Reference The RPF Rules Discussion - Now Discussing: Writing Violence

Alright...

I am anxious to finish this...

If we change the prior rule to this...

---

[u]"Best New RPG Issue"[/u]

Text of the Rule:

New RPGs are defined as any active game less than [color=green]six (6) months old and have over 100 posts at the time of nomination[/color]. RPGs must be active (no locked threads may be nominated).

[hr]
... are we all good? The OOG rule has been clarified here that they are allowed unless stated otherwise by the GM. We can work that into the FAQ thread and make it well known (etc. etc.)

If there are no further major objections, we can move forward to implementation. :)

-I_H

 

I like what has been done here, so no objections from me.

 

So there will be no limit on Franchise/Genre games in the NSWRPF then?

 

Correct. The genre RPG rule we'd hadn't really been enforcing for quite some time now, but both it and the franchise rules are out the window. Of course, if we start getting 16 Matrix RPGs at once we might revisit it, but that will be the new rule.

 

Alrighty!

I am proud to report that I have just updated the Rules for both the RPF and NSWRPF and they are both live!

There most likely will be a transition period by which enforcement of the new provisions may be a little rough.

The RPF Moderating Team asks for your cooperation as we too shift over and adapt to the new rules.

This thread, with its purpose now complete, shall also be locked. It will soon be replaced by a general "RPF Policies and Events" discussion thread.

In between the threads, if something comes up, feel free to express your concerns/comments/opinions/etc. to the RPF Moderator of your choice.

Thanks folks and excellent work done by all! You can definitely be proud of the policies you have shaped here today, and hopefully they will be successful in continuing our stay here.

-I_H

 

Time to dust this off...

So one of our recently passed rules is not doing so hot...

From the updated RPF Awards:

New RPGs are defined as any active game less than three (3) months old and have over 100 posts at the time of nomination. RPGs must be active (no locked threads may be nominated).

---

This new rule seems to be a bit too restrictive. Its barring out a few newer games in the SWRPF and NSWRPF. There will be very uncompetitive/non-existent categories this time around if this rule is kept.

So what do we do?

How do we change this rule if at all? Do we waive it for good? Lower the amount of post needed? Say tough luck and keep it?

Feedback here will aid in Saint and my decisions for this current RPF awards.

-I_H

 

Just because people suck, doesn't mean you should lower the bar. Nobody comes up with good stuff for the NSWRPF= Nobody gets a cookie.

 

I think that lowering the post count to say, 50 posts, might be a good idea. By that time, I think everyone has a good enough idea of how good the game is going to be, and at that stage the game can still be regarded as new. Take 11 ABY, for example - it's turning out very well, but we can't vote for it because there hasn't been enough time to make up the 100 posts necessary. Perhaps the 'New RPG' requirements ought to focus more on the creation date than the post count?

As for the NSWRPF - the reason I didn't vote for any NSWRPG, personally, is because I'm very rarely around those parts. That tends to be because the games require a lot of in-depth knowledge of different source material - most of which I only have minimal knowledge and don't really have the time to research. So, seen as I haven't ever participated in any RPGs on the NSWRPF, I don't really feel that I can vote for any of them.


Here endeth the rant...

 

Rasies hand. Forgive for my aggorance and poor spelling, but my game is doing pretty good.

 

I also agree that the rules about the number of posts for a new game should be lowered. We ALL know that during certain times of the year, the posts to the board get VERY SLOW.

This year, they seem to have dropped even more than usual. Usually the beginning of the school year, sees many folks disappear, as they have to work hard to get back into the swing of schoolwork.

We all know that Darth Real Life gets ahold of the best of us. As long as the game is actively being played, (not just collecting Character sheets), it should be allowed to compete as a new game. It will get even SLOWER with the major holidays coming up.

The game should not get penalized because of RL. And it does not mean the game SUCKS. OR the people, for that matter!

 

DARN RIGHT IT IS!!

 

MIB, you have 90 posts already, will it really take that much effort to get ten more in the next four days if your game is doing so well?

 

I disagree with changing it to 50. Looking at Sinre's game, we are almost there and there's only been one update from him.

 

Not that I'm knocking 11 ABY, but is that because of the number of players? A game like Vengance is Mine would take twice as long to gain that many posts purely because there's only 6 players (if memory serves...).

I agree with Ktala - as long as the game is beyond CS stage, then surely it should count.

 

~One Day Later~

Yeah, but still...

100 is way to much. Its should only have reached the plot stage before being accepted into the voting stage.

 

Nah...it's hard to say without actually getting into the nitty gritty of story and interaction. Prior to that it's just a promising idea.

I may actually find myself agreeing with the 100 post benchmark...

 

100 posts is so arbitrary, and no indicator of quality.

To win the title of 'Best New RPG', a game should not need length, depth or complexity to its story and interaction- those things require time to grow.

Yes, I say a game should be able to win this award based on little more than its promise and potential. Why not? To my mind, 'Best New RPG' suggests a game that has brought something creative and exciting to the table, and that has attracted a healthy amount of interest. As Ktala notes, that does not always translate to a flurry of posting. There may be a small player cap, or RL issues, or simply a relaxed pace.

 

No, but it's an indicator of "tried and true." That is to say, while the post count is no indicator of quality, it should provide the game a fair chance to prove its quality.

A number of promising concepts have proven to be poorly run, failed games. Titanomachy, for example, deserves no awards.

Best Game Design is the award for the merits of an opening post, not best New RPG.

 

Doesn't it?

An interesting example, because, as we all know, it never even actually began.

And yet, it still boasted:

One of the best opening posts I've seen on these boards in terms of style and substance; solid character sheets and an enthusiastic and ambitious player base; highly organised GMing for handling player approvals and explaining mechanics; an original and intriguing prologue (on the second page).

The creativity was there, the excitement was there, the promise was there.

So it didn't materialise in the end. But on potential alone, I think it would have been a worthy winner of Best New RPG. Rather than, say, the average new Jedi v Sith game that shoots out a rapid-fire ten pages and then fizzles out.

 

Absolutely not, because an RPG is not the idea, the concept, the opening post. It is the game. The reason I used Titanomachy as an example is precisely because it had immense promise and it got everyone excited...and then didn't start. It was not a Game, and no one Played a Role...it seems unfair and misleading, then, to award it Best RolePlaying Game. It did, however, have the Best Game Design we've scene in a while.

If we judge by solely the opening post, then we're not judging the quality of the Experience. The game may be poorly run, may collapse, may accept subpar CSes and then mismanage its players. The GM could wind up being dictatorial, or could otherwise be overly lax. Awarding best RPG before the game has been given a fair few pages of actual play is like awarding a video game an award based on the opening cutscene. Movie pitches made by eager film students are not eligible for Oscars, no matter how interesting.

If a game needn't have strength, depth, or complexity to win...on what criteria are we judging?

 

If we judge by solely the opening post, then we're not judging the quality of the Experience.

I never said solely the opening post. For Titanomachy I judged the opening post, the character sheets, the GM's organisational skill, the prologue and the level of player interest. The Experience begins with all these things, not simply with the start of IC play.

The game is there in the GM's introduction and in the opening fragments of the storyline, it is there when you sit thinking up your character, and it is there when you put together your sheet. Laying the foundations for the game is part of the game itself. This goes beyond just setting up the chessboard. Some of the most exciting parts of an RPG are before you even get started.

If a game needn't have strength, depth, or complexity to win...on what criteria are we judging?

I said length, not strength. For strength is in fact the central criterion here: strength of potential. Best New RPG is about bringing something fresh and exciting to the table. Whether or not it has staying power is for Best RPG to decide.

Now when we judge potential, of course we will consider any IC posts that have been made thus far- but I'm arguing that it is not necessary for any to have been made at all.

As for Best Game Design being more appropriate...that is an award where I would judge only the opening post, as opposed to the whole opening process as I described above. (As an aside, IMO the RPF Stars Awards barely count as awards at all anyway...it's a different debate, but personally I feel many people don't think about their nomination/vote when it comes to the Stars Awards. It's all a bit arbitrary.)

 

Sure. However, it cannot be called a game until it is played.

Notwithstanding, the game closed before it began. It cannot be judged as a game before the game was played. The character creation screen in KotOR is fun, but it's not KotOR. If all D&D rulebooks were were character stats and creation templates, the game would have failed utterly decades ago, or else someone would have come around to say, "Hey...why don't we actually pretend to be these characters and make them journey and fight, rather than just waste our time creating them."

See? All those people came up with great ideas for characters and invested themselves and then the game collapsed before it ever started. That is not a good game. That is very very bad game. Character creation is fun and is integral to the experience, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who came away from Titanomachy with a fulfilling, satisfying RP experience.

I don't see how strength can possibly = potential. The strength of a game would depend on how well its potential is being fulfilled, no?

The thing is, for all the freshness and excitement, it could wind up being a crappy game. The word Best is a judgment of quality, and I think what we want is RPs of high quality to win. You may argue for a Most Original Concept award, but until a game has proven itself to actually be a good game - or even a self-sustaining one - it shouldn't be in the running for best game.

And I think that's silly, merely by the definition of what we're actually judging with these awards: Role-Playing Games. Games, wherein Players Play Roles. Before the beginning of gameplay, before In Character posts are made, it cannot be rightly considered a Role-Playing Game, merely the idea for one.

The concept of waiting 100 posts is so that there's some basis for judging if a game has lived up to its potential. A great concept can fail in execution despite its potential - for any number of reasons - and a seemingly hackneyed concept can wind up being a very well run, interesting RP.

And so the design and planning of a game has nothing to do with how the GM manages his first wave of Character Sheets? I disagree, but that's an argum

 

An interesting debate...

As I posted in the Awards thread, because this instance of the awards seems to be plagued by errors, I'm thinking about locking and restarting the Autumn Awards with the necessary tweaks made. If someone here wants to make an masterful case for any change in the awards, new categories, restructured categories, etc. I'd be happy to read and consider it. I'm currently disinclined towards any massive changes, but minor ones and well-argued ones (such as this back and forth b/w Boba and Winged) could swing me around.

In the meanwhile, I'm gonna go eat some chiptole.

-I_H

 

Don't get me wrong, of course I want the best quality games to win. My point is- by what standards are we judging quality?

I fear I may not have articulated my thoughts properly, so allow me to clarify:

In an ideal situation, I would not want Titanomachy to win the Best New RPG award. Not because it doesn't meet the current criteria to be nominated, but because there would ideally be stronger competitors. An original/unique/organised game plus IC posts should always win over an original/unique/organised game without IC posts, I'm not denying it.

But just because Titanomachy doesn't deserve to win, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be eligible.

If the only other candidates were hackneyed, run-of-the-mill Jedi v Sith clones, then should their abundance of posts automatically trump Titanomachy's creativity when deciding who can even be nominated for Best New RPG? In my opinion, no.

I've grouped these points together, because I think they all speak to the heart of our disagreement: when does an RPG become an RPG?

Personally I believe that, despite the name, it is more than just Playing the Role. That is too narrow a view. Play begins even before IC play begins. The game is on from the moment the opening post goes up. When you engage with the text, when you become excited for what's to come and begin planning and watching as you see the cast being assembled- that is part of the game.

And as for Character Creation- isn't crafting the role simply the first step in playing it? As the character forms in your head, are you not already entering into his?

Drafting the sheet is such an enjoyable task in its own right, such a well-loved prelude to IC play, such an essential part of the RPG experience. The more enjoyable it is for you, the better job the GM has done in stirring your imagination- and that is also part of the game.

Let's say that both those examples happen around the same time. A great concept fails before IC kick-off, and a cliched concept blossoms into a interesting game. Yes, the latter deserves to win Best New RPG.

But it doesn't mean the former should be excluded from nomination.

 

Just append a "Best Opening" award to the RPF stars, then you can recognize such games even if they aren't actually doing more than showing promise. Problem solved.