A Measure of Success

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I don't want to hog the conversation here and would like to see others comment on Mithadan's request and Formy's proposal, but I also would like to address Mithalwen's concerns about character bios and the Inns (Note: not games, just inns) because I think her insecurity about posting demonstrates something important and I would hope we can address such issues so players don't have to feel so insecure about joining in.

It shouldn't matter if someone gets someone's eye colour wrong in an Inn. (After all, even Tolkien wasn't consistent on some of his.) It shouldn't matter that something a week ago is vitally relevant to a new entry--if that element is so vital, it should be in play.

Ideally, inns should be more improvisational and less structured in order to accommodate newcomers. It should be possible to drop in and run with an idea or easily pick up a theme already in progress; there should be "hooks" or things that a newcomer can pick up on in recent posts. If something is so complex that it requires extensive back reading, then that something defeats the purpose of providing an informal interactive role playing situation: the inn is already too complex for newcomers.

Character bios even for games can often become similar to police rap sheets: detailing physical characteristics enough that a felon can be apprehended, but really not saying much about how the character will interact. In an inn, it should be the action in play that garners the attention and not necessarily or particularly an all-encompassing view of a character. When we read fiction, we don't get all the details at once up front, but must read selectively to gather what is needed to follow the play. That, ideally, is how an informal inn can operate.

If a player wants to, he or she can write a bio for his character as a helpful reminder, but to ask players to post bios for an Inn sort of defeats the purpose of the improvisational play. It already makes the role playing into something formal, rather than an exploration. And it detracts from what is supposed to be the main or important writing: the actual thread. When gamers become so fixated on external documents, they lose track of how to write really interactive narrative. And that's what an inn is supposed to do: help players learn how to develop a game and action by actually practicing in a small on-going one..

.

I can't disagree more. I said you don't need a full life history but you seem to want people to literally stagger around in the dark, deprived even of the evidence of their own eyes which a person entering a real inn would have. Maybe I am really uptight but I like to be consistent with what others have said as much as what I have already done. I have also had my head ripped or sometimes merely bitten off by people ultra protective of their characters. Your ideal world bears no relation to the one I have tried to operate in.

I don't want to be in some freefall thing I want to have a firm foundation to build on. But now I know Ifall so far short of the ideal I at least know not to bother to take a new character to the Perch. I'll see what I have started to the end and call it a day.

[mark12_30]

.....Wow.

Peace???

[Nogrod]

Uhh... *Parrots Mark*

[Formendacil]

Okay, we seem to be degenerating a little bit into unintentional ad hominems, and perhaps a little bit away from consideration of the rules. If I may play the nosey peacemaker, we seem to be getting a little off-course, and for all that Mithalwen is interpreting Bêthberry as advocating that inn players "stumble around in the dark," I think it's otherwise clear that neither is calling for the removal of character bios entirely. Rather, Mith is emphasizing the importance of the structure that bios provide to new players, and I think she's quite right that new players (and I mean people who haven't RPed before rather than people new to the Inn or providing new characters) want structure. Structure and rules make things make sense, and its usually when understanding the structure of something that newcomers feel safe to join in.

At the same time, however, Bêthberry is highlighting an important aspect of the Inns, which is contingent on their very nature as never-ending inns--namely the intentionally transient nature of those who are not innkeepers and the improvisational character this lends to any "story/plot" that might actually take place there. If I may play on her point that Inns are a horse of a different colour from RPs here generally, we need to be careful to keep the Inns and other RPs distinct when speaking about them--even if we decide on new/different rules for RPs generally, we still need to consider the Inns separately, since they provide a different function. However, taking Mithalwen's point, they ARE major points of entry for new players dipping their feet in the world of Downsian RPing, and I think her (their) concern for structure is important.

Okay, having possibly misrepresented everyone's point of view, may I ask the community to direct their ire towards me, and meanwhile get back to the (highly pertinent) question of structure that Mithadan is pushing us towards.

I've already given a fairly extensive proposal about how the RP forums could be revised, and there was some debate about that. While I hardly think my proposal is without flaws, I'd like to think that the response from those who engaged with it directly suggested that it had some merit. In particular, pretty much everyone seemed to agree that two gaming forums would be better than the current three, and that two would be preferable to consolidating them into one. My suggestion was to divide them between highly structured/strong owner control on the one hand and looser structure/less owner control on the other, which required some clarification. Still, once clarified it doesn't seem too hated, but the big question is: 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?

Or, if you think we just need one forum... well, you should speak up. While I like talking, I don't think mine's the only opinion that needs hearing.

Perhaps people could respond yea or nay (with explanations! Please! Think of it as a chance to use that finely honed WWian rhetoric) to the following questions:

1. Do you think the Downs should move to having 2 forums?
(If no, how many?)

2. Should game proposals be run by the Mods first?
If yes, to what extent?

3. Should we have (a)sub-forum(s) for brainstorming/discussion?



These are the biggest structural questions I'm seeing at the moment... there are probably more (if so, add them to list when you reply!). In addition to these yes/no questions, I can think of the following discussion questions:

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

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

[Formendacil]

To set a good example, and maybe even to get the ball rolling, here are *my* answers to the questions--though I imagine you could guess at them already.

1. Do you think the Downs should move to having 2 forums?
(If no, how many?)
Yes. Obviously, I've already proposed a 2 forum model, and I think it has potential. I'm more than open to distinguishing between the two using different criteria than I suggested, though.

2. Should game proposals be run by the Mods first?
If yes, to what extent?
Yes. I still think it's helpful and can avoid embarassment (and given that most of us run ideas by our RPing buddies anyway, I don't think it's that hard to give the Friendly Neighbourhood Mod a shout either)... but I also think it should be a given that Mods will default towards approval rather than not. I also think it should be clarified that the Mod giving the green light doesn't mean the game will survive--but, as a corollary to that, the Mod should never turn down a proposal just because there are too many games in play. In my opinion, natural selection will take care of them.

3. Should we have (a)sub-forum(s) for brainstorming/discussion?

Yes. I think it's excellent idea, and possibly negates the necessity of running things by the Mod first (though it doesn't obviate the possibility of that being a good idea). I also think it will help keep less "involved" RPers (those who aren't hardcore, major character types, but may only want or have time for supporting roles here and there) involved regularly.

Should the Inns continue in the future in their current form?
With regard to the Scarburg Meadhall, I think it could easily survive as is. As a last-generation RPer to have set foot in the Green Dragon, I admit to not following the Golden Perch, so I really am not qualified to speak there. However, it stands to reason that two forums means room for two inns, and that one may be more "rookie friendly," so we certainly have room for two.

As for the Seventh Star, I think there's merit in what mark suggested, vis-a-vis turning it into a thinly-veiled RP version of the "Coming of Age" thread, both in terms of actually moving along a steady, if stately, pace, and in terms of fun reading. I also don't think it would be a problem to thus end up with two Inns in one forum--or even all three in one forum (I'd put them in my "Rivendell" forum, to keep using that model).

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

Personally, I think a month of *no* activity should be enough to merit a Mod posting on the thread with a "Question mark, people?" post, and that if another month went by (with no more progression) it could be moved to Elvenhome (which I assume throughout that we are retaining).

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by mark

...that is not the statement of a man obsessed with power

And that is not the statement I quoted. I thanked Mithadan more than once for opening up to/taking part in this discussion. I really do appreciate that. But his attitude as it *seems to me* is that of 'you may amuse me for the time being' or 'you're on the chopping block now -- you started it, you better finish it right.' (And by this I don't mean me personally. I didn't take it *personally*; it seems directed at everyone.) I understand that no one, admin or mod, as to change anything or even listen to complaints. But I thought he was being antagonistic to the members involved and not just the discussion. I'm sorry, I just wanted a discussion, too. Apparently I'm the only one who's reading things that way, I guess I'm crazy. Which is usually quite possible. (Some edits here to clarify, maybe?)

So some of the questions I haven't answered (if that's how we're going to do it)

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.

A game, maybe. The problem is that's something that's easier to grandfather in once you have a bunch of players. We don't really have a bunch.

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.

That depends on if the role of the moderator will be to determine if a game breaks the RULES, or if it will also be their role to determine if the game is "good enough" based on whatever standards. If someone breaks the rules, they get contacted and things get deleted/edited/whatever else. That's how it works on every other forum.

Do we set a limit on numbers of games running, at least until we understand how many gamers we have or do we trust the members to hash things out and if so how will this happen?

I don't see the need. If you need to have rules and guidelines to babysit everyone, to make sure they don't overextend themselves...well that's going to be a lot of rules. Maybe put suggestions in the rules that players not participate in too many games at once. And encourage new players to join active games -- which means of course making it easy for games to be joined. That's really the big problem with the 'game' system rather than an open world setup (which granted only really seems to work when it's a forum dedicated entirely to RP)...it's hard to make it easy for new people to just jump in at any time.

And do we want Mod approval before starting a game or not? If a proposal is being discussed openly in a forum, realistically, how much extra work is it for someone to send PIO or whoever a PM and say "Take a look at this..."

I think it's funny that everyone's taken the "let people start their own games" and turned it into a group approval process. A game is posted. People decide whether or not they are interested, and if so, they join and/or discuss ideas with the game initiator. If the game breaks any rules, it gets removed. That's how I see it. It's not about approval or not. The game is started; if there's something wrong with it, the mod(s) step in as necessary.

And Form's questions...

1. Do you think the Downs should move to having 2 forums? (If no, how many?)

One RP forum, one discussion forum.

2. Should game proposals be run by the Mods first? (If yes, to what extent?)

Nah. Why not moderate on the front end rather than the back end.

3. Should we have (a)sub-forum(s) for brainstorming/discussion?

See #1.

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

Well there's no reason to get rid of them, but we need new inns/the inns to change to be more welcoming to newcomers. They (or it) need(s) to be less plot-oriented.

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

Certainly. After a few months? I dunno.

[Mithadan]

I apparently have been less than clear in my intentions. All I want is to improve a forum that has become somewhat run down and shabby. I do not want to dictate from above and certainly am not taking a "this is not a democracy" approach.

Peace out, all. Let's return to being constructive please, so we can bring this bird in for a landing soon...