RPR Archive Revamping the Guilds - Now Discussing the Characters Thread

The Newbie problem is something boardwide, like Imp said, so I'm not sure we are not making them feel welcomed. We have a welcome thread and I don't know anyone who tells new players that they suck or cannot play in their games. Since Midbies have become oldbies and etc, most people here are mature enough not to spew that kind of crap. Go to the JCC and you will see them complain or comment about the slowdown all the time. Hell, even go to Comms.

As for the cliques. No offense, but the only group I've seen are the Germans, but that's because they have self-proclaimed themselves to be a group of players. I don't know of any others. If by cliques, you mean GMs who always have certain players, no matter the games they have, well that could just be friends, but this is not always the case either. Chukles is cool and he's my friend, but I liked his game at first, then saw that I did not enjoy it anymore and dropped out.

I think the problem with the guilds, since that is what this thread is about, is that times have changed and the Guilds haven't, that's all there is to it. We make some changes to the RPF discussion thread, renew the GDG, and keep the old CDG.

Also, everybody needs to calm the hell down. We're here to do one thing: Discuss the Guilds and their futures. BTW, why don't we just have a poll, like NP did a couple of years ago, and see what people want to see more of. And I also remember NP starting a thread, that Sword and I closed down( ), where we discussed the entire RPF and it was open to anyone.

RPF Community: You're welcomed.

-B-

 

I have only a few things to add, as many of my points are either repetitive or unimportant.

First off, a general statement:

I think a lot of these problems that have been brought up have the absolutely wrong focus on them. What can the mods really do about a lot of these suggestions? I feel, to a large extend, the 'underlying problems' that have been pointed out have to be changed from the user level, which I cannot see happening. Mods are here to keep things under control and uphold the board's standards. They are not here to parent or babysit us.

Secondly, to discuss cliques in the Rpf:

Is it unfortunate? Perhaps. Can we do anything about it? Not really. I admit they exist. We all have groups of friends. That's life. The Germans have been mentioned, and it's understandable they'd enjoy each others company. I feel that those of us who regularly participate in the AIM rpfchat (Five or six of us, I guess) have become in some ways clique-ish. It's just a fact of life. The only thing that can be done by the administration is to encourage people to mingle. They can't do more than that. They can't make people associate with others against their will. It just won't work. We need to remember to keep our expectations of the user base realistic. These sorts of problems are part of human nature. As far as I know, we are all human. Can we expect anything more than that from the users of the RPF then?

Thirdly, on the state of the RPF:

I honestly don't see any problems that are all that critical. The RPF, to me, has one major function, to provide a place to come and role play as we wish. I have always loved that few of the games in the RPF share the exact same format. If you want to play an online game that involves dice rolling and stats, levels and complex battle systems, you can find that here. I happen to personally hate those types of games. Not to say they are bad, merely not my cup of tea. I rpefer a much more free and creative experience like I am trying to create in my current RP. No matter how you want to run or play a game, you can pretty much find it here. So, if GM's are only taking in the prestigious players... it's foolish, perhaps, but that is their prerogative. If they wish to have a player cap,t hen that is their choice. I know that, from past attempts, I cannot handle a large free-form game with my current level of experience and knowledge. So I put a relatively small player cap on ABW. As I learn and grow, I plan on starting up games with either much larger player caps or none at all. That is my right, and that is what has made the RPF as great as it is. Trends are a part of life, so it makes sense that they would exist in the types of games developed.

I believe that made sense.

Alright time to move onto the Guilds now. I kinda like the reform ideas presented. Is some tweaking and modification required? Sure, but that's the purpose of this thread. So, group by group....

Game Designers Guild

Whether or not that is what it started as, the current GDG has become this. In all honesty, there is no change there.

Game Masters Guild

I am quite fond of this idea. I have recently begun my foray into GM'ing, and it's not all that easy. I feel I am doing alright, but having a place with the best and worst of GM's getting together to discuss and advise would be beneficial, to me at least. Let's face it, the current who's who of GM's won't be around forever. How are we ever going to continue to grow and exist if we don't have a place for GM's to really learn and grow?

Character Designers Guild

I am unsure whether these next two should be merged or not. I think it will be fine to leave them separate as they can offer very different directions to go. I would recommend changing the name to something along the lines of Character Development Guild, though. A small change, but the name more reflects, in my mind, not just CS'es but the continued discussion about specific characters as they grow through an RPG and theory of character development. I have noticed

 

Fins' plan is a bit radical, but I do like the groups outlined. If I had to pick a plan, I'm tempted to go with his, it's quite nice.

As for the state of the RPF general, I have no complaints. I think we need to realize how good we've got it. Therefore, I propose everyone spends 72 hours on Gaia. As Sarge and I both know, you will see how bad things could be.

 

I just want to assure everyone that we're not ignoring any points that have been raised. I might not have personally commented on every single one of them, but I've read, thought about, and will take into consideration every post made here. We are paying attention, never fear.

In fact, I'll give the debate a couple more days, and then I'll draft up a new plan based on what everyone's said and we'll see what you guys think of it.

Carry on!

 

Chuckles makes, I think, a good point when he says that the users of this board will play or GM the way they like, because it's what they come here for. And that the mods aren't here to change that, only make sure things go smoothly. But I do think that some restructuring might benefit this board as far as being welcoming to new players. And new GMs. To 'learn the trade' so to speak - likes Chuckles describes it for GM-ing in a Game Master's Guild, I would hope for something similar for players.

But whatever the structure will eventually become, two threads or four, new ones or the old ones renewed, Fin's suggestions, I think the main thing is that they should be easy to find and easy to recognize for what they are. That in itself would make this board more welcoming for new players. Because I don't think it's the members here that make this board unwelcoming, in my experience the people here are great and very helpful and encouraging. But I also saw that a lot of the people that came looking here during the few months I've been around don't appear in any games. Which isn't good.

New players and new GMs are bound to make mistakes. I fully understand that that can be annoying to those who want to play a good game, because that's what they come here for. But a forum dies without 'new blood'. I've seen it happen, I've been there, forums that are great and busy and wonderful, until no new members come anymore, or leave again after only a peek: the forum dwindles, slows down more and more, until almost everyone has left. Because hey, it's the internet, so yes, people leave.

As for the RPF, first and foremost people come here to roleplay. And I think that's where starting to feel a part of the RPF begins, by being a part in some of the games here.

So I wanted to make a suggestion for a rather small change, which I guess is up to you all to shoot at. It's, I'm afraid, an idea for a new thread that has nothing to do with the proposed guild threads, but since the discussion has become a bit bigger.... *ducks!*


Anyway, it's kind of an introduction/starting thread for new members, but with the emphasis on the games they can try instead of 'these are the rules and read all this when you want to play here'. For example maybe like this:

---

[blockquote][Thread title:] [b]Games open to new players[/b]

[hr]
[first post]

Looking for a game to play in? These games are open to new players and a good place to start role playing on this board.


[link=http://boards.theforce.net/welcome_new_users/b10181/29789858/p1/?130]The Academy mini role playing game[/link]
A game specifically designed to start out and try role playing as it's done here.



ROLE PLAYING FORUM:


[link=http://boards.theforce.net/role_playing_forum/b10328/30097157/p1/?161]The machine wars[/link]
Games master: [link=http://boards.theforce.net/UserPages/Profile.aspx?user=Dubya_Scott]Dubya Scott[/link]


[link=http://boards.theforce.net/role_playing_forum/b10328/30146826/p1/?114]Star Wars: Intervention[/link]
Games masters: [link=http://boards.theforce.net/UserPages/Profile.aspx?user=Bravo]Bravo[/link]


[link=http://boards.theforce.net/role_playing_forum/b10328/28357048/p1/?2017]As father and son[/link]
[link=http://boards.theforce.net/role_playing_forum/b10328/28357048/p53]Start of part 2[/link]
Games master: [link=http://boards.theforce.net/UserPages/Profile.aspx?user=BobaMatt]BobaMatt[/link]
Brief summary: (or 'Brief summery on page ?. of this thread')


[link=http://boards.theforce.net/role_playing_forum/b10328/30098623/p1/?652]The desert that shall not be named[/link]
Games master: [link=http://boards.theforce.net/UserPages/Profile.aspx?user=Coruscant]Coruscant[/link]
For this game you don?t need to know what went on before, because your character will be as ignorant as you, the player, so you can find out together.

:
:
:
:
:



NON STAR WARS ROLE PLAYING


[link=http://boards.theforce.net/non_star_wars_role_playing/b10755/29600488/p1/?484]Oz ? the heart of emerald[/link]
Games master: [link=ht

 

I like the general idea a lot! It´s actually close to what I meant with my Marketplace. Only much better developed.

Somethings I would suggest changed, though.

If we consider it we should actually include all games searching for players. Not a select few. Nobody has the right to judge who is "better" or not. Not even mods or the community itself. And some first-timers had good results with their games. Equality is the most treasured prize of these boards, I belief. And as many games do recruit their majority of CS before they open, we need to incorporate the introduction thread. Otherwise we have to places you need to look up for games to join. And newbies might not be able to get into games from the start. Which is the best point to join, still. But that´s all stuff we can make work, I think.

The idea of a place where you can go and have a look at what you can join is a very good one.

 

Fins, I might have to respectfully disagree with your complaint.

Now, as some of you may know (And most probably don't or don't care ), back in 05 I made my first account, darthramzafft1. I was eager to get down to some Star Wars RPing, so I joined an open game that looked interesting. I wasn't aware of any resources or methods, so I just picked one and dove in.

That game folded three pages in, and, as I was intimidated by the established games and unwilling to risk another waste of effort, I left the boards until... well, July of '08. That kind of experience can prove detrimental to new gamer recruitment (Indeed, it was only my already well groomed love of roleplaying that kept me at the habit long enough to come back), and so I think it's important we focus on established GMs/games, so the newbies can enter a more stable environment.

Just my two cents.

 

Yes, I must say, that it is a very good idea, whether for new players OR experienced players. However, quick comment:

I see what you are saying fins, and it makes sense, certainly. I think what Seremela was going for though was as opposed to BETTER Gm's, just more proven ones... ones that we can be sure will provide a quality experience for the newbie by sticking with the game. To take this a step further, perhaps we have a list of games recommended for new players, and then have a list of all games looking for players. Makes sense in my mind, at least. However, either way will work fine, methinks. Just adding another brief comment.

 

Yes, what Chuckles says: GMs that will keep a game alive.

But that judgmental aspect is why I thought long and hard about point 4. Everyone has to start somewhere after all, not only players, but GMs as well. Still, it's like Ramza says, when you dive in a game and it's... nothing... it can turn you off the RPF immediately. And sadly there are a lot of games started that die down very soon, more of those than of games that work out. That's the reason I decided to put it in anyway. I think a good game to start in as a new player is important to make people enthusiastic.

As for getting into new games instead of established ones, that's why I think the link to the Introduction service is a very important one. And that GMs should be encouraged to announce their games there.

Fins and Chuckles idea of two lists (although differently worded) might be the best though


first post: good games to start when you're new here
second post: games that seek new players
third post: questions/good threads to read

The second list would be the hardest to keep up to date I think, maybe too much so?

 

Well, I totally see the point. No doubt.

Pro my point: I just feel bad about the idea of choosing games, because someone has to choose and it will lead to bad blood. I can think of a dozen situations where people do feel they deserve a place on the list and don´t have one. I can also see how people will fight for the prestigious position . . . because they seek the players. A spare ressource here sometimes as we GMs all know.

And who chooses? We have no impartial source of judgment. Even the mods have played games with some users and less without others.

There are also GMs not part of the establishment who do games regulary. With some success. I would hate to see them left out.

Contra my point: Newbies have no idea what they join. I had my share of sub-par runs around here, when I arrived. Not a bad experience though. But obviously we should not let them go into this cycle. You are totally right there.

Possible solution: My take would be we might treat some games because of their nature as established project and because they have earned our trust more equal than others. I´ll take AFAS as an example in the following. I think we can all agree the game has survived a few storms and is still around accepting players. Oz would be another game of that nature.

So we would have:

Category One: Institutional Games/Trusted Games/Longrunning Games/Comunity Games

We should have only the really trusted ones here. And only if they seek a considerable amount of players. Because you accept two new (like I did once in 133, for example) guys doesn´t qualify. If you seek five (like Sinre once in 41 ABY) we need to decide. When you say Open for submission as Chapter II begins with Post 1353, as AFAS did, you´re a sure thing.

Category Two: Other Games seeking players. The usual Jazz.

I feel we cannot tell anybody "nope, you´re not good enough to be mentioned". That is simply discrimination of people who are putting effort into their games. Sometimes it might not be a great success, this effort . . . but all GMs who try to get their stuff of the ground should be respected for that as equals in the community.

Category Three: New Games, probably in shape of trailers or link to the Trailer Forum.

I am still working how to incorporate this into a list without crowding it or making it confusing. Maybe only a link?


Anyway, to get to the list, we need submissions by the GMs. That filters out all not interested in taking part of this, anyway.



Something I realized.
When Xan was still Xany and not Moderatix XAN she made a list for the EUC (I believe, not sure). She once asked me for a blurb of my game and the list was later posted over there. Actually got me a submission back then. That was something very close to this idea. Only done for another board. Would blurbs for the games make the thing to text-heavy?

 

Yeah. I was compiling Featured Games lists as part of a monthly RPF update for the EU Senate - I got a pretty good response from the GMs, but the EUS didn't seem as interested so it didn't last all that long. Plus I blew through most of the good games within two months; poor planning on my part.

Anyway I think this is a really good idea, Seremela.


As for the categories -

Category One: Institutional Games/Trusted Games/Longrunning Games/Comunity Games

Looks good. The criteria here should be clarified as "long-running games that are always open to new players" and nothing else. They prove themselves through their longevity and they're welcoming to new people by always being open. Putting a game here that recruits maybe one or two characters if their existing players drop out isn't useful. This category would thus be mostly static - not many changes would need to be made unless someone made a new sandbox.

For that, we can have ...

Category Two: Other Games seeking players. The usual Jazz.

... this category. Here any game that wants to be listed on a temporary basis (until they fill their spots) can PM the indexer and have it added, no questions asked. Again, looks good.

Category Three: New Games, probably in shape of trailers or link to the Trailer Forum.

This, unfortunately, is infeasible. When I did the RPF News Report for the EUS, I had a section every month on 'New Games' and there were always anywhere from 6-10 or more each month. By the time I did the next one all but one or two would have died. The thing is that there are a lot of new games being made all the time, and most of them won't go through our creation process - which is entirely within the GM's rights to do, we won't impose it on people. The ones whose GMs are interested in being listed can be put under Category Two when they've begun.

If you just want a link to the Introductions thread (or whatever form it takes in the future) then that would be fine, though.

 

Throught about it.

On Category Three . . . I think we waste too much energy with incoporating it. A link to the new introduction thread should be totally enough and efficient. If we make people post in this thread it will a. Be crowded and b. Won´t allow the freedom to teaser in creative ways the Introduction Thread had . . .

Just link it, might be good, when we put the link where everybody sees it.

Something like . . .

---

[color=crimson][b]And these games will soon leave the harbour. Make sure you got a ticket on board!

[link=http://boards.theforce.net/role_playing_resource/b10757/23332052/p1/?209]The RPF Introduction Network or whatever name we wanna give it that makes sense. [/link]
[/b][/color]
[hr]

 

Fins, what the hell did you just link me to?

-B-

 

*Coughs* Does it help if I behave like I don´t know what you are talking about?

Joking. Sorry. Edited it.

 

Yep, I think that's pretty much what we were thinking fins. We could also, if we felt like it, try to get a few good GM's that are willing to create games solely for having them in that first section. Not to say that we try pressuring them, or what not. It is of course voluntary. However, I think having some open games that were geared towards being relaxed enough for new players to join and learn in, while still being a REAL RPG, would be beneficial, but this has already kinda been touched upon, methinks.

Anyways, I really do like this idea, BUT it has to be advertised quite well, or else I feel it will fall by the wayside. That's something that not just the mods need to do. We need to have a good group of current players (Good not to reflect their playing level, of course ) who not only know the thread exists, but avidly point new and existing players to it for reference.

 

a simple solution for making sure it's at least always visible is stickying it to the top of the RPF and NSWRPF, or a link to it if you can't have the actual thread there.

 

While looking for bad RPGs on Gaia is like nuking fish in a barrel, I'm not entirely sure if we're really that far away from them. While we may not have the same amount of overwhelmingly bad games and players, I have trouble finding games I'd consider "good" or "excellent" instead of just "decent". Most of this may just be due to personal taste, though I have followed games that hooked me. To me, a really good game is interesting for the GM(s), the players, and anyone who might read along.

I can't really think of many of them, either because I keep missing them or perhaps because they're not there. At times though, I look at the RPF Awards or the games lauded at the wiki and think "is this it?" I don't really know the breakdown of voting results, but if five more people voted for your game, is it a runaway success?

I wonder if we might be doing something wrong here, setting the bar too low.

Awards spur people. It makes them rise to the top. It gives people opportunities they normally wouldn't have. It gives people a goal to work towards and something to take pride in.

I don't know, awards always struck me as being somewhat secondary. They're assuming that because lots of people like it, it must be good, which isn't necessarily the case (see: Gaia Online). There's also the problem of if you're aiming for an award, you might just try to do something you think will win instead of doing something you like or admire and letting people think as they will. I don't like playing for the competition- if you win it might just mean you know how to hit the right buttons. There's also the issue of awards being rather relative- I wouldn't judge the value of first place without knowing how strong the runner-up was.

Over here at the RPR, it feels as though we've got a lot tied up in silly things. To be quite honest, I've never liked the title of "Guild Master", even though I suppose I'm technically one. It implies a level of mastery I can't honestly say I've reached, and doesn't really cover the fact that I simply kick the thread when it stops twitching and hope to spark some discussion. We have these "schools of thought" and things like that, but to me it seems as though none of us is really at a level where you can have a school or system for pretending to be a space elf. I like to learn and try new things, but I don't think we do ourselves any favors by pretending that we couldn't do so much better. It just seems to invite complacency and stagnation.

 

Just had the dubious pleasure of reading through this thread, and blimey. Is a UN Security Council Resolution being drafted over here or just a Guild revamp? Who knew the RPFs were such serious business, eh?

 

Well, they're more serious than most countries' attitudes towards the SC, obviously.

 

Oh I am good in this resolution stuff. I did that for a living. Maybe I shall post here after all . . .

1. To the Gaia vs. RPF are we good discussion . . .

I am tending to consider most (really all) said about it perosnal opinion and do not see where the discussion can benefit from the idea if we are "good" RPs or "bad" RPs by anyones standard. Obviously we enjoy playing. We´re here.

2. The Open-Game Thread

I think it works fine and there seems to be consensus. I could have used something like that lately.

3. On the Guild Revamp

I don´t know, if I shall enter the discussion here, truly. Even though I was asked to. I have no strong feelings about guilds. Players can life without them. Things happen elsewhere? Fine. As a player I don´t see the needs for toooo much change. That lately you had to watch out for games to join in advance is true, though. Development of the GMs has shifted of-page. This has become more of the cinema where you can see the movie. The studio where it is done is elsewhere.
So I think the current problem lies with the high-profile GM developers. Those who get a lot of public and have justify their ways to some degree . . . and the newbies, who we basically ignore.

4. Cliques

Here it gets interesting. I wanna quote LordTs least popular sentence. I knew how this discussion would turn out. Yes, I knew. You can watch the same thing evertime a smaller conflict is moderated by the mods in the social forum.

Are there cliques? Sure. Hell yeah. There is even more than cliques. There is acertain degree of hostility coming from them and towards them. And I take the "Germans" into this equasion, here. Being guilty of both. Even though I think not being a GM/Code-Member/RPR-supporter makes me a side-element of them. I have come to suspect RL-racial/cultural things are an issue there, too.
But yeah, there is not proof. There are only about 70 incidents pointing into one direction. And when something really happens even I (who is not interested and a little disturbed by such childish behavior) now can make a list of who is the trouble-causer, just by looking at who is the victim.

Latest developments in the Lightsaber Tourney actually proofed that theory.

And I am pretty sure this leads to complications with games-submissions. You don´t enter games of people who have problems with your people. User-A will never be seen in the award-winning popular games of User-B. He isn´t even welcome there. Sure, these things happen. I know a GM who has life-long-game-ban-list. It´s his right to have one.

Is it a problem? A small one. I guess it could become a big one. But there are people on this board who actually actively work to make it less so. I think RPR or Mods can do nothing about it. Therefore you should not burden the discussion with it.

Being careful not to invite people to draw away from each other even further . . . obviously makes sense, though.

 

My editing time is up, so I´ll apologise through a double-post. My spelling and grammar up there is terrible. Obviously my correction program is switched off and I did it before my first coffee. There is nothing in the world which I should do before my first coffee. Sorry.

 

Alrighty comrades

I think 48-72 hrs would be a good amount of time to finish off this first stage of our discussion.

Last calls for initial ideas, responses

If this discussion stays slow, we can move on to talking about specific plans and try to blend ideas and stuff together into something that best fits this forum. We need something that fits the need, not too big and not too small.

If this line of discussion picks up, however, maybe we'll keep talking about initial thoughts and things for a bit longer.

In any case, if you have something to say, speak up or forever hold your peace.

-I_H

 

Okay, for the second stage I´ll suggest we get rid of all "heavy-discussed" topics and those only being partly relevant (let´s face it - cliques might become a mayor topic in the future, but it´s not yet and doesn´t justify any measures at this point) and concentrate on guilds. The word "guilds" is something we should get rid of, btw. It stands for a system we want to reform and not one we want to keep alive. Groups or Clubs would be more accurate anyway (as a guild usually is rather exclusive).

We should try to base this on available facts. Pure opinion seems a bit misplaced.

By the way . . . my post was intended to voice problems in an aggressive way, so they could not easily be ignored. This strategy makes it necessary I make something clear:
I have to agree with Fin that we play games here and we enjoy them a lot. The truly broken part is the RPR, where only private projects work these days.

While the rise of fandoms might have it´s challenges it shows people are actually enjoying their time here . . . the RPF is healthy and alive, obviously.

Lightwarden is right when he remakrs that we must take care it stays that way.

---

[b]LordT[/b]

 

Well, that could be an extension of the fact that most people just plain don't use the RPR. I'd hope that whatever guild (Or whatever. Seriously, I could care less about etymology/semantics) revamp that is used can help draw more users in, and help coerce things out into the open.

 

I think honestly it boils down to housekeeping...there are a lot of outdated and dead threads in here. Just trim 'em away?