A Measure of Success

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And to support another point: Mark has clarified a good point about Gondor, which my word 'literary' didn't really get at, with her use of "canonical". Yes, Gondor was where the most canonical (or deliberately non-canonical) games were to be. Good games and good writing can occur in all forums, and be created by all ages, but playing consciously and deliberately with Tolkien's style--getting inside his style as he got inside language--was supposed to be the defining mark.

Extremely high standards (but there's nothing bad about high standards, as usually anyone who cares will rise to them - and hopefully above them). So, you've concisely pointed out the expected standards, and reasons for the Gondor forum.

I think though, and why the "elitist" sentiments have come up again, something got lost in the translation to the Gondor forum. I know it's no one's intentions on here to discourage, and make it insanely hard on new RPGers, but I think the standards you've pointed out Beth, aren't made clear enough in Gondor.

Several times it's mentioned that Gondor is the most advanced and expert RPG place. The people posting there have to live up to quality posts and the high standards. There's nothing wrong with having that advanced system, and with an end goal of hoping the place continues to grow and still keep those same "Tolkien" standards of writing. The issue becomes, there is no explanation of what you mean by "maintaining high quality posts." Quality or higher standards are vague, and subjective. Not completely subjective, but what I would call "high quality" may vary from what you call "high quality." We become lost by what the expectations for posting in Gondor are (other than...it has to be high quality!), just as Mithadan was lost when he asked what we want him to do. Combine the high expectations with, "if you don't measure up to these, you may be asked to leave Gondor, but don't feel intimidated!," and that is where the feelings of elitism come up.

We wander in the dark, not knowing what we have to do to get to Gondor, and then finally get frustrated by wandering in the dark for so long. Having an advanced RP-forum, that sets high expectations in and of itself, is not elitist. I don't feel it is, but if there are no clear and explained standards, and "if you can't maintain these standards, you shouldn't be here," does have the unintentional feel of elitism. If the purpose of Gondor is to grow and tap into the talented writers of the forum, we need guides.

Gondor is looking like another Elvenhome. That doesn't mean it needs to be completely tossed out, but life needs brought into it. I am not a writer by any means, but I know (and have met) several talented writers on this forum. Make it easier on the writers and guide members better on the RPG expectations (particularly the high ones for Gondor). I find it impossible to set standards that are too high for people, but we need to know what those standards are and help getting there to reach full potential.

[Firefoot]

I'm just ducking in here really quickly, but I'd like to say I like Formy's idea a lot.

Another idea I'd just like to throw out there - it just occurred to me and I haven't really thought it through, but what if we also created a place (forum? subforum? or maybe a new place isn't really necessary) where people could just toss around ideas with each other? In my mind this serves a similar purpose to the discussion/administrative thread in werewolf where people throw around ideas for new special rules or whatnot. For example, say I'm thinking about starting an RPG but don't really have any concrete ideas... I could start a thread saying something like, "I'd like to write about x, is anyone else also interested and would you like to help come up with a plot idea?" I'm not suggesting totally getting rid of the game owner model, but this could run along side it as a more collaborative sort of thing... although maybe this is almost exactly what planning threads do now. Just a rambling thought - I have to run now.

[Snowdog]

I'm off to work, but very quickly I'll suggest that opening up the Shire (or another forum of whatever you want to call it), for free writing without this control or that control may bring in some new people, creativity, and such. There would be general forum RP rules and guidelines that are common sense ones (using other 's characters, no one or two liner posts, etc.) but the actual tale/"game" would be up to the creator to open up or restrict. Apparently this "Wild West" style is adamantly rejected here. But It's my thought on the matter. I have to deal with too much micro and pico-management at work to want to deal with it on my own leisure time writing.

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Mnemo

I think that's why I'm more concerned with making sure that RPs are structured in the sense of, yes, they have a story to tell, and that story has a concrete beginning and ending. The Inns are fine for less concrete stuff, but really, Durelin, is it okay to have long-term stories that are more or less free-form, that players can hop into and out of? It's just a concept that's alien to me, probably because I got acquainted with RPs as a reader, and I write fan fiction, and I'm a big continuity geek.

You're asking me if it's okay, but you haven't pointed out anything wrong with it. Even if you look at it purely from a story-writing perspective, which RPing is NOT purely (everyone looks at it differently; to some it is story writing, to some it is more like a game, to some it is more like 'acting' in writing so to speak, etc)...a story doesn't begin with all of its characters necessarily. Many characters are introduced later. Some show up for a brief time. If you insist on extreme organization and as you've mentioned, perfect continuity, you can enforce that in a game/story/thread you initiate. But why not let others start threads/stories/games that do not enforce that?

I'm basically with a lot of what Bethberry has said. And Mithalwen as well. Let's leave it up to people to start games/threads and determine THEIR parameters for that game/thread/story. The moderators would then be working on the front end rather than the back end, as Bethberry has suggested. Rather than having to look over every game proposal before hand, they keep an eye on what's being posted and step in only when necessary.

Originally Posted by Firefoot

it just occurred to me and I haven't really thought it through, but what if we also created a place (forum? subforum? or maybe a new place isn't really necessary) where people could just toss around ideas with each other

I like this idea. That was part of the organization I suggested in my original (freakishly long) post. One Discussion forum and One RP/IC forum -- which is a typical organization on many discussion forums with an RP section.

Piosenniel - When I say 'Mod,' such as in the note at the end of my last post, I mean forum moderator. I've started using words like initiator and other such nonsense to describe what has been known as the 'game owner' (the person who starts the game/thread)

Originally Posted by Mnemo

The way I see it, there are two ways we can go about this, if we must have rules: regulating games through control of players (who's allowed to play at what level), and regulating games through control of games. And no, WW games aren't approved, but there's a queue mechanism in place that's existed as long as the game has, and when someone unreliable started up a game but then didn't do anything with it (IIRC) the group had to step in and make lots of rules.

The thing is, why do we need to control/regulate necessarily on the back end. Let people post threads, begin games -- just like in WW (the queue idea really doesn't apply to RPs, unless we're going to limit the number of threads/games that can go on at once which seems a little crazy to me). If there's a problem with the game/thread -- as in, it breaks some sort of rule -- then the forum moderators step in as necessary. But they are not required to initiate every RP, every thread, etc.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Extremely high standards (but there's nothing bad about high standards, as usually anyone who cares will rise to them - and hopefully above them). So, you've concisely pointed out the expected standards, and reasons for the Gondor forum.

Actually, I was simply riffing off Mark's post, which touched a point I had made earlier when I said that Rohan was a difficult forum to define and I thought her explanation was better than mine. (And I haven't actually said anything about how many forums I think there should be.)

The procedure for getting to Gondor is fairly straight forward. A gamer simply follows the explanations given in The Shire and Rohan. When I was Moderator of Rohan, all one had to do was run a game in Rohan successfully (which largely meant finishing it), having successfully run a game in The Shire (which got you into Rohan). I don't know if this still pertains but I would expect so. (Why Noggie isn't in Gondor, for example, might simply be that he hasn't had time to finish running a game in Rohan--my guess. Or the inclination.) So, the procedure is I think fairly clear. Play in a game in The Shire, run a game in The Shire, run a game in Rohan, your name goes on the list of Gondorian gamers.

In terms of that more elusive definition of the kind of games anticipated in Gondor, there's always the option of reading games that have been played in Gondor and seeing what they are like. Maybe not all of them will fit that definition of canonicity which Mark suggested and I seconded. But reading them will surely give a person a clear idea of the complexity of the games--complexity on many different levels. (And, to be fair, as I recall when the forums were set up, we couldn't decide where to put the game called Rohan, but finally decided it belonged in the forum of its own name, Rohan. ) And as Mark pointed out, a Gondorian game owner can ask any Downer to play in her or his game. In addition to those Mark names, I seem to recall that Diamond18 and Lush wrote for REB, and I don't think they are on the Gondorian list for game owners. I honestly cannot think of one person who, having completed the procedure for gaming in The Shire and Rohan, was denied access to Gondor as game owner. So I don't think it's the description of Gondor which intimidates. It's the failure of gamers in The Shire and Rohan to finish games and ask to be moved on.

Note that neither Mark nor I wrote the description for Gondor.

pio, when I say Mod or Moderator I mean your position, the one I had, Estelyn's, not facilitator or game initiator.

Formy, I really think it would be better to move away from the idea that a game needs to be approved--or nodded at--by a Moderator, because I think the entire atmosphere needs to be changed whereby people take ownership for their rpg-ing. Your "as a formality" is quite different from what I think is the case now with it's character bios and extended plot lines. I mean, right now animal characters are not allowed at the Meadhall. Where does that put the game My Crow Management, which was a Rohan game, where all the characters were crows?

And yes, Mnemosyne, Translations from the Elvish had a restricted list, but that was for very different reasons.

Sorry if I've skipped other points but RL is being very urgent and I have a PM to reply to from pio.

[Nogrod]

I'm getting to like Form's suggestion more and more, especially after his clarifications on it.

But I'd also like to put some flesh on the bones here by way of asking a few questions. So where would you put the following RP's?

1) "I have this idea that a bunch of people should try to get into place X to warn the king about the on-falling war brewing. I have a few obstacles laid out for you guys so let's see can you overcome them?"

2) "I have this idea that we'd collect these bunch of people escaping from enslavement and then let them meet with some fugitives from an oppising race both in as bad condition: then we could see how they would relate to each other if they had a common enemy."

3) "I have this idea we take this group and they go wandering about the forests to see if there is any adventure brewing. Anyone with a god idea about an adventure should cme forwards."

4) "I have this idea of a Mead Hall where anyone could come and go but as not to bore ourselves by just playing only social relations like those morning-soap operas in TV let's invent some plots in there every now and then to liven things up?"

5) "I have this fan-fic story of mine I would like to make you perform. I'l tell you what to do and how to write and then you do the writing under my supreme control. Anticipate me correcting your posts if I don't like them."

6) "I have this idea of a game where this odd bunch (previously unrelated an different characters) would be thrown into a shipwreck being the sole survivors. Let's see then how they would get along with each other and how they would try to get themselves back to the land?"

7) "I have this basic storyline concerning the very first Atani getting over Morgoth's trickery and reaching Yavanna & Oromë. Do you think you're up to the challenge?"


As someone might have noticed, numbers 1-4 are actually near some actual games that have taken place here, and only numbers 5-7 are deliberately invented.


Now using Form's categories, I'd say that game-ideas 1, 5 and 7 should belong to "Doriath" and the others to "Rivendell". Case 2 could be discussed though as the "getting there" woud require some active leading from the part of the gameowner (or whatever the term for the initiator of the game would be), but after it reached the aimed condition it would sound to me more like a Rivendell one.

I don't think the length should be a decisive factor. The one initiating the game should tell others whether s/he's looking forwards to a long one or a short one - and the others could make their decisions to join or not also based on that.

But what I see coming through from these examples loud and clear is that the Doriath games would be much more dependent on the gameowner while the Rivendell ones could be more collectively led.

But that is no way a "writing-quality"-issue! I could see a bunch of creative and involved writers making a great story from 7) even if the gameowner had the basic outline of the story already planned - and I could see big egoes and non-co-operative players ruining story 6).

Also, from the form I deliberately took up there with my examples you can see that I do think we shoud open the ownership of the RP's to anyone. Anyone could suggest a game by opening a thread and if there were enough players interested in it the people interested could play it. And if there was not, then the gme woud not go on.

Okay, I can see a problem lurking here... With a new ruling given there might be a burst of new games offered and there could be something like a beauty or popularity contest involved.

Even if I do also belong to the camp carrying the cards of the "less rules, less regulation" -camp, I do think we should have a few basic rules & requirements. Like that those willing to set up their own game should have played at least in one game before it - so that the others had an idea of the person and her/his reliability as a gameowner etc. (This is something I think the werewolfing community has been wise enough to regulate themselves n that vein after a few bad experiences).

Taking Form's two categories would then leave us to decide on what to do with the Inns. My gut feeling would be the following.

Let's make the Scarburg Mead Hall a Rivendell game with a long history behind it.

The Golden Perch Inn I'm less clear about (I haven't been reading it in a long time so I'm not exactly sure how it goes nowadays). But I do think we should have a "boot camp" of sorts for those willing to familiarise themselves with RPG'ing in the 'Downs - and if it's not the GP, then we'd need to come up with a new one for that purpose (although it should be rewarding enough to the innkeeper and those others of us writing there when there is no imminent flow of new writers rushing in all the time ).

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by Durelin

You're asking me if it's okay, but you haven't pointed out anything wrong with it. Even if you look at it purely from a story-writing perspective, which RPing is NOT purely (everyone looks at it differently; to some it is story writing, to some it is more like a game, to some it is more like 'acting' in writing so to speak, etc)...a story doesn't begin with all of its characters necessarily. Many characters are introduced later. Some show up for a brief time. If you insist on extreme organization and as you've mentioned, perfect continuity, you can enforce that in a game/story/thread you initiate. But why not let others started threads/stories/games that do not enforce that?

Which is why I switched very quickly to "this may be just a problem with me and my perspective." I guess I wouldn't mind seeing people try a game like that out, but it's just so different from anything I've encountered on the 'Downs that I don't know if the culture is there to maintain it. Worth a shot, though, and there's no real reason for me to object to allowing such games.

I love the idea of a subforum just running ideas through, though, and seeing if there's enough interest in a particular concept or style before investing time and effort in creating a game that no one else wants to play. That could easily replace a "mod must approve all games" system, and it'd be more democratic too.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

I love the idea of a subforum just running ideas through, though, and seeing if there's enough interest in a particular concept or style before investing time and effort in creating a game that no one else wants to play. That could easily replace a "mod must approve all games" system, and it'd be more democratic too.

As as addendum to my last post: I also heartily approve the idea of an ideas/discussion subforum, and the "democratic"* vetting of ideas it would provide answers in full any lingering concerns I had about bad ideas cropping up.




*I reserve my right, however, to be a Tolkien anarcho-monarchist. :-p

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

I love the idea of a subforum just running ideas through, though, and seeing if there's enough interest in a particular concept or style before investing time and effort in creating a game that no one else wants to play. That could easily replace a "mod must approve all games" system, and it'd be more democratic too.

It might even be just a thread - or two threads (one for Doriath and one for Rivendell - or whatever the names would be)?

I mean here we could use the experiences of the ww-community. There we have the Tol-In-Gaurhoth -thread where people basically keep the queue of who's the next mod, what kind of games people have in mind, what kind of games people crave for, make their general views on the game as such heard etc.

Mutatis mutandis, we could make somewhat similar threads for RPG'ing. People could there offer their ideas for games, probing whether their game ideas would gain interest and players, ask for certain kinds of games, discuss general issues bout the RP's...


On another note: I have been talking about "games" all the time although I do remember I had a real problem with that term in the beginning (now I think I have just grown used to it). I feel the same way as some others here in not thinking an RP is a game but collaboral writing, role-playing, storytelling, having fun together... but not a "game" in a way WW is clearly a game.

[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...

[Mithalwen]

I don't think the game proposal thing is a negative. It does mean the proposer has to think something through which can only help avoid problems. Especially for novices. A more experienced game proposer is hardly likely to be fazed by the procedure.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I don't think the game proposal thing is a negative. It does mean the proposer has to think something through which can only help avoid problems. Especially for novices. A more experienced game proposer is hardly likely to be fazed by the procedure.

Obviously, I have no problems with a proposal process. Indeed, I never really imagined there would be no proposals. The freedom to start games without Moderatory fiat doesn't mean that the game doesn't have to be pitched. Proposals could just as easily be made on a public discussion thread for that purpose. This would still allow the rookie game owners to benefit from drawing up a proposal, and it would allow them to benefit from the experience and wisdom of their peers, who could (as a jury) be far more effective in "passing judgment" than the Mod (as a judge) could ever be alone.

Really, the game proposals, as used now, are put directly to the Mod (Pio), but they scarcely differ in content from what we would put out there to attract the other players. The only real difference, under the new system, is that the proposal could be put directly to the players.

EDIT: In other words, the chief point of the proposal in the current form, as I understand it, is to make sure the game owner covers all the important bases. Putting the proposal out for feedback and/or to attract players would undoubtedly result in the same bases being covered--though I agree it helps keep everything in one place if a consistent form is used each time (like the rule posts in WW).

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

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.

This problem, of course, had a lot to do with the massive influx of Downers that came with the Movies. Given the much quieter times we have at the moment, I'm not sure this would be a problem at the present moment--most people involved in RPing have been around long enough that we can give them credit for at least a modicum of sense.

Originally Posted by Mithadan

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.

Doing away with an intensive Mod-screening doesn't mean that the rules of conduct on the gaming forums need disappear. A Tolkien-valid premise, a reasonable effort at writing, no chat speak (etc) would still be assumed--and, indeed, remain forum-wide rules.

Personally, I think both questions of quality and quantity would be fairly well answered by the common sense of our gamers. I don't think we'd see an overabundance of games, because even if we had scores of game owners wanting to start something... they wouldn't get anywhere if they couldn't find enough recruits. There might be a flurry of threads (or posts on an announcement board -like thread), but the majority would quickly subside, and we'd only be left with those that garnered enough support--and I daresay that we could reasonably expect these to be the best of the pack. The other ideas would either have to be retooled (made better) to attract attention, or be put aside until their were more people involved.

[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.

[Mithadan]

The various iterations of Lonely Star are docked in Elvenhome.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

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.

I don't foresee a massive influx like in the days of yore. LotR has been around long enough now that it's a bastion of pop culture information. It was a game changer in terms of fantasy films, location filming (and scope of shots), length of movie, quality of special effects, casting, music, dialog... It's not a cult film, it's a multiple-award-winning masterpiece series. The eventual release of The Hobbit will likely result in a small increase of members, but no matter how fabulous TH ends up being (or not being), it's not going to turn the world from "Tolkien? He wrote those elf books, right?" to "OMGZ LEGGY SOOO HOTTTTT21!@!" because the world already saw that change.

So quantity and quality won't rely on policing new members, it will rely on the atmosphere of current writers and their beliefs. And we're all actually pretty solid at policing ourselves. In the last Werewolf game, for example, there was concern that some players might be breaking the rules set up by the game mods. The consensus ended up being, if we found out that anybody was cheating, we could shame them forever, as well as institute a Day One Lynch policy to make them feel especially awful that they did something as heinous as cheat. Now that's not entirely nice of us, threatening subversive folks with shunning, but in reality, peer pressure is one of the greatest driving forces in humanity.

Though this thread has shown a rekindled or just formally discussed interest in RPing, it hasn't attracted many people that weren't already actively involved in the website and this corner of it. Quantity can be determined by free market: if there's demand, it can be met. If there's not demand, games should be allowed to fizzle (after all, a game initiator with spunk can always beg, borrow, and steal their way into a cast of writers later on if they really desperately want THIS ONE EXACT GAME to happen). Quality can be handled by a general atmosphere of inclusiveness and openness toward constructive criticism. It's collaborative writing: if you can't handle the rest of the writers you're working with giving you feedback, you should go hole up and write in a private diary.

Which is all to say, I don't think we're going to see a massive spate of new game threads, I think we're going to see a few hesitant experiments to see how a new structure and a new atmosphere will work. Following that, I think we might see a couple games going on at any given time, but nothing overwhelming. And I think the writers of each game can control their own quality pretty effectively: 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.

Originally Posted by Formy

Personally, I think both questions of quality and quantity would be fairly well answered by the common sense of our gamers. I don't think we'd see an overabundance of games, because even if we had scores of game owners wanting to start something... they wouldn't get anywhere if they couldn't find enough recruits. There might be a flurry of threads (or posts on an announcement board -like thread), but the majority would quickly subside, and we'd only be left with those that garnered enough support--and I daresay that we could reasonably expect these to be the best of the pack. The other ideas would either have to be retooled (made better) to attract attention, or be put aside until their were more people involved.

Oh hey, he summarized my thoughts very well. This is what I get for falling behind in the discussion: my thoughts have already been verbalized!

Originally Posted by Also Form

EDIT: In other words, the chief point of the proposal in the current form, as I understand it, is to make sure the game owner covers all the important bases. Putting the proposal out for feedback and/or to attract players would undoubtedly result in the same bases being covered--though I agree it helps keep everything in one place if a consistent form is used each time (like the rule posts in WW).

Yes. The benefits of filling out a proposal as it currently exists outweigh the annoyance some members might feel at having to fuss with details before they ever get a chance to write.

Originally Posted by Mith

I'd rather have Pio. Juries are too unpredictacble and can't think of anything worse than having something you have sweated kittens over shang-haied by a self appointed committee of people who won't do anything but criticise.

But how many trolls are really going to hover in wait for the opportunity to say WOW THIS SUCKS YOU SHUD GET A LIFE LULZ.?

Originally Posted by Firefoot

I think the hope is that the RPG fora would be able to start self-regulating itself more, like Werewolf does. I think that some sort of discussion forum would be really helpful for this (Durelin - I didn't understand that that's what you were getting at). In this case, I think it would be helpful to have entire forum/subforum rather than just one large thread like werewolf, since it would get confusing if people were trying to talk about more than one idea at once.

So the setup I'm seeing outlined here (generally, drawing from many posts) is:

Forum A (Structured Games with Defined Leaders and Plot Oriented Writing): containing game discussion threads (where one pitches one's game to the masses, and players are recruited, and discussions are held between players and/or lurkers (such as WW discussion threads) and also game threads (wherein the writing happens).

Forum B (Open Ended Games with Group Responsibility and Character Driven Writing): containing game discussion threads (where one pitches one's game to the masses, and players are recruited, and discussions are held between players and/or lurkers (such as WW discussion threads) and also game threads (wherein the writing happens).

Forum C (Discussion): in which RPGers discuss their general concerns, their achievements, etc., relating to Barrowdowns RPGing as a whole.

Originally Posted by Formy

It's possible I have a somewhat rosy view of what a brainstorming forum could be, but I'd like to think (on the strength of the sort of discussion that goes on in the Scarburg Planning Thread) that the RPers on the Downs could be constructive and polite in such an environment.

Mhm. We're very nice people.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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.

Was this being questioned?

I really think we must have all of these. Whether writing for writers or for readers, clear English is significant. Obviously this doesn't mean we'll draw and quarter our ESL contributors. Canonicity should be adhered to because this is a Tolkien website. The last is a little more negotiable: what if the game proposal is, I have this idea that the Dwarves that move into Helm's Deep interact and we explore what's underground there, and how Dwarf relationships work! ? In this case, it's not a clear cut story with a beginning, middle, and end. Instead it's more of a literary exploration of character and setting.

I wonder if we're all a bit hung up on the nature of story.

Here's the definition of story I used in my Master's thesis: "narration of a chain of events." The definition we typically use in the creative writing workshops in my grad school: "narration of a chain of events, with a beginning, middle, and end." Without a purposeful beginning, middle, and end, you have either a scene or a series of scenes. The STORY is the Big Idea that you're trying to convey.

If you don't have a Big Idea, then you aren't writing a story, you're just writing. This is the same difference as between a portrait and a picture of somebody's face. A portrait has a motive: you're trying to get to something, some truth. A picture is just something on a page that looks like something. Stories are purposeful. Writing often isn't.

That being said, I'd like to copy/past part of a private missive between me and Bethberry:

Originally Posted by Facebook Fea to FB BB

I'm loving the concept of two sections instead of three, with the focus not on beginner versus expert but on structured versus flexible. The game I have sketched out (and carefully outlined with Big Plot Points and writer responsibilities) fits into the structured concept: I think it would appeal more to beginning writers that are looking for somewhere to practice skills before taking responsibility for Big Ideas, but it would also appeal to anybody that flat out likes writing from an outline.

Something I'm not sure has been mentioned yet is that structure versus free play isn't just a Barrowdowns issue, and it has little to do with a writer's skill level: we discuss it a lot in my Master's program. I know a lot of writers that outline their stories before they start writing any scenes, and they take their pleasure in fleshing out the skeleton, bringing it to life. Knowing the amount of space they have available to convey certain ideas, to develop characters, to work in general, gives them a poet's eye for the significance of every word. I also know a lot of writers that don't want to know how the story is going to end until they get there: their delight is in the discovery. Neither way is right or wrong, and I work in both ways.

I think a lot of the discussion has bordered on this idea of some people liking to write with a plan and some people liking to explore. I think there's no need to choose, and I think it's possible to do both at once. But I also think it's pretty important that in collaborative writing, the expectations are made clear from the beginning in terms of what kind of writing (structured or open) will happen most frequently.

Also:

Originally Posted by Dury

And just to toss this out there...if you're looking for a 100% success rate (meaning every game/thread started is completed in a reasonable amount of time or whatever)...you're never going to be happy.

Ain't that the trufe?

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Do we set a limit on numbers of games running

A limit of three or four per forum sounds fair, unless of course we find a mysteriously huge number of people dying to be in many games at once, or different games than are offered.

But I think this should be more of a guideline than a rule.

Originally Posted by Sir Mith

One thing I would like to see is a requirement that a member participate in at least a game or two here before he or she can open a game on their own.

Yes. However instead of going on a game by game basis, it should be determined on a length of commitment basis: perhaps six months of time as a player before one becomes a game opener? I suggest this because there is a difference between a month long game and a two year game, and a very qualified and creative game owner might be manacled by how long a game they're in is taking.

And do we want Mod approval before starting a game or not?

I'm ambiguous about this. I think it's always helpful to have someone take a quick look at your work before you turn it in, so to speak. Game Owners should be able to open their own threads, but perhaps it should be recommended (if not required) that Pio (or whoever) acts as an informal second opinion?

Originally Posted by mark

Someone also brought up the point that not all charaters need be in the game the whole time. C7A invited me into Lonely Star when it was 3/5 done, for characters that were undreamt of when the game started. Not sure why that no longer seems to happen, but, if there is a rule to that effect, I could certainly see making room for add-in characters.

You guys invited me into Tapestry long after it was established. And, in fact, the game I currently have outlined has a built-in place (actually, two) for new writers to enter into the fray.

Originally Posted by Formy

That is to say, while you may not know the full history and/or inner workings of your character, you're going to know from the get-go if your character is a Hobbit, 56 years old, skilled, unmarried, craftsman from Michel Delving, and you'll know if he's tall, ruddy-cheeked, dark-haired, well dressed, etc.

Pio's abbreviated Meadhall character sketch is pretty perfect.

Originally Posted by Form

if you want two forums, how is one to distinguish between them? Is it to be acknowledged skill, as between the current forums (a system that most of us seem to feel has passed its time)? Is it to be along game-structure lines, as I'm proposing? Or what?

One discussion forum. Two writing forums, distinguished not by skill level, but by structure. Many of the most culturally well-regarded, award-winning writers I know thrive on nitpicky outlining. Literally one of the best uses a method of "This is how many pages I have, so in order to get my pacing right, this will happen in this chapter, I will introduce all major characters by this page, my climax will happen here, and I need these scenes and each scene will be approximately this long." She just likes working that way. Another writer I know writes about 2000 pages for every 200 page novel she publishes; she gets everything she could possibly need down on the page and then cherry picks the parts that tell the single cohesive Story she wants. Yet another sets every single one of his novels in the same fictional town in North Carolina: even though the plots alter and the stories are different, he is constrained by the truths of the information he is already written. Yet another advises writers to analyze the structure of a short story and - page by page - reproduce it using the craft tricks the writer used; you've got hard rules to follow, but the joy comes from finding the originality within the structure.

Then again, another one of my writer friends (who just signed the contract for her 17th novel) writes with an eye toward character interaction and surprising herself. The only 'rule' she follows is that each chapter should have a basic arc, and a memorable action event should occur in each. Another writer who works masterfully within the realm of historical fiction was asked last summer, "What is the primary motivation of your character?" She had two hundred pages written already. Her answer? "I don't know yet."

The delineation between the type of structure you want as a writer has nothing to do with experience, and I think the delineation between RPG sub-fora should reflect that: experienced writers working with inexperienced writers will provide the old hands with fresh insight, and will work toward teaching the inexperienced writers what we mean by 'quality.'

Originally Posted by Form

Should the Inns continue in the future in their current form?

I think the Meadhallers would lynch anybody that tried to shut them down.

Originally Posted by Form

Should games be deleted/moved/closed after inactivity? After how much inactivity?

Up to the mods/admins. Do we delete inactive threads in Mirth? Do we close threads in Books just because they've moldered away on page eight of the thread list?

Originally Posted by B88

Although, I think I like pio's idea better. At this point with members and RPGers slowing, there really is no reason to have two separate forums for games. Even if the games will vary between "lesser-control" and "more-control" this is something that should be explained in the planning/discussion threads by the game creator. Then gamers can figure out there whether that is there preferred RPG or not. (Also, there would be no more ground for claiming the system is elitist, with one forum for games of all varities )

I was pretty staunchly on board with one discussion forum, one structured game forum, one loose game forum, but I like Pio's idea better.

It has all of the benefits of what we've discussed... plus some extras!

[Bêthberry]

Let me just say, thinking about Fea's comment on the Meadhallers lynching folks, that I think the Meadhall belongs as a game, not as an Inn. I think it is superb, wonderful, and marvellous and I am ever so impressed by the discussion thread (which intrigues me no end), but I think,if the point is to attract new gamers or provide a place for new gamers to join in, it is a wee bit daunting and difficult to join into. This isn't a criticism but a recognition that I think The Meadhall demonstrates the best of what can happen with the Inn structure: it can lead to great possibility and creativity. So whatever structures are put in place, I would humbly suggest that the Meadhall continue as a full blown game and an inn be developed that is easier for newcomers to join. jmho

Kudos to littlemanpoet, Nogrod, and everyone posting at the Meadhall for wonderful work.

EDIT: There has been some very interesting development also on The Seventh Star. Nogrod has prodded the Bethberry character in a way that she has never been prodded before on the forum--and his post is totally in keeping with the suggestions made here for The Seventh Star--and Mnemosyne has added a little twist to that prodding, so I have some challenges to answer for my next post there, unless Mark also throws something into the play before I can replay.

[mark12_30]

The Seventh Star is already a -- excuse the term-- free for all. But few post there. I wish more people would.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm getting to like Form's suggestion more and more, especially after his clarifications on it.

But I'd also like to put some flesh on the bones here by way of asking a few questions. So where would you put the following RP's?

I'm actually going to answer all of these--not because I disagree with your guesses (though I've not looked at them in detail), but because this is a really excellent opportunity to explain the distinction I'm trying to make.

]1) "I have this idea that a bunch of people should try to get into place X to warn the king about the on-falling war brewing. I have a few obstacles laid out for you guys so let's see can you overcome them?"

I would say this is a Doriath game: the motivating idea is the plot, which is driven and known by the game owner, and the "I" in "I have a few obstacles laid out" is crucial.

2) "I have this idea that we'd collect these bunch of people escaping from enslavement and then let them meet with some fugitives from an opposing race both in as bad condition: then we could see how they would relate to each other if they had a common enemy."

This looks like a Rivendell game, because the main interest is in the interplay of characters, and its very open-ended in terms of what things will go. Its description pretty much begs for full player interaction to move the story along--the plot is contingent on characterisation.

3) "I have this idea we take this group and they go wandering about the forests to see if there is any adventure brewing. Anyone with a good idea about an adventure should come forwards."

This could go either way. Probably, if I were a mod, I'd nudge it in the direction of Rivendell, since the person suggesting it clearly doesn't want to run things that strongly. On the other hand, this might just be someone with an idea looking for a co-mod to work with in Doriath.

4) "I have this idea of a Mead Hall where anyone could come and go but as not to bore ourselves by just playing only social relations like those morning-soap operas in TV let's invent some plots in there every now and then to liven things up?"

Hey! I actually know what this one is. I'd call it a grandfather-clause exception to the rules, really--but agree it belongs in Rivendell. The mod is very much a facilitator in Rohan, rather than a game director, and the players are all very much involved in the direction the game take and the ownership of the game.

5) "I have this fan-fic story of mine I would like to make you perform. I'll tell you what to do and how to write and then you do the writing under my supreme control. Anticipate me correcting your posts if I don't like them."

Well, phrased that way, I can't imagine wanting to join (actually, not true... I'd be tempted if Fea or maybe Elempi were running it), but aside from that off-topic reality, it would clearly go in Doriath. Even though this could as easily be about character as plot, the game owner clearly intends to run things. As said, even this could be fun, with the right owner.

6) "I have this idea of a game where this odd bunch (previously unrelated an different characters) would be thrown into a shipwreck being the sole survivors. Let's see then how they would get along with each other and how they would try to get themselves back to the land?"

Strikes me as another Rivendell story, because the "game owner" (for lack of clear, accurate, synonym) is proposing the idea rather than planning to run it. Once again, the emphasis on characterisation is a good shorthand way of telling that this will be a player consensus game rather than a owner-rule game.

7) "I have this basic storyline concerning the very first Atani getting over Morgoth's trickery and reaching Yavanna & Oromë. Do you think you're up to the challenge?"

I'd call this a Doriath game in the absence of any more info, but it would depend. There's a clear, defined plot that, to me, suggests the game owner plans to be in charge of the overall arc, nudging things in the right direction... but this could also be run with as a Rivendell game, where it's put forward as a game premise.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I don't think the length should be a decisive factor. The one initiating the game should tell others whether s/he's looking forwards to a long one or a short one - and the others could make their decisions to join or not also based on that.

To me, length isn't decisive, but I do think it needs to be considered, particularly in "Doriath" cases. My reasoning is that when a game's creator is going to have a strong guiding hand in his/her game, then the players should have a clear commitment from that creator to be around for a defined period of time. In "Rivendell" this may be less crucial, since the whole game isn't as dependent on a single leader, but I think it's still fair to have an expected timeframe.

In other words, I wouldn't consign short games to Doriath and long ones to Rivendell (or vice versa), but I do think that Doriath games (at least) should have a planned timeframe. These can always be extended, but whether it's two weeks or two years, telling players how long a game is likely to last is an act of commitment on the part of the game owner, and given the responsibility an owner has in Doriath, that seems fair to me.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But what I see coming through from these examples loud and clear is that the Doriath games would be much more dependent on the gameowner while the Rivendell ones could be more collectively led.

But that is no way a "writing-quality"-issue! I could see a bunch of creative and involved writers making a great story from 7) even if the gameowner had the basic outline of the story already planned - and I could see big egoes and non-co-operative players ruining story 6).

Exactly the idea! I have no problem against particular games being invitation-only, either in Doriath or Rivendell, and if the game owner/proposer wants (and can get!) the best of the best writers, it will be a joy to read... but we don't need a separate forum for it.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Also, from the form I deliberately took up there with my examples you can see that I do think we should open the ownership of the RP's to anyone. Anyone could suggest a game by opening a thread and if there were enough players interested in it the people interested could play it. And if there was not, then the game would not go on.

Agreed--and this was an implicit assumption in my proposal.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Okay, I can see a problem lurking here... With a new ruling given there might be a burst of new games offered and there could be something like a beauty or popularity contest involved.

I... would love to see that. My own bet is that we'll be lucky to have a few ground-breakers to pave the way. As excited as well all are, our numbers aren't dense, and most of us have been around so long (and might be too jaded) that we might not want to go first. Additionally, I think enough of us have played WW that we can see the benefits in "taking turns" to an extent (though we need to be one game at a time, I doubt anyone is up for playing in more than two or so at a given moment).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Formy, I really think it would be better to move away from the idea that a game needs to be approved--or nodded at--by a Moderator, because I think the entire atmosphere needs to be changed whereby people take ownership for their rpg-ing. Your "as a formality" is quite different from what I think is the case now with it's character bios and extended plot lines. I mean, right now animal characters are not allowed at the Meadhall. Where does that put the game My Crow Management, which was a Rohan game, where all the characters were crows?

Insofar as you're quite right that my "as a formality" is intended to be quite different from the status quo, I have no problem with moving away from the idea that a game needs approval. Personally, I think it is still helpful to run game plans by someone else--and having a mod gives you someone with an "official" standing whose job is to listen to such schemes--but insofar as it was only a formality I had in mind, it's easily dropped. My main thought about it was to safeguard the right of the forum mods to close or veto games, and that it would save people embarrassment if this happened before a thread was started, rather than after. If, however, that still smacks too much of the current regime, I (at least) have no problem with post-thread-starting moderation. As has been said, it does seem to work elsewhere on the Downs with little enough problem...