A Measure of Success

[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).

[Mithalwen]

By player you mean any random person who happened to be passing or people whose opinion have established validity? 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. At least a judge may be consistent....

[Mithadan]

At least a judge may be consistent....

What court do you practice in?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

By player you mean any random person who happened to be passing or people whose opinion have established validity? 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. At least a judge may be consistent....

Perhaps the court analogy is more apt than I thought: the jury may render a conviction, but only the judge may pass sentence.

...in this case, the analogy being that the unwashed masses may proclaim your game a dud, but if the Mod doesn't squash it, you're still completely entitled to play it out.

[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.

[piosenniel]

Bêthberry

While the Lonely Star was wonderful game to play, it just can't be counted in the canon oriented atmosphere of the present RP system . . .

[Durelin]

Re: Bethberry's Post -- YES.

I was going to just post the above but I of course had to add some rambles.

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.

I agree. And I don't think we should have very high expectations, and shun new players/writers. When I started RPing on here at 13, the atmosphere was a little more open to someone of my limited ability and...such.... But things were daunting beyond the Green Dragon and my first RPs with other players who did not RP in such a monolithic, perfect prose style... And the mods were always nice, ENDLESSLY patient with me, and encouraging... As long as we do not put up walls against the unknown 'new' people, including those who might not meet certain people's 'expectations,' but rather provide a place for them to learn and grow and all that jazz....but yes, I agree that rules are necessary for encouraging a certain style (or level if you want to call it that) of RP.

And yes...when I talk of open RPs that do not have a set out major storyline, plot points, etc., and do not have a *set* end...they still end! People like closure. So once you've made it somewhere you like, you end the RP. And if the players abandon a game/thread before it reaches an end? Of course you just remove the thread.

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. Games/threads are going to fail. They're going to die. People are going to disappear. You just have to have enough interest and momentum in the RP forum overall that it doesn't matter. That *everything* doesn't start to stagnate. No, I don't really know how you get that. But I agree with Bethberry's suggestions.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by piosenniel

Bêthberry

While the Lonely Star was wonderful game to play, it just can't be counted in the canon oriented atmosphere of the present RP system . . .

Yes.

And no. For a non-canonical game it had some extremely canonical phases,especially if you can justify the crystal. Doggone it, we did some wild things, but we also managed to keep it pretty Tolkienish. Even if we did have a few knock-down-drag-out fistfights, Mith brought us back in order. Besides, it still amazes me as a player to be able to say "I remember the drowning of Beleriand." Makes me feel ancient.

OK, before I get chat-squerled, I'll return to the topic at hand. I'm not on page six yet obviously. But at the moment I'm getting the sense that 3/4 participants in this discussion only need a good excuse and a reason to boot, and you'd be off and running in a fine Gondorian game. Only Gondorian game-starters haven't started any lately. I suggest a compromise that could easily happen under the present "regime" without any changes at all: write up a proposal just like you would for Rohan; walk in character into the Seventh Star and discuss the venture over an ale; and ask whether there are any Gondorian game-starters interested in such a game who would be willing to start it.

I'm not trying to create anarchy (Mithadan, Sir.) Just bringing this out as a possible option.

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.

[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.

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

I am in complete agreement with this and everyone else's statements to this effect. In fact it's been making the whole "open-ended" RP a lot easier for me to conceptualize.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'm reading this discussion with great interest and it occurred to me that the reason for participation by only those who have RPed avidly in the past (mentioned a few posts ago) could be this: the others don't know it's going on! Really, who of the none-RPing members, or even of those who participated in Shire or Rohan games, realizes that there's such a vital discussion taking place in the Gondor forum?!

Some of those might be interested if they're alerted, so I shall post accordingly on a new thread in the Novices and Newcomers forum. Hopefully others who are interested may be attracted and drawn into this thread!