A Measure of Success

[Thinlómien]

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.

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]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Lommy

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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?

[mark12_30]

... 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.) 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...