A Measure of Success

[Nogrod]

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?

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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.

Well, what I was understanding from pio's idea, is sort of the pre-game planning/brainstorming ideas/game proposals would be for one forum. Then the In-game planning/discussion threads would go in the same forums with the RPGs.

[piosenniel]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Fea

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]

Originally Posted by Durelin

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]

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

The Golden Hall: Rohan Rules/Player Lists

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.)