A Measure of Success - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

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.

02-09-2011, 11:06 AM	#11
Mnemosyne Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Between the past and the future Posts: 1,159	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. __________________ Got corsets?