[Bêthberry]

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.

Originally Posted by Mithadan

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.