from the beginning in terms of what kind of writing (structured or open) will happen most frequently.

Also:

And just to toss this out there...if you're looking for a 100% success rate (meaning every game/thread started is completed in a reasonable amount of time or whatever)...you're never going to be happy.

Ain't that the trufe?

Do we set a limit on numbers of games running

A limit of three or four per forum sounds fair, unless of course we find a mysteriously huge number of people dying to be in many games at once, or different games than are offered.

But I think this should be more of a guideline than a rule.

One thing I would like to see is a requirement that a member participate in at least a game or two here before he or she can open a game on their own.

Yes. However instead of going on a game by game basis, it should be determined on a length of commitment basis: perhaps six months of time as a player before one becomes a game opener? I suggest this because there is a difference between a month long game and a two year game, and a very qualified and creative game owner might be manacled by how long a game they're in is taking.

And do we want Mod approval before starting a game or not?I'm ambiguous about this. I think it's always helpful to have someone take a quick look at your work before you turn it in, so to speak. Game Owners should be able to open their own threads, but perhaps it should be recommended (if not required) that Pio (or whoever) acts as an informal second opinion?

Someone also brought up the point that not all charaters need be in the game the whole time. C7A invited me into Lonely Star when it was 3/5 done, for characters that were undreamt of when the game started. Not sure why that no longer seems to happen, but, if there is a rule to that effect, I could certainly see making room for add-in characters.

You guys invited me into Tapestry long after it was established. And, in fact, the game I currently have outlined has a built-in place (actually, two) for new writers to enter into the fray.

That is to say, while you may not know the full history and/or inner workings of your character, you're going to know from the get-go if your character is a Hobbit, 56 years old, skilled, unmarried, craftsman from Michel Delving, and you'll know if he's tall, ruddy-cheeked, dark-haired, well dressed, etc.

Pio's abbreviated Meadhall character sketch is pretty perfect.

if you want two forums, how is one to distinguish between them? Is it to be acknowledged skill, as between the current forums (a system that most of us seem to feel has passed its time)? Is it to be along game-structure lines, as I'm proposing? Or what?

One discussion forum. Two writing forums, distinguished not by skill level, but by structure. Many of the most culturally well-regarded, award-winning writers I know thrive on nitpicky outlining. Literally one of the best uses a method of "This is how many pages I have, so in order to get my pacing right, this will happen in this chapter, I will introduce all major characters by this page, my climax will happen here, and I need these scenes and each scene will be approximately this long." She just likes working that way. Another writer I know writes about 2000 pages for every 200 page novel she publishes; she gets everything she could possibly need down on the page and then cherry picks the parts that tell the single cohesive Story she wants. Yet another sets every single one of his novels in the same fictional town in North Carolina: even though the plots alter and the stories are different, he is constrained by the truths of the information he is already written. Yet another advises writers to analyze the structure of a short story and - page by page - reproduce it using the craft tricks the writer used; you've got hard rules to follow, but the joy comes from finding the originality within the structure.

Then again, another one of my writer friends (who just signed the contract for her 17th novel) writes with an eye toward character interaction and surprising herself. The only 'rule' she follows is that each chapter should have a basic arc, and a memorable action event should occur in each. Another writer who works masterfully within the realm of historical fiction was asked last summer, "What is the primary motivation of your character?" She had two hundred pages written already. Her answer? "I don't know yet."

The delineation between the type of structure you want as a writer has nothing to do with experience, and I think the delineation between RPG sub-fora should reflect that: experienced writers working with inexperienced writers will provide the old hands with fresh insight, and will work toward teaching the inexperienced writers what we mean by 'quality.'

Should the Inns continue in the future in their current form?

I think the Meadhallers would lynch anybody that tried to shut them down.

Should games be deleted/moved/closed after inactivity? After how much inactivity?

Up to the mods/admins. Do we delete inactive threads in Mirth? Do we close threads in Books just because they've moldered away on page eight of the thread list?

Although, I think I like pio's idea better. At this point with members and RPGers slowing, there really is no reason to have two separate forums for games. Even if the games will vary between "lesser-control" and "more-control" this is something that should be explained in the planning/discussion threads by the game creator. Then gamers can figure out there whether that is there preferred RPG or not. (Also, there would be no more ground for claiming the system is elitist, with one forum for games of all varities :p)

I was pretty staunchly on board with one discussion forum, one structured game forum, one loose game forum, but I like Pio's idea better.

It has all of the benefits of what we've discussed... plus some extras!

Bêthberry

02-11-2011, 09:16 PM

Let me just say, thinking about Fea's comment on the Meadhallers lynching folks, :D that I think the Meadhall belongs as a game, not as an Inn. I think it is superb, wonderful, and marvellous and I am ever so impressed by the discussion thread (which intrigues me no end), but I think,if the point is to attract new gamers or provide a place for new gamers to join in, it is a wee bit daunting and difficult to join into. This isn't a criticism but a recognition that I think The Meadhall demonstrates the best of what can happen with the Inn structure: it can lead to great possibility and creativity. So whatever structures are put in place, I would humbly suggest that the Meadhall continue as a full blown game and an inn be developed that is easier for newcomers to join. jmho

Kudos to littlemanpoet, Nogrod, and everyone posting at the Meadhall for wonderful work.

EDIT: There has been some very interesting development also on The Seventh Star. Nogrod has prodded the Bethberry character in a way that she has never been prodded before on the forum--and his post is totally in keeping with the suggestions made here for The Seventh Star--and Mnemosyne has added a little twist to that prodding, so I have some challenges to answer for my next post there, unless Mark also throws something into the play before I can replay. :D

Mnemosyne

02-11-2011, 09:22 PM

So whatever structures are put in place, I would humbly suggest that the Meadhall continue as a full blown game and an inn be developed that is easier for newcomers to join.

I am in complete agreement with this and everyone else's statements to this effect. In fact it's been making the whole "open-ended" RP a lot easier for me to conceptualize.

Estelyn Telcontar

02-12-2011, 06:58 AM

I'm reading this discussion with great interest and it occurred to me that the reason for participation by only those who have RPed avidly in the past (mentioned a few posts ago) could be this: the others don't know it's going on! Really, who of the none-RPing members, or even of those who participated in Shire or Rohan games, realizes that there's such a vital discussion taking place in the Gondor forum?!

Some of those might be interested if they're alerted, so I shall post accordingly on a new thread in the Novices and Newcomers forum. Hopefully others who are interested may be attracted and drawn into this thread!

Mithadan

02-12-2011, 09:53 AM

Thanks ESTY.

I'd like to thank all of you for your thoughts, comments and suggestions. Please feel free to continue posting, however, I'm going to spend some time reviewing the past 50 or so posts and prepare an outline for the RPG forums of the future. I'll get something posted early next week.

In the interim, we have received two offers to assist Piosenniel in her modding duties. In fairness, I want others who may be interested to also have a chance to "apply". Do so via PM to me, please.

Boromir88

02-14-2011, 10:12 AM

piosenniel

02-14-2011, 11:41 AM

Right, Boro

I think the Planning threads to get a game in play should be in a separate fora. These will be the threads where somebody has a game idea/premise to offer and wants to get players together to firm up the notion of the game - how it should open, what kinds of characters, where it should be set, etc. Once the game, game title, etc., is worked through and the players feel the game is ready to start being played, the game facilitator can open 2 threads in the actual game-in-play fora - one for the RPG one for the Discussion thread for the game-in-play. Some of these Planning threads might never lead the players to actually play the game.

It doesn't seem to me that all games will have a group Planning thread.

Some game facilitators will simply want to offer their already thought out game in a Discussion thread, take on players, and then open an RPG thread.

Durelin

02-14-2011, 04:17 PM

I don't see the need for having a separation between 'Planning' and 'Discussion' threads. Same idea, really. Obviously the 'game owner' will decide how much planning the players will be involved in (which will have to do with how much of a plan the game owner starts out with of course)... To me it seems like over-structuring to separate the two. Kinda a waste of space, too.

It's just easier in my head to draw a line between OOC and IC rather than 'planning stages' versus 'discussion stages.' I guess that's what it boils down to.

Oh, but also RE Pio's forum organization -- I think a sort of administrative/announcement forum might be useful. Might keep more of a feeling of structure (and moderator/admin attention; as in, this isn't just a free-for-all section of the site obviously) without there actually being lots of structure. However it might also give the feeling of this being a separate area of the forum. Which it is, but...I don't know what kind of perceptions we're going for here.

Barrowdowners have a tendency, as a group, to be sticklers for quality. Maybe they didn't used to be, but in recent years? This is a pretty brainy place.

Yea...this is kinda what was behind my wanting to start this discussion more than once. How this manifested specifically in the RP section, anyway. Generally I just feel like people need to relax a little I guess. :x

Formendacil

02-14-2011, 06:29 PM

I don't see the need for having a separation between 'Planning' and 'Discussion' threads. Same idea, really. Obviously the 'game owner' will decide how much planning the players will be involved in (which will have to do with how much of a plan the game owner starts out with of course)... To me it seems like over-structuring to separate the two. Kinda a waste of space, too.

I think that how the planning forum/threads are used will determine whether or not Planning and Discussion threads are essentially similar or essentially different. If a "planning" thread is only used to jumpstart a particular game idea, and leads directly into a game and so morphs into a "discussion thread," then yes--it would be redundant to have both.

However, I think that a "planning" forum has the potential to be somewhat more broadly focused. In addition to allowing players the chance to hone game ideas prior to starting a game, a planning forum might also have the leeway to delve into things like writing theory, etiquette discussions, and canonicity questions the game owners/players might want to bring up.

The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that with a "discussion thread," the only people who are liable to read it are the people involved in the game. The non-involved reader might follow the story thread, but I don't see them necessarily getting involved in the discussion thread--and even if they read it, I really don't see them replying. The clear distinction of a "planning forum," on the other hand, invites general readership and involvement to discussion about the "nuts and bolts" that they would not find in game-specific, on-going discussion threads.

piosenniel

02-14-2011, 08:49 PM

As long as we're looking to restructure the RPG Forum, perhaps we should take a look at the rules which are in place now:

SHIRE RULES: The Red Book of Westmarch (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10581)

The Golden Hall: Rohan Rules/Player Lists (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10525)

What needs to go, what do you think should be kept? (Note: the rule forbidding swearing, sexual conduct, and obscenity was a requirement by the Barrow-Wight.)

Nerwen

02-14-2011, 09:40 PM

Mnemosyne

02-15-2011, 12:02 AM

Just jumping in to note that I'm one who might well start playing if some of these changes go ahead. Specifically, I'd be interested in games that are fairly plot-driven, and planned to end within a certain time– I mean as opposed to five-year epics.

How does two weeks of actual game-play sound? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=649791)

Not plot-driven at the moment, but the plan is to steer quite clear of the five-year epic and not require much more commitment, say, than a Werewolf game. :smokin:

And I might as well add here that this is an open call for players or even just discussers at this point. The proposed game is going to try to take some of the suggestions on this thread into account, in part by the shorter, more intense game, in part by a character-driven, "shared ownership" model, and in part by containing an in-plot mechanism for characters who can just wander on the set. Thanks!

Durelin

02-15-2011, 01:29 PM

However, I think that a "planning" forum has the potential to be somewhat more broadly focused. In addition to allowing players the chance to hone game ideas prior to starting a game, a planning forum might also have the leeway to delve into things like writing theory, etiquette discussions, and canonicity questions the game owners/players might want to bring up.

The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that with a "discussion thread," the only people who are liable to read it are the people involved in the game.

As you've said it's about how they're used. It really just comes down to terminology. And what's interesting is that, to me, the term 'planning thread' here on the Downs has often meant a closed thread where people are invited to plan a new game, then when the 'discussion thread' is posted, everyone's able to jump in and join. So I'd like to combine the two into just the discussion thread. Discussion threads would go in your 'planning forum,' and people could plan/discuss the game and continue to use the thread when the game is started (or people can choose to start the game thread and discussion thread at the same time).

Anyway, that's rather minor...

Shire Rules -- They all seem still very applicable to me, but maybe with some edits. I just wrote comments on some rules I thought might need some changing.

3. Short chat-style posts which encourage other players to post in a chatty style are also not allowed. Be descriptive, and try not to use a lot of dialog. << I'm not sure about this 'try not to use a lot of dialogue'. Might want to say 'use a mix of dialogue and description' or something.

....

5. You must tell your fellow players if you will be unavailable for a while. Any character that goes missing for a two week period of time can be "killed off" or "lost" and will be out of the game. If you have posted that you will be gone, the game owner can then decide if someone else can take over your character if need be until you get back. <<I'm really not sure if two weeks is long enough. As it is, this rule has never been acted upon in that short amount of time in my memory and experience.

....

7. Interact with the other players. Don't try to write the story yourself. An RPG is a communal effort with everyone participating. Use the discussion thread for planning. Also, don't "hijack" other player's characters. It is bad form to send another character off somewhere without the permission of the player. <<Should we perhaps expand on this considering the different ideas of people on what's acceptable regarding using other people's characters? Perhaps say *do not use another person's character at all (move them, give them dialogue, etc) unless you have express permission from the player. I mean this is pretty much a rule that will be self-policed so if two players are fine with using each other's characters, they won't complain to the mods about it and it doesn't really matter.

....

9. Follow the story line and read what the other players are posting. If your mission is to deliver a message from Bag End to Bree, you have no business wandering off to Lorien. Every RPG has a beginning, a middle and an end. Aimless wandering is not allowed. Achieve your goal, have fun doing it, and when you are done move on to the next game. <<Hmm, is this really necessary? I've never witnessed aimless wandering within a game plot. And it's a little strict on the *every RPG has a beginning, middle and end*...I don't agree with that, personally. Maybe I'm just being picky. Maybe just take out the 'middle'? Haha.

....

Simply put: Please play your character realistically and within the boundaries of Middle Earth "reality". Don't act in ways that give you unfair advantages over other players. Don't speak, act, or think for another player's character(s) without consulting them first. Concentrate on your own character and how they are reacting to what is happening around them. <<Here we go, this is more explicit about using other's characters. Of course, 'consulting' them FIRST should be emphasized, rather than consulting after the fact. And not assuming that if you ask it will be fine.

....

13. The member who starts a RPG is its "Owner" or "Founder" and is in charge of the game. That person is expected to keep the game moving, keep his/her players in character and following the rules, and guide the plot in the Discussion Thread, under the general supervision of the Shire Moderators ad Innkeepers. <<This still seems fine to me. It might want to be added to, with something about how the Owner/Founder determines the pace of the game, how much control the players have, etc. All of course still under the supervision of the mods.

....

15. Do not enter an RPG thread to ask to join a game. PM the RPG owner. Put your name on the thread for wanting to join RPG’s, so that we’ll know to give you a heads up on new games. Check the Inn thread – we always advertise new games there. In the meantime, you may always post a character in the Inn and play there until a new game comes up. <<This should maybe be tweaked. What do we want the procedure to be? PM the game owner is still a good suggestion. Perhaps say, check the discussion thread of the game and see if the game owner has left it open for new players to join or if it is 'closed.'

16. Edit out your signature for every post you do in any role playing game in the Shire, Rohan, or Gondor. Edit out your signature for the Inns in Rohan and the Shire, too. In the screen for creating your posts, there is an option to 'Show Signature'. Please uncheck this box when posting in the RPG forums. <<I still like this rule, but don't really care either way. I'm not an uber neat freak about posts so I understand that this might be annoying to some people. I mean, at least we don't have image signatures here so it's not like they're that distracting.

....

17. About quoting what other characters have said in previous posts: Please don't use the 'QUOTE' function available to you on the posts. Since the Inn and RPG's are writtien more like ongoing stories - just use quotation marks and reference the quotation from the other character as needed with a - he said . . . she said . . . etc. <<Like this too. Another neatness thing so not a big deal but...

18. Please note: A game which hasn't been posted on in 2 weeks signifies a lack of interest in the game, and the Moderator may choose to close the game and remove it. <<Do we want to expand this and set a specific (longer? or no?) time after which a game will absolutely be closed?

Only the moderators or the Innkeeper may move the timeline forward in the Inn. And there will be a notice or discussion of it on the Inn Discussion thread.

Not sure about this. I mean it makes sense, but it also puts a lot on the innkeeper and limits the 'free flowing' nature of the inn. Having a specific timeline to things (which I don't even know how well it's ever followed) can make it a little less easy to jump in. But I don't have a good solution for this. I guess as long as the innkeeper stays flexible and lets days go on for as long as people are posting? Which I'm sure they will.

Serial posting between writers is discouraged, especially since it tends to become more dialog oriented than descriptive.

I really don't think this is necessary. A bit too *this is how you must roleplay* for me. Some people do quite well with serial posting. Obviously I don't but who's to say you can't do that? Or you won't be able to do it well enough so you're not allowed.

Saves -- I don't like Saves. I'm guessing not everyone's going to want to outlaw them and I don't really care, but perhaps that's another thing that could be left up to the game owner. Or just play it by ear. If someone posts a save and the game owner has a problem with it, they address it. (Basically Saves to me are a symptom of that very plot-oriented, step-by-step sort of RPing Bethberry was talking about and they are often unnecessary.)

Rohan Rules

Game Player Rules:

Post at a minimum two times weekly for a major character, once weekly for a minor character, or as required for a cameo character, and read both the game and discussion threads at least every two days in order to keep informed of the game's events. (Posting speed can be discussed among gamers before a game starts and a consensus on posting speed can be reached. However, once this decision is reached, gamers are expected to follow it conscientiously. Games which don't move are not fun to read or play in.) <<I think this is a little bit too standing over the shoulder sort of thing. I say keep it simple and just tell people, *Keep up with your games, try to post as regularly as possible. Keep in contact with who you're RPing with, let them know if you're going to be away.* And maybe keep as it says here that the players in a game will kind decide on their own the pace of the game.

....

It is recommended that gamers use a Word or WordPerfect processing system, a spell-checker, and an online dictionary in writing posts and to proofread posts (with the preview function) once they have been put up on the game thread. <<A dictionary?

....

Write posts which combine exposition and description, using dialogue also if needed, and which either develop character or further the plot as described in the rules for writing at Rohan. <<Why did I not sense such hostility to dialogue before this? I don't get it...

Write posts which are coordinated with previous events and posts in the game, with characters interacting as needed by the game so that the game reads smoothly and coherently. <<Oof. Characters can only interact *as needed by the game*. I value consistency, but that seems like it's crawling into that territory of your character can only do what the game allows, down to every action or interaction...which is a bit much.

Discuss with the Game Founder in advance any plot twists, turns or ideas which are not part of the general plot of the game and to use them only with the approval of the Game Founder. <<Hmm...well, if it's going to affect the whole plot or every character in the game, yes. Maybe a plug for using planning/discussion threads here!

Refer to other characters and write them in a manner consistent with the way they are written by their owners. Gamers can make major decisions only for their own characters. <<NO...NO. Do not write for other characters unless given express permission. Refer to Shire rules.

~

What a Game Founder/ Manager does:

Submits the game proposal to the reviewers using the Rohan Game Proposal Form ( found on the thread called How to Propose New RPGs for Rohan). You can see how a proposal is developed on this thread. Games can be developed independently or cooperatively on a game planning thread. If you wish to have a planning thread created for you, PM piosenniel. <<This may need to be changed obviously depending on if we have a proposal system. At least the planning thread thing, based on whatever's decided.

Chooses gamers based on the character description and first post submitted to the discussion thread. (The choice should be determined by quality of writing, depth of characterization, and suitability for the needs of the game.) <<Maybe not the 'first post' since they aren't even required under the current system and certainly shouldn't be IMO under whatever new system. Maybe make it seem less like an audition, maybe not. But of course say, it's up to the game founder who they let into their game.

Posts at a minimum two times weekly to the game. Note: Posting regularly in a game helps to keep it alive. Games that drag on become more an obligation than fun and discourage readers from following a game. <<Yes the game founder/owner has more responsibility. But I just get all weird when there's such specific numbers tossed around.

Prompts gamers who do not post regularly and guides the game to a successful conclusion following the ideas set out in the proposal. <<'Following the ideas set out in the proposal' makes it seem like you can't allow for the characters to affect what happens, etc. It sounds like *the plot must be followed out to the letter*

Notifies gamers on the discussion thread of their absences and informs at least one gamer (who will assume the responsibilities of an acting manager) of any game details which will need to be carried out in the manager's absence. <<Wasn't that one of the discussions here?

Contacts the Rohan Moderator about any gamers who are not consistently writing at the Rohan standard, so that the Moderator can offer the gamers specific help to improve their writing. <<This should really be gotten rid of. The 'standards' should be set out in the rules and people can tell on one another if they wish/everyone can help each other out.

Respects the fact that characters are owned by their writers and not controlled by the Game Founder and that the game is owned by everyone who creates it through the writing of it. Once characters have been accepted into a game, Game Founders should not make plans for them without discussing those plans with the gamer who runs the character. Gaming in Rohan is cooperative. <<Yessss...

Basically I think the Shire rules should be added to with some bits and pieces from the Rohan rules but a lot of the Rohan rules are either redundant or are based on the "meeting Rohan's standards" and "moving up to Gondor."

Nogrod

02-15-2011, 05:47 PM

Just a quckish comment here on Pio's question about the rules.

I'd like to see the "formal rules" stay eg. no smilies, no signatures, no OOC -stuff, no highlighting...

I just can't imagine an RP with smilies, signatures or OOC discussions. They are nice to have around in many contexts but not in the RP's.

The question of dialogue, or using other people's characters is a more challenging one - and I know it has not been just once or twice when it has been an issue.

I have both good and bad experiences on it. In Scarburg Mead Hall the active players know each others characters well enough so they can oftentimes write some dialogue between two characters - and it is quite smooth to just ask in the discussion thread whether it was okay for the other player (and everyone expects that any changes the other player wishes will be addressed). And we have all these ways of co-writing a post via PM's, MSN, what have you.

But if the players are not confident of each other, or if for any other reason there is no feeling of mutual trust, then it becomes more problematic. For those occasions there should be rules more or less like the ones we have now. I've seen these things go soo wrong as well when people think they can fulfill their personal ambitions totally disregarding other players' characters - and in the worst instance misrepresenting them badly and not willing to change what they have written after the others complain about it.

I'm not sure how any exceptions to the quite strict rules should be spelled out though, but I know how it goes in practise... When two people have written a long time enough in a game (or just feel they trust each other's judgement) they start to add comments of the other player's character into their posts - immediately checking whether it was okay (in the discussion thread), but with time even these questions become scarcer as they know what they're doing.

So how about we still kept the rule of not doing things with other player's characters but made it clear it was okay when you had the mutual ageement with someone - so only when both sides agreed? How to write that in a rules -section beats me though.

Also (and partly merged into what I said earlier) the rules about bunnying and not trying to drive the story by yourself should be kept in force - at least on any basic level of game rules.

So?

I can see a lot of these rules have been made in eye of people hoarding in not having an idea what RP'ing in the 'Downs is about (the LotR movies). At the moment the situation is a bit different and many rules feel a bit redundant. But who knows if the Hobbit-films will again create a great influx of new people who need to be told what we want from the RP's in this forum? Thus I wouldn't call for doing away with all the rules we have.

But to recognize what we all more experienced RP'rs know - should we say the strict rules can be overlooked when we have a mutual consent and trust between writers... that could be just one paraphrase in the end of one sentence?

Formendacil

02-15-2011, 06:18 PM

In general, my feelings about the Rules tend to echo Nogrod's, so I feel I can do little better than quote him where I feel I have a touch of difference of opinion, or maybe something to add.

I'd like to see the "formal rules" stay eg. no smilies, no signatures, no OOC -stuff, no highlighting...

I just can't imagine an RP with smilies, signatures or OOC discussions. They are nice to have around in many contexts but not in the RP's.

I agree 100%. Granted, my ability to imagine smilied or be-signatured RPs has been strongly affected by the Downs, I think these sorts of rules are valid, and what's more, they form a major part of the Downer tradition or ethos concerning RPs, and just because we're restructuring that section doesn't mean that we're doing away with the traditions concerning it.

The question of dialogue, or using other people's characters is a more challenging one - and I know it has not been just once or twice when it has been an issue.

Once again, my feelings mirror Nogrod's: in general, the rules are far stricter than actual practice goes, and also stricter than actual practice merits. However, I tend to feel that it's better to have strict rules with lax enforcement than lax rules. Still, it might be worth rewriting them to include a clause to the effect of: "basic interaction with another player's character may include dialogue, but the other player may always ask for the dialogue to be revised, and if they feel their character has been played in an out-of-character manner, they can ask to have the entire post revised or removed. As a general rule, therefore, if you do not know another player and their character well, you should be careful not to have them say or do anything significant without having consulted the other player first."

I admit that's rather wordy...

Feanor of the Peredhil

02-15-2011, 06:38 PM

Sigs have no place in games because they add irrelevant text to otherwise cohesive collaborative writing; it's more or less the same as OOC memos tacked onto the end of your creative writing.

Smilies make for lazy use of language (yes, I use them, but not in creative writing unless I'm really going for post-post-modernism) which is not what we try to encourage here, so I would vote for the rule of no-smilies to stay in effect. Emotion can be conveyed with writing style, with descriptions of appearances, actions, thoughts: smilies sort of give the effect of "hehe look how cute I am" or "just kidding!" which in both instances undermines the credibility of the text itself.

These general rules that are already in existence serve as good guidelines for making your writing clear and generous to others: it looks pretty and well organized. It's like double spacing an essay for your professor: readability matters, even if the content of the writing is otherwise brilliant.

So how about we still kept the rule of not doing things with other player's characters but made it clear it was okay when you had the mutual agreement with someone - so only when both sides agreed? How to write that in a rules -section beats me though.

The way you have spelled it out is quite clear: you may not use another player's character unless you have express permission to do so, and unless you are willing to make changes at the character owner's behest.

Nogrod

02-15-2011, 06:44 PM

"basic interaction with another player's character may include dialogue, but the other player may always ask for the dialogue to be revised, and if they feel their character has been played in an out-of-character manner, they can ask to have the entire post revised or removed. As a general rule, therefore, if you do not know another player and their character well, you should be careful not to have them say or do anything significant without having consulted the other player first."

I admit that's rather wordy...The many words kind of reveal the "fact" behind them that we should have the rules - but like you say It's better to have strict rules with lax enforcement than lax rules.What I think should be underlined is that the lax enforcement should be due to trust and general two-way feeling "breaking the rules" is okay for both parties involved (without this leave many games would stall badly). But writing that into a rule is something I find a bit problematic...

Durelin

02-15-2011, 07:04 PM

"basic interaction with another player's character may include dialogue, but the other player may always ask for the dialogue to be revised, and if they feel their character has been played in an out-of-character manner, they can ask to have the entire post revised or removed. As a general rule, therefore, if you do not know another player and their character well, you should be careful not to have them say or do anything significant without having consulted the other player first."

Can't it just be, don't do anything with another person's character without their consent and leave it at that? Leave it to the players to work it out. If you *know* the other person wants you to or gives permission; if two players have RPed together and are used to using each other's characters than by all means go ahead and do what you're used to. But that doesn't need to be in the rules. I'm pretty sure that mods will only step in when there is a complaint.

Wonder how many pages we can discuss this for... :rolleyes: ;)

/rule nitpicking...I hope. The whole using characters thing is of concern to me, though.

Formendacil

02-15-2011, 07:47 PM

What I think should be underlined is that the lax enforcement should be due to trust and general two-way feeling "breaking the rules" is okay for both parties involved (without this leave many games would stall badly). But writing that into a rule is something I find a bit problematic...

Yes, quite. I'm not sure how one would write it into the rules, but it's analogous to what is "proper" for regular society: there are liberties that are habitual and proper to friends, family, and lovers which would be grossly out of place for strangers. In like manner, one should know the other person and/or their character before taking liberties.

Wonder how many pages we can discuss this for...

Quite a few, undoubtedly, but it's ultimately going to come down to the philosophy behind the way things are done as an RPing community, and (from my perspective), I don't see that we're actually modifying the Barrow-downs roleplaying ethos all that much. We're modifying the superstructure, taking into account the current personnel situation and the experience of pluses and minuses of the old structure... but I don't think the overall style of playing is really being brought into question.

In other words, I think we're quibbling more over how the formulation of the rules will match the unspoken habits of using other characters that are already in play, rather than revising the rule structure to reflect a whole new way of thinking.

Although... it might just be me who thinks that.

Durelin

02-15-2011, 08:11 PM

but I don't think the overall style of playing is really being brought into question.

I didn't know that line had been drawn.

In other words, I think we're quibbling more over how the formulation of the rules will match the unspoken habits of using other characters that are already in play, rather than revising the rule structure to reflect a whole new way of thinking.

Instead revise the rule structure to reflect unspoken habits that may or may not be shared by every player? And new players must conform to these unspoken habits? I mean, there's rules to help things go smoothly, and then there's rules that tell you how you should write, how you should RP, etc. The Downs is going to maintain a certain style regardless of how many unspoken habits you do or don't put into the rules. I guess it's how far you want to go. To be honest I just didn't know that not using someone's character without their permission is an entirely new way of thinking.

I'll go away now. Promise.

Formendacil

02-16-2011, 08:57 AM

I didn't know that line had been drawn.

My apologies then--perhaps it hasn't been explicitly drawn. Nonetheless, without anyone having drawn a precise line, it seems to me that a realistic appraisal of the situation yields the same results: we're talking about a change to RPing, as it is played on the Downs. This discussion involves Downer RPers, under the eyes of the Downer mods and admins. What's more, with the possible (probable?) exception of yourself, no one has really been agitating for a complete levelling of the way RPs are played on the Downs. Instead, the majority of the discussion has focused on how to streamline what we already have.

Maybe I'm the only one who sees it this way--and in that case, more people ought to speak up and tell me so--but in simplest terms, we're not building a new forum; we're modifying the one we have.

Instead revise the rule structure to reflect unspoken habits that may or may not be shared by every player?

Not every player may share these "unspoken habits," but I sincerely hope that the attempts at revising the rules don't make it appear that people have to use other player's characters extensively in their posts. The rules, as they stand, say that you can't use someone else's character. The practice--what you're calling unspoken habits--is that we do use each other's characters, cautiously and sparingly in most cases, or more extensively when we know them better, always open to adjustment at the behest of the other character's player. The revision of this rule insofar as anyone seems to be talking about it would not impose any new burden of interaction on players who try not to use other people's characters, but would turn the currently illicit, but de facto situation of shared character use into a de iure case.

And new players must conform to these unspoken habits?

These unspoken habits, in my experience, are what happen after two players and their two characters have played together for a while--the players learn what they can reasonably do with someone else's character, and end up using them accordingly--beyond the limits proscribed by the current law. Extending the bounds of the current law to include what is already happening does not force new players to play right out to those limits. On the contrary, it gives them the confidence and freedom to know that they are not going to be blithely struck down if they so much as use someone else's concierge to sign them into a hotel lobby.

I mean, there's rules to help things go smoothly, and then there's rules that tell you how you should write, how you should RP, etc. The Downs is going to maintain a certain style regardless of how many unspoken habits you do or don't put into the rules. I guess it's how far you want to go. To be honest I just didn't know that not using someone's character without their permission is an entirely new way of thinking.

If I may make a candid, and possibly erroneous observation, Durelin, your biggest issue seems to be that "the Downs is going to maintain a certain style regardless"--and I am inferring that you think this is not an entirely good thing. Perhaps this is the whole problem here: unlike you (assuming I read you right), I want the Downs to maintain the good elements of its "certain style." What's more, I get the impression that most of the people commenting on this thread want to maintain what they think the good elements of Downsian roleplaying are. As a result, while maybe there is no "line drawn," it seems patently likely that the new Downs forums will resemble the old.

Bêthberry

02-16-2011, 10:13 AM

If I may offer a few modest observations here . . . .

I don't see that we're actually modifying the Barrow-downs roleplaying ethos all that much. We're modifying the superstructure, taking into account the current personnel situation and the experience of pluses and minuses of the old structure... but I don't think the overall style of playing is really being brought into question.

In other words, I think we're quibbling more over how the formulation of the rules will match the unspoken habits of using other characters that are already in play, rather than revising the rule structure to reflect a whole new way of thinking.

it seems patently likely that the new Downs forums will resemble the old.

I think back to Mithadan's comment that the RPG fora have "become somewhat rundown and shabby" (post #218 on this thread). And I also think back to the several comments about different styles of games, those highly structured/organised and those more spontaneous or interactive. I thought the new incarnation would allow for both styles, whereas the current one allows only for the first, and would free gamers up from the tightly controlled structure that now exists, encouraging Downers to take a more active role in gaming.

So I was under the impression that what was going on now was an attempt to reincarnate the gaming at the Downs under guidelines that would be encouraging and positive where the current system can sound discouraging (just a whole lot of hoops) and patronising (if I can summarise some of the thoughts here), however well meant.

I suggest that if the current rules are simply carried over with some modification or tinkering, nothing will change, nothing will encourage new gamers to join, nothing will reinvigorate the RPG forum, because the framework will continue to stiffle creativity and fun. It will sound too much like the old fora and still seem just like too much work.

Consider the Guidelines for Forum Posting (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11805) which Estelyn Telcontar wrote, found in N & N. They uphold the Downs style without sounding too heavy-handed. Granted that RPGing is a different context, but surely those differences can be incorporated in a framework that doesn't sound onerous and that gives ownership for gaming to the people doing it.

So, I don't think it's just a matter of streamlining what we have, but of reinventing how we describe what we do and what we would like to see.

Respectfully submitted,
Bb

Boromir88

02-16-2011, 10:47 AM

Consider the Guidelines for Forum Posting (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11805) which Estelyn Telcontar wrote, found in N & N. They uphold the Downs style without sounding too heavy-handed. Granted that RPGing is a different context, but surely those differences can be incorporated in a framework that doesn't sound onerous and that gives ownership for gaming to the people doing it.

So, I don't think it's just a matter of streamlining what we have, but of reinventing how we describe what we do and what we would like to see.

That's definitely a good place to start. As you've said it's a different context, but it's still applicable to the RPG forum.

I mean, if we're talking about "hi-jacking" other people's characters. I think of it this way. The guide to posting says consider your own opinion and write it. I wouldn't take too kindly if Fea, started posting in the lore forums "Boro thinks Tolkien's an ancient relic, and an irrelevant has-been to modern society." Whether she's right or wrong isn't really the issue, I wouldn't like someone saying my opinions, when if I wanted to, I could speak for myself...thank you very much. :D

I'd feel the same about an RPG character. It's "my" character, unless I become negligent and am no longer posting, I don't want it taken over by someone else, unless:

1. They've asked me if it's ok.
2. Will go back and change stuff about my character that I think is necessary.

What I try to do, if I need to use other characters, but don't want to repeatedly ask if it's ok. I try to write how my character perceives another person's character. In this case, I'm developing my own character, without effecting anyone else's character, as it's only what my character thinks. No one seems to have had a problem with me over that? (I could be wrong though :p)

But the most important thing that I can take is #10 from Esty's post. Have fun, and yes I don't want people hi-jacking my character, but don't act like it's the end of the world if someone did. In another forum, I got into a debate with someone who said Tolkien was not a humorous author. LOTR is all serious and how dare the movies not be. Last I looked, I giggled at characters like Bombadil and all the situational irony/witty banter. Things can be changed, and if whoever has stepped over the line in using someone else's character flat out refuses to change it (which I can't see who would have a problem) the Mods can step in to make the edits...yes?

Formendacil

02-16-2011, 11:13 AM

If I may offer a few modest observations here . . . .

And they are well taken--perhaps I have been getting carried away in saying things like "most of the people commenting here." However, it's also possible I've overstated things in making a point...

I think back to Mithadan's comment that the RPG fora have "become somewhat rundown and shabby" (post #218 on this thread). And I also think back to the several comments about different styles of games, those highly structured/organised and those more spontaneous or interactive. I thought the new incarnation would allow for both styles, whereas the current one allows only for the first, and would free gamers up from the tightly controlled structure that now exists, encouraging Downers to take a more active role in gaming.

So I was under the impression that what was going on now was an attempt to reincarnate the gaming at the Downs under guidelines that would be encouraging and positive where the current system can sound discouraging (just a whole lot of hoops) and patronising (if I can summarise some of the thoughts here), however well meant.

Reading through that, I agree with you, and if this is the point Durelin was making, then I withdraw my responses as entirely too pedantic. However... I am reading you as saying that it's the system we go through to get at the games that is discouraging and patronising--not the games themselves. Since the rules we were/are quibbling over deal with the basic elements of interaction in the game, it seems to me that they would implicitly stand--at the very least as an informal etiquette. It is a valid critique to say that not everything needs to be codified into rules (and my last post, at the very least, would happily have verged in that direction), but that doesn't mean that the etiquette governing intra-game interactions is invalid.

Meanwhile, though, the point is well taken that in directing new members towards an understanding of this etiquette, the "rules" as posted should be less meticulously legal and more inviting. As far as that goes, I agree... but with regards to removing the principle altogether that a player ought to have the final say where his own character's characterisation goes? Even if that were not written into the rules anywhere, I would assume this principle unless I saw it stated otherwise--and if I did see it stated otherwise, I'd be much less inclined to sign up for a game.

I suggest that if the current rules are simply carried over with some modification or tinkering, nothing will change, nothing will encourage new gamers to join, nothing will reinvigorate the RPG forum, because the framework will continue to stiffle creativity and fun. It will sound too much like the old fora and still seem just like too much work.

Consider the Guidelines for Forum Posting (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11805) which Estelyn Telcontar wrote, found in N & N. They uphold the Downs style without sounding too heavy-handed. Granted that RPGing is a different context, but surely those differences can be incorporated in a framework that doesn't sound onerous and that gives ownership for gaming to the people doing it.

Insofar as I agree that there needs to be a distinctly inviting tone, and that the actual procedures involved should be as simple as possible, I agree... and I accept any rebuke due to me that I've been encouraging discussion in a legal direction, which is counterproductive. That being said, however, "upholding the Downs style" is exactly what the new rules should do... and in that respect I feel like what I've been trying to say all along is that the new RPing forum(s) will be Downs forums, and that the in-game etiquette that is the practical expression of Downer courtesy and cooperation right now will continue in very similar ways in the future.

So, I don't think it's just a matter of streamlining what we have, but of reinventing how we describe what we do and what we would like to see.

Perhaps "streamlining" is the wrong word... but I had difficulty finding the right word. What I've been attempting to defend--and perhaps the need of any defence thereof was never present--is the idea that different etiquette will be found in the new forums. I've been calling this "ethos," or "Downer style," and I'm not referring to the process by which someone can start a game, or by which they can join a game, or even the style of game, but rather the interaction of people once they're involved together in a game.

Maybe different rules would be necessary then, for looser, open-ended, games, as opposed to more "traditional" games--in which case, I not-so-subtly suggest that we need distinct forums, ala my Doriath/Rivendell proposal . However, even in a looser, open-ended game, my impression was still that individual players would have individual characters, which implies a sense of investment and ownership. Given that, it seems only common courtesy to me that the player with that ownership would still be deferred to where that character is considered.

If we're talking about collaborative story-writing, where there is no identification of player with character, but merely mass ownership of the entire story without authorial division by character, then we're talking about something that hardly qualifies as role-playing, and might be more akin to co-written fanfiction. And while I'm not saying there's no room for that on the Downs, I guess I didn't think we were discussing that far outside the box.

In retrospect... seeing where I've come and all, I stand by what I said about "new Downs forums resembling the old." It was an unfortunate way to phrase it, but what I meant was that we would still be playing games recognizable as roleplaying, and that we would be interacting therein with a similar etiquette to what we have now.

Feanor of the Peredhil

02-16-2011, 12:32 PM

what I meant was that we would still be playing games recognizable as roleplaying, and that we would be interacting therein with a similar etiquette to what we have now.

Yes.

Though we are restructuring dramatically, the final result will (and should) still have elements such as:

This being a Tolkien website, the games will be Tolkien-themed
No sex, obscenities, or other rudeness permitted (WWTD?)
If you don't want to write collaboratively, making a conscious effort to work with others in a meaningful way, perhaps the concept of a community based forum with an active role playing section (as opposed to an RPG forum that happens to have people who like to talk at great length) has been lost on you
Make an effort to provide posts that are not full of typographical errors, etc
Be conscious of tone (it is easy to misinterpret the tone of voice in writing, and easy to be offended by something not meant to offend) and willing to adjust, edit, apologize, and forgive as necessaryThese are not dictatorial issues that are in place for the sheer sake of power structure. Though this is a community oriented forum, it is still privately owned and the opinions of Himself must be adhered to. Also, due to the collaborative nature of RPGing, keeping general rules in place to ensure that posts reflect a generosity and kindness of spirit, and a careful thought, rather than selfish or lazy writing, is more in the spirit of Tolkien and how he would approach writing with his name attached to it, than it is a reflection of HOW EVERYTHING MUST BE EVERYWHERE.

Durelin

02-16-2011, 12:41 PM

If we're talking about collaborative story-writing, where there is no identification of player with character, but merely mass ownership of the entire story without authorial division by character, then we're talking about something that hardly qualifies as role-playing, and might be more akin to co-written fanfiction. And while I'm not saying there's no room for that on the Downs, I guess I didn't think we were discussing that far outside the box.

This is funny, because this is what I think the Downs style has been like. The *play out the plot step by step, using the characters to complete the plot* (which means sometimes everyone sorta collectively using the characters)...

The Downs RP 'style' may change a bit, it may not. It has nothing to do with whether it's good or not. A certain style, a certain etiquette is going to just simply exist, regardless of what you try to put into the rules or if you just leave it all out except for the basics.

Why not leave room for variety? For some things a little different? No one's going to pop in and just change the status quo if you don't outline every little style point in the rules. For one thing, the status quo is pretty *solid* here...for another, that just doesn't happen.

And the problem is you have one perception of the 'Downs RP style.' It's quite different from mine. I have no idea about anyone else's, but just looking at this thread, it seems like a lot of us are in different worlds. And the fact is, the style has changed over time, fluctuated a great deal. In the particulars, the style can differ from game to game and certainly from forum to forum, which was part of the point of the three forum system (the differences seemed to get fewer over time, I guess).

So, I just think what you're trying to put into rules, to 'preserve' the style...it's a bit much, and not what rules are for in my opinion.

And yea, on a personal level, I'm *whining* because I don't like people using my character to move along the story or accomplish something they want to accomplish.

Re Fea's post:

Yea, I think we can all agree on those basic rules, regardless of wording. Though I think rule #3 applies to any community. And of course #5 is a tricky thing to put into rules. I mean that just falls under general forum rules of interaction.

Formendacil

02-16-2011, 01:32 PM

This is funny, because this is what I think the Downs style has been like. The *play out the plot step by step, using the characters to complete the plot* (which means sometimes everyone sorta collectively using the characters)...

Well, I daresay I've read you wrong in many respects... while at the same time I have to heartily agree that we see things here from drastically different perspectives. I am content to agree to disagree. In any case, my point has been made, while perhaps not articulated well enough for complete comprehension...

Why not leave room for variety? For some things a little different? No one's going to pop in and just change the status quo if you don't outline every little style point in the rules. For one thing, the status quo is pretty *solid* here...for another, that just doesn't happen.

First of all, in case there's any impression to the contrary, I am not opposed to having few spelled out rules. Nonetheless, we have to have *some* rules, and even some rules that have been written down. This particular sidetrack developed out of a discussion regarding the current rule about not godmoding. My (overdone) defencive was never really intended to give the new forum a detailed, down-to-the-particular situation rulebook. While I definitely got distracted regarding the formulation, application, and interpretation of this particular law (for which you can thank my affinity for canon law), it's worth noting that my point was to affirm the validity of the current rules, and more importantly to note that the reason those rules existed--namely to safeguard the rights of players--was still valid.

Granted, if in fact the current system, for all its rigidity on that point doesn't actually safeguard a player's right to their character, but actually railroads them in the direction of the plot... well, in that case my impassioned legal defence is sort of beside the point, whatever its intrinsic value.

And the fact is, the style has changed over time, fluctuated a great deal. In the particulars, the style can differ from game to game and certainly from forum to forum, which was part of the point of the three forum system (the differences seemed to get fewer over time, I guess).

So, I just think what you're trying to put into rules, to 'preserve' the style...it's a bit much, and not what rules are for in my opinion.

"Style" is one of the worst of a few bad word-choices I've made, and you'd think a Philosophy/English student would know better*. My usage keeps being interpreted as something a lot more nitpicky and detailed than I meant it to be, and that's probably my fault for responding in a nitpicky way to a nitpicky issue, while having the -unstated- intention of speaking about big things, which were, at best, only alluded to.

So, to make it extra, crystal-clear...

I don't want to make lots of little rules detailing the exact specifics of every possible situation--and, in that respect especially, my use of the word "style" was unfortunate.

That being said, however... I do think it's extremely important to be having nitpicky, even contra-factual, discussions about the "rules/etiquette." For one thing, it provokes opinions, and for another it lets one examine the full consequences of a change. Do we want to have less restrictive rules? Yes, I think we all agree on that in principle. At the same time, however, do we want to do away with the motivations behind the rules as they stand? Taking your case, of displeasure at having your character railroaded for the sake of the story, then it seems to me that, in the case of the rule about not godmoding, that you still would want the principle behind it being forbidden to remain in place.

As to Fea's basic rules... they're the principles behind all the rules we have now, and are essentially what I've been defending--albeit, perhaps they were never under attack...

*Trivia fact: we don't. On the contrary, we tend to redefine words and make the subconscious assumption that everyone else will figure out the "new meaning" through a combination of context and miraculous osmosis.