Reference The RPF Rules Discussion - Now Discussing: Writing Violence

Hey All!

I think this is one of those times, where we want the board to stay active, and not die. Yeah, we want to teach the new players how to RP, and improve their skills...but we dont want to chase them off all together.

Many of the newer games that start up with the new players, they all tend to cluster together. Many times because they feel a bit intimidated by the other games. So they play together in their own groups. But sooner or later, most will want to branch out. Especially when most experienced players WONT GO NEAR the other new games. Then we get a chance to teach them, how its done.

Lord knows, it can be a rough process sometimes. But I rather have that, then have the boards die, for lack of new members. And let's face it, we NEED new blood! Us oldbies have seen many folks drop off, never to return...or return months later. BURNOUT is very high among GM's.

And every time a new movie or book comes out, we see a influx of new folks who show up, and droves. Usually what happens is that those who want to learn how to play with the rest of us, do..and those that dont, eventually get bored and fade away.

BTW, I HAVE run more than one game at a time..especially if Ive been asked to co-GM as well. Its only for those who have the time and patience. But I would leave the rule as it is right now...One game per section..two games is tough..4 games is really fun. If you want to run more, get someone to CO-GM a game with.

 

Adoptions will be getting a bump in the upcoming Around the Boards in Comms, as will this thread. Any newcomers from the RPF spawning from this bump will at least enter through adoptions. As for the folks already here, perhaps Adoption's new activity will spur interest.

Individual games will be getting their shot at the Around the Boards feature shortly.

-I_H

 

Ah, very nice. It's cool to see that the RPF will be getting mentioned in the ATB updates, especially the individual games. I will definitely be interested in participating in the Adoptions thread.

 

Actually, with regards to the whole Adoptions issue (and also related to unreliable GM issues), there's an idea I had a while back for a sort of 'GM adoption' type thing, or a sort of 'GM matching service'. I mean, I've been meaning to start GMing for a while, but my availability tends to fluctuate quite a bit and I know that if I tried to take a project like that on, there's a decent chance that I would go through a very busy period and people would lose interest in the RP while I was away. And I've always wondered about this sort of 'GM matching service' that could help match up potential co-GMs or sub-GMs. Either somebody would team up with them as co-GM, or perhaps an established GM would take the rookie under their wing as a sub-GM, and the sub-GM would then help the GM out in an established thread.

Of course, the GM is a pretty serious role, so I imagine it would be more difficult than setting up your run-of-the-mill RP Adoptions. I don't think it would be a good idea for players to team up with a person they didn't know well enough. I don't think it would be a service for newbs so much as something to help out more experienced users and GMs.

 

I kind of like that idea, Ham. In fact, I could use a Co-GM myself.

 

Perhaps that could be implemented in with the adoptions thread?

 

I find a problem, in the fact that the RPR is rarely visited by newer members.

 

Unfortunately, there is not much we can do to change that without crossing the line into overly encroaching on the turf of players. We can lead the horse to water, but we can't make it drink. I'm not particularly looking to be a forum Nazi, and I don't think a majority of the players here would want me to be, frankly.

In other news, this thread will be moving on to the next rules topic this weekend. Probably Sunday, when I do a round of updates around the RPFs. So if anyone has anything left to say on the games per forum rule, best get it out now. Next stop will be a discussion on the RPF Awards and if players should be able to get colors multiple times.

-I_H

 

I do hope that is a joke and not really going to become a practice for the Mods. You guys would end up banning a lot of people, including me and any number of Game Masters that have abandoned games.


Anyway, as for the thread rule. If you are afraid of allowing two games per author because of flood fears, then make it so that the second game has to be authorized by a Mod. Otherwise I think allowing two games per author per forum is a good idea.

1) It will reduce the number of abandoned games. People tend to lose interest in a game they are running if its going slow, not going they originally envisioned, or because they've suddenly become interested in a new idea but cant run that idea because of the current game and dont want to abandon said game.

2) It will provide a larger selection of choices for players to choose from, especially if the game is made by well-known Game Masters.


Since I wont be checking in on this thread often, I'll go ahead and put my input on the following rule:

3.) The One Game per Franchise / Two Games per Genre NSWRPF Rule

This needs to go. Im sorry to say it but it is harming the NSWRPF. There have been players, and I'm one of them, that have had a great idea for a franchise game but couldnt start it because someone else had already started such a game. So those ideas get put on the back burner and are lost and forgotten.

Limiting games on genre is also stupid. Each franchise can be catagorized under a number of genres. Just two franchises could prevent a third different franchise from being started because of genre. Genre is too broad of a term to use as a basis to limit games.

Limitation, imo, is really what is killing the NSWRPF. It is not allowing for creativity to flow like we get in the SWRPF. We have to get approval for this or for that before we can even start another game thats already been started. Also just because it is Non-Star Wars or a Star Wars forum doesnt mean crossovers with Star Wars/Non-Star Wars should be disallowed without approval. Keep the SWRPF strictly Star Wars and move all crossovers to the NSWRPF. Star Wars only games should be disallowed in the NSWRPF. Crossovers with Star Wars should not be limited to Mod approval, especially if we want to get more people into the NSWRPF.

Speaking of NSWRPF and RPF, I propose a move to rename the forums to "General Role Playing Forum" and the "Star Wars Role Playing Forum". Makes better sense really.

 

Well, we'll get to that in due time, but I mostly agree with you - however, I think that some limitations are beneficial. Though the current rule feels excessive.

 

I wasn't talking about bans for all abandonments, Mitth -- just for folks who make a bad habit of starting games and then abandoning them for no good reason other than "i haz b3tt3r Ideaz 4 RPG lol!!!!11!!!!11!!!!"

Hopefully this will be rare.

Noted for later consideration.

Also, and I know we're getting off the topic here, but I wanted to throw one other thought into the mix after reviewing the commentary on new games and the "Big Brother" program for GMs that's been discussed.

Maybe the older players (myself included) should try and make a conscious effort to join one new RPG by a new player...even to the point of gritting our teeth and joining in the new IM-style games.

I'm not talking about making it compulsory; I'm talking about something more like an informal, voluntary "new user outreach" program. Let's face it: as we know, most people aren't going to read the rules threads or make it into the RPR until a fair amount of water passes under the bridge. Most new users, I posit, learn principally by example -- the example of us oldbies. And on that, I want to call for a round of applause for the merry band of oldbies who've joined Chukles38's Xanatian Chronicles thread. That's Chukles' first RPG, I think, and with any luck it'll only get better over time.

What I'm proposing is -- strictly on a voluntary basis, and maybe not even officially -- the more experienced heads consider joining some of the newest RPGs out there, in the hope of maybe influencing our new GMs to some moderation (pun intended). Now, I can hear the teeth gritting from here, and I can just about taste the double shots Ktala's sunk at McFinney's before writing her post about participating in new games, but I would like people to think about this and perhaps act on it. As a community service, in the spirit of refining our new players. And yes, I am aware how painful this may be. And that people have very limited time online. That's why I am not proposing this as compulsory.

But I believe that the best way to master something is to try and teach it to someone else. And I also believe one of the biggest rushes for a new user is when an oldbie joins your thread. The Adoptions program is good and has its place, but this is another measure to consider, I think. I would suggest that if one is to do this, one travels with a fellow oldbie into the wilds of new RPGs -- at least you have some company But I do think this is worth private consideration for many of our oldbie population.

Again, I'm off my soapbox.

 

Very good idea, I think.

 

I use to do that for the newbies that actually put some thought into their games. But then I got headaches from the godmoders and morons and decided that I don't want the hassle anymore.

 

Alright... seems like the 2 games rule has been talked out. Lets move on then...

---

[b][u]The Consecutive Winners in the RPF Awards Rule[/u][/b]

Text of the Rule is this...

[i]"Any RPG that wins an award becomes ineligible for next season's awards, to ensure fairness and variety. Any players who win awards will be ineligible until the next year."[/i]

Normally this wouldn't even be an issue, but since it was brought up in the last awards, I figure it might be worth at least a few days of discussion.

So both Saintheart and myself are averse to changing this rule. It just doesn't seem smart. Firstly, Awards are nice to have people stick around. It builds confidence and gets folks involved. Secondly, it risks killing competition amongst the GMs, as people just give up. Good GMs will be seen as unstoppable, and everything will stagnate. Finally, as NP originally stated, variety is simply nice. It brings new games to the spotlight and alerts the forum to sleeper hits.

We're putting this up for discussion so that we can get a feel for the community's opinion on the issue. And in all honesty, it will have to be a strong and loud against for us to really consider changing it. There seems to be no real harm keeping it, and no real benefits ditching it.

Anyone want to make a case for it? If not, we'll get to discussing the much juicier One Game per Franchise rule in the NSWRPF soon.

-I_H

 

I would not abolish it entirely, merely lesson the player nominated thing to perhaps 3 awards go by before being elegible again?

 

I'm in favour of keeping the rule in place as it is.

That, and I'd like to point out that it's a bit of an academic point anyway. Of the repeat award winners (of which there are few in the first place), exactly two have won every award they were eligible for by the current rules in the first place. So yeah...

 

I've got to agree with the established rule on this one. Variety among the winners is hardly a bad thing.

 

I definitely think there should be some restrictions placed on how many times a person can win. Though, I do see how one can argue for abolishing the rule, and allowing a person to win multiple times. As Reynar said in the last Awards thread, it will allow for more competitive gaming here. If there is a user who wins two, three or four times in a row, then that will encourage other players to either: 1.) take a look at their RPing and try to improve upon it, or 2.) Not vote for that person in the next round

I also think that if a person constantly wins, it is unfair to the other users. But, in real life, people do not care about that. Look at the Patriots in the early 2000's...they one 3 in four years, or the Steelers in the 70's winning 4 in 6...They don't automatically disqualify a team from the playoffs simply because they won.

Though, this is not RL. And, as I stated earlier, I do believe some restriction shouold be placed upon the amounts of times someone can win. I thank one whole year may be a bit rough. Why not cut it down to one season? Or two?

 

I would cut it down to a one season separation. It is basically the same rule, just the time is lessoned.

 

I believe that, while the rule has just cause, it should be modified. I suggest that two seasons be required to pass, before a player should have chance to win again.

 

The difference between the football analogy and this is that people vote for the winners. For me i dont mind either way, though this year had alot of new nominees in the mix with some old ones, yet most of the seasoned rpers won. I think there is already a compromise with winners in regards to winning per award season.

The only adjustment i can think of is extending it to two award seasons instead of one, if people still have a problem with the rule. The only question is will it help or hurt the rp awards if that's done. Competition is something that is encouraged.

 

That's not the rule. The rule is currently 1 year, or 4 seasons. I believe 1 or 2 seasons would be best.

 

I think she was responding to your post.

 

Oh my bad i did think it was only one season. Then if thats the case then i truly think the rule is fine as is.