A Measure of Success

[Durelin]

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]

Durelin - sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Folwren]

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]

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]

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.

[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...