A Measure of Success

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Form

However, I think that a "planning" forum has the potential to be somewhat more broadly focused. In addition to allowing players the chance to hone game ideas prior to starting a game, a planning forum might also have the leeway to delve into things like writing theory, etiquette discussions, and canonicity questions the game owners/players might want to bring up.

The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that with a "discussion thread," the only people who are liable to read it are the people involved in the game.

As you've said it's about how they're used. It really just comes down to terminology. And what's interesting is that, to me, the term 'planning thread' here on the Downs has often meant a closed thread where people are invited to plan a new game, then when the 'discussion thread' is posted, everyone's able to jump in and join. So I'd like to combine the two into just the discussion thread. Discussion threads would go in your 'planning forum,' and people could plan/discuss the game and continue to use the thread when the game is started (or people can choose to start the game thread and discussion thread at the same time).

Anyway, that's rather minor...


Shire Rules -- They all seem still very applicable to me, but maybe with some edits. I just wrote comments on some rules I thought might need some changing.

3. Short chat-style posts which encourage other players to post in a chatty style are also not allowed. Be descriptive, and try not to use a lot of dialog. << I'm not sure about this 'try not to use a lot of dialogue'. Might want to say 'use a mix of dialogue and description' or something.

....

5. You must tell your fellow players if you will be unavailable for a while. Any character that goes missing for a two week period of time can be "killed off" or "lost" and will be out of the game. If you have posted that you will be gone, the game owner can then decide if someone else can take over your character if need be until you get back. <<I'm really not sure if two weeks is long enough. As it is, this rule has never been acted upon in that short amount of time in my memory and experience.

....

7. Interact with the other players. Don't try to write the story yourself. An RPG is a communal effort with everyone participating. Use the discussion thread for planning. Also, don't "hijack" other player's characters. It is bad form to send another character off somewhere without the permission of the player. <<Should we perhaps expand on this considering the different ideas of people on what's acceptable regarding using other people's characters? Perhaps say *do not use another person's character at all (move them, give them dialogue, etc) unless you have express permission from the player. I mean this is pretty much a rule that will be self-policed so if two players are fine with using each other's characters, they won't complain to the mods about it and it doesn't really matter.

....

9. Follow the story line and read what the other players are posting. If your mission is to deliver a message from Bag End to Bree, you have no business wandering off to Lorien. Every RPG has a beginning, a middle and an end. Aimless wandering is not allowed. Achieve your goal, have fun doing it, and when you are done move on to the next game. <<Hmm, is this really necessary? I've never witnessed aimless wandering within a game plot. And it's a little strict on the *every RPG has a beginning, middle and end*...I don't agree with that, personally. Maybe I'm just being picky. Maybe just take out the 'middle'? Haha.

....

Simply put: Please play your character realistically and within the boundaries of Middle Earth "reality". Don't act in ways that give you unfair advantages over other players. Don't speak, act, or think for another player's character(s) without consulting them first. Concentrate on your own character and how they are reacting to what is happening around them. <<Here we go, this is more explicit about using other's characters. Of course, 'consulting' them FIRST should be emphasized, rather than consulting after the fact. And not assuming that if you ask it will be fine.

....

13. The member who starts a RPG is its "Owner" or "Founder" and is in charge of the game. That person is expected to keep the game moving, keep his/her players in character and following the rules, and guide the plot in the Discussion Thread, under the general supervision of the Shire Moderators ad Innkeepers. <<This still seems fine to me. It might want to be added to, with something about how the Owner/Founder determines the pace of the game, how much control the players have, etc. All of course still under the supervision of the mods.

....

15. Do not enter an RPG thread to ask to join a game. PM the RPG owner. Put your name on the thread for wanting to join RPG’s, so that we’ll know to give you a heads up on new games. Check the Inn thread – we always advertise new games there. In the meantime, you may always post a character in the Inn and play there until a new game comes up. <<This should maybe be tweaked. What do we want the procedure to be? PM the game owner is still a good suggestion. Perhaps say, check the discussion thread of the game and see if the game owner has left it open for new players to join or if it is 'closed.'

16. Edit out your signature for every post you do in any role playing game in the Shire, Rohan, or Gondor. Edit out your signature for the Inns in Rohan and the Shire, too. In the screen for creating your posts, there is an option to 'Show Signature'. Please uncheck this box when posting in the RPG forums. <<I still like this rule, but don't really care either way. I'm not an uber neat freak about posts so I understand that this might be annoying to some people. I mean, at least we don't have image signatures here so it's not like they're that distracting.

....

17. About quoting what other characters have said in previous posts: Please don't use the 'QUOTE' function available to you on the posts. Since the Inn and RPG's are writtien more like ongoing stories - just use quotation marks and reference the quotation from the other character as needed with a - he said . . . she said . . . etc. <<Like this too. Another neatness thing so not a big deal but...

18. Please note: A game which hasn't been posted on in 2 weeks signifies a lack of interest in the game, and the Moderator may choose to close the game and remove it. <<Do we want to expand this and set a specific (longer? or no?) time after which a game will absolutely be closed?

Originally Posted by Inn Rules

Only the moderators or the Innkeeper may move the timeline forward in the Inn. And there will be a notice or discussion of it on the Inn Discussion thread.

Not sure about this. I mean it makes sense, but it also puts a lot on the innkeeper and limits the 'free flowing' nature of the inn. Having a specific timeline to things (which I don't even know how well it's ever followed) can make it a little less easy to jump in. But I don't have a good solution for this. I guess as long as the innkeeper stays flexible and lets days go on for as long as people are posting? Which I'm sure they will.

Originally Posted by Serial Posting Rules

Serial posting between writers is discouraged, especially since it tends to become more dialog oriented than descriptive.

I really don't think this is necessary. A bit too *this is how you must roleplay* for me. Some people do quite well with serial posting. Obviously I don't but who's to say you can't do that? Or you won't be able to do it well enough so you're not allowed.

Saves -- I don't like Saves. I'm guessing not everyone's going to want to outlaw them and I don't really care, but perhaps that's another thing that could be left up to the game owner. Or just play it by ear. If someone posts a save and the game owner has a problem with it, they address it. (Basically Saves to me are a symptom of that very plot-oriented, step-by-step sort of RPing Bethberry was talking about and they are often unnecessary.)


Rohan Rules

Game Player Rules:

Post at a minimum two times weekly for a major character, once weekly for a minor character, or as required for a cameo character, and read both the game and discussion threads at least every two days in order to keep informed of the game's events. (Posting speed can be discussed among gamers before a game starts and a consensus on posting speed can be reached. However, once this decision is reached, gamers are expected to follow it conscientiously. Games which don't move are not fun to read or play in.) <<I think this is a little bit too standing over the shoulder sort of thing. I say keep it simple and just tell people, *Keep up with your games, try to post as regularly as possible. Keep in contact with who you're RPing with, let them know if you're going to be away.* And maybe keep as it says here that the players in a game will kind decide on their own the pace of the game.

....

It is recommended that gamers use a Word or WordPerfect processing system, a spell-checker, and an online dictionary in writing posts and to proofread posts (with the preview function) once they have been put up on the game thread. <<A dictionary?

....

Write posts which combine exposition and description, using dialogue also if needed, and which either develop character or further the plot as described in the rules for writing at Rohan. <<Why did I not sense such hostility to dialogue before this? I don't get it...

Write posts which are coordinated with previous events and posts in the game, with characters interacting as needed by the game so that the game reads smoothly and coherently. <<Oof. Characters can only interact *as needed by the game*. I value consistency, but that seems like it's crawling into that territory of your character can only do what the game allows, down to every action or interaction...which is a bit much.

Discuss with the Game Founder in advance any plot twists, turns or ideas which are not part of the general plot of the game and to use them only with the approval of the Game Founder. <<Hmm...well, if it's going to affect the whole plot or every character in the game, yes. Maybe a plug for using planning/discussion threads here!

Refer to other characters and write them in a manner consistent with the way they are written by their owners. Gamers can make major decisions only for their own characters. <<NO...NO. Do not write for other characters unless given express permission. Refer to Shire rules.

~

What a Game Founder/ Manager does:

Submits the game proposal to the reviewers using the Rohan Game Proposal Form ( found on the thread called How to Propose New RPGs for Rohan). You can see how a proposal is developed on this thread. Games can be developed independently or cooperatively on a game planning thread. If you wish to have a planning thread created for you, PM piosenniel. <<This may need to be changed obviously depending on if we have a proposal system. At least the planning thread thing, based on whatever's decided.

Chooses gamers based on the character description and first post submitted to the discussion thread. (The choice should be determined by quality of writing, depth of characterization, and suitability for the needs of the game.) <<Maybe not the 'first post' since they aren't even required under the current system and certainly shouldn't be IMO under whatever new system. Maybe make it seem less like an audition, maybe not. But of course say, it's up to the game founder who they let into their game.

Posts at a minimum two times weekly to the game. Note: Posting regularly in a game helps to keep it alive. Games that drag on become more an obligation than fun and discourage readers from following a game. <<Yes the game founder/owner has more responsibility. But I just get all weird when there's such specific numbers tossed around.

Prompts gamers who do not post regularly and guides the game to a successful conclusion following the ideas set out in the proposal. <<'Following the ideas set out in the proposal' makes it seem like you can't allow for the characters to affect what happens, etc. It sounds like *the plot must be followed out to the letter*

Notifies gamers on the discussion thread of their absences and informs at least one gamer (who will assume the responsibilities of an acting manager) of any game details which will need to be carried out in the manager's absence. <<Wasn't that one of the discussions here?

Contacts the Rohan Moderator about any gamers who are not consistently writing at the Rohan standard, so that the Moderator can offer the gamers specific help to improve their writing. <<This should really be gotten rid of. The 'standards' should be set out in the rules and people can tell on one another if they wish/everyone can help each other out.

Respects the fact that characters are owned by their writers and not controlled by the Game Founder and that the game is owned by everyone who creates it through the writing of it. Once characters have been accepted into a game, Game Founders should not make plans for them without discussing those plans with the gamer who runs the character. Gaming in Rohan is cooperative. <<Yessss...

Basically I think the Shire rules should be added to with some bits and pieces from the Rohan rules but a lot of the Rohan rules are either redundant or are based on the "meeting Rohan's standards" and "moving up to Gondor."

[Nogrod]

Just a quckish comment here on Pio's question about the rules.


I'd like to see the "formal rules" stay eg. no smilies, no signatures, no OOC -stuff, no highlighting...

I just can't imagine an RP with smilies, signatures or OOC discussions. They are nice to have around in many contexts but not in the RP's.


The question of dialogue, or using other people's characters is a more challenging one - and I know it has not been just once or twice when it has been an issue.

I have both good and bad experiences on it. In Scarburg Mead Hall the active players know each others characters well enough so they can oftentimes write some dialogue between two characters - and it is quite smooth to just ask in the discussion thread whether it was okay for the other player (and everyone expects that any changes the other player wishes will be addressed). And we have all these ways of co-writing a post via PM's, MSN, what have you.

But if the players are not confident of each other, or if for any other reason there is no feeling of mutual trust, then it becomes more problematic. For those occasions there should be rules more or less like the ones we have now. I've seen these things go soo wrong as well when people think they can fulfill their personal ambitions totally disregarding other players' characters - and in the worst instance misrepresenting them badly and not willing to change what they have written after the others complain about it.

I'm not sure how any exceptions to the quite strict rules should be spelled out though, but I know how it goes in practise... When two people have written a long time enough in a game (or just feel they trust each other's judgement) they start to add comments of the other player's character into their posts - immediately checking whether it was okay (in the discussion thread), but with time even these questions become scarcer as they know what they're doing.

So how about we still kept the rule of not doing things with other player's characters but made it clear it was okay when you had the mutual ageement with someone - so only when both sides agreed? How to write that in a rules -section beats me though.


Also (and partly merged into what I said earlier) the rules about bunnying and not trying to drive the story by yourself should be kept in force - at least on any basic level of game rules.


So?

I can see a lot of these rules have been made in eye of people hoarding in not having an idea what RP'ing in the 'Downs is about (the LotR movies). At the moment the situation is a bit different and many rules feel a bit redundant. But who knows if the Hobbit-films will again create a great influx of new people who need to be told what we want from the RP's in this forum? Thus I wouldn't call for doing away with all the rules we have.

But to recognize what we all more experienced RP'rs know - should we say the strict rules can be overlooked when we have a mutual consent and trust between writers... that could be just one paraphrase in the end of one sentence?

[Formendacil]

In general, my feelings about the Rules tend to echo Nogrod's, so I feel I can do little better than quote him where I feel I have a touch of difference of opinion, or maybe something to add.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'd like to see the "formal rules" stay eg. no smilies, no signatures, no OOC -stuff, no highlighting...

I just can't imagine an RP with smilies, signatures or OOC discussions. They are nice to have around in many contexts but not in the RP's.

I agree 100%. Granted, my ability to imagine smilied or be-signatured RPs has been strongly affected by the Downs, I think these sorts of rules are valid, and what's more, they form a major part of the Downer tradition or ethos concerning RPs, and just because we're restructuring that section doesn't mean that we're doing away with the traditions concerning it.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The question of dialogue, or using other people's characters is a more challenging one - and I know it has not been just once or twice when it has been an issue.

Once again, my feelings mirror Nogrod's: in general, the rules are far stricter than actual practice goes, and also stricter than actual practice merits. However, I tend to feel that it's better to have strict rules with lax enforcement than lax rules. Still, it might be worth rewriting them to include a clause to the effect of: "basic interaction with another player's character may include dialogue, but the other player may always ask for the dialogue to be revised, and if they feel their character has been played in an out-of-character manner, they can ask to have the entire post revised or removed. As a general rule, therefore, if you do not know another player and their character well, you should be careful not to have them say or do anything significant without having consulted the other player first."

I admit that's rather wordy...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

"basic interaction with another player's character may include dialogue, but the other player may always ask for the dialogue to be revised, and if they feel their character has been played in an out-of-character manner, they can ask to have the entire post revised or removed. As a general rule, therefore, if you do not know another player and their character well, you should be careful not to have them say or do anything significant without having consulted the other player first."

I admit that's rather wordy...

The many words kind of reveal the "fact" behind them that we should have the rules - but like you say

Originally Posted by Form

It's better to have strict rules with lax enforcement than lax rules.

What I think should be underlined is that the lax enforcement should be due to trust and general two-way feeling "breaking the rules" is okay for both parties involved (without this leave many games would stall badly). But writing that into a rule is something I find a bit problematic...

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Form

"basic interaction with another player's character may include dialogue, but the other player may always ask for the dialogue to be revised, and if they feel their character has been played in an out-of-character manner, they can ask to have the entire post revised or removed. As a general rule, therefore, if you do not know another player and their character well, you should be careful not to have them say or do anything significant without having consulted the other player first."

Can't it just be, don't do anything with another person's character without their consent and leave it at that? Leave it to the players to work it out. If you *know* the other person wants you to or gives permission; if two players have RPed together and are used to using each other's characters than by all means go ahead and do what you're used to. But that doesn't need to be in the rules. I'm pretty sure that mods will only step in when there is a complaint.

Wonder how many pages we can discuss this for...

/rule nitpicking...I hope. The whole using characters thing is of concern to me, though.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

What I think should be underlined is that the lax enforcement should be due to trust and general two-way feeling "breaking the rules" is okay for both parties involved (without this leave many games would stall badly). But writing that into a rule is something I find a bit problematic...

Yes, quite. I'm not sure how one would write it into the rules, but it's analogous to what is "proper" for regular society: there are liberties that are habitual and proper to friends, family, and lovers which would be grossly out of place for strangers. In like manner, one should know the other person and/or their character before taking liberties.

Originally Posted by Durelin

Wonder how many pages we can discuss this for...

Quite a few, undoubtedly, but it's ultimately going to come down to the philosophy behind the way things are done as an RPing community, and (from my perspective), I don't see that we're actually modifying the Barrow-downs roleplaying ethos all that much. We're modifying the superstructure, taking into account the current personnel situation and the experience of pluses and minuses of the old structure... but I don't think the overall style of playing is really being brought into question.

In other words, I think we're quibbling more over how the formulation of the rules will match the unspoken habits of using other characters that are already in play, rather than revising the rule structure to reflect a whole new way of thinking.

Although... it might just be me who thinks that.

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Form

but I don't think the overall style of playing is really being brought into question.

I didn't know that line had been drawn.

Originally Posted by Form

In other words, I think we're quibbling more over how the formulation of the rules will match the unspoken habits of using other characters that are already in play, rather than revising the rule structure to reflect a whole new way of thinking.

Instead revise the rule structure to reflect unspoken habits that may or may not be shared by every player? And new players must conform to these unspoken habits? I mean, there's rules to help things go smoothly, and then there's rules that tell you how you should write, how you should RP, etc. The Downs is going to maintain a certain style regardless of how many unspoken habits you do or don't put into the rules. I guess it's how far you want to go. To be honest I just didn't know that not using someone's character without their permission is an entirely new way of thinking.

I'll go away now. Promise.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Durelin

I didn't know that line had been drawn.

My apologies then--perhaps it hasn't been explicitly drawn. Nonetheless, without anyone having drawn a precise line, it seems to me that a realistic appraisal of the situation yields the same results: we're talking about a change to RPing, as it is played on the Downs. This discussion involves Downer RPers, under the eyes of the Downer mods and admins. What's more, with the possible (probable?) exception of yourself, no one has really been agitating for a complete levelling of the way RPs are played on the Downs. Instead, the majority of the discussion has focused on how to streamline what we already have.

Maybe I'm the only one who sees it this way--and in that case, more people ought to speak up and tell me so--but in simplest terms, we're not building a new forum; we're modifying the one we have.

Originally Posted by Durelin

Instead revise the rule structure to reflect unspoken habits that may or may not be shared by every player?

Not every player may share these "unspoken habits," but I sincerely hope that the attempts at revising the rules don't make it appear that people have to use other player's characters extensively in their posts. The rules, as they stand, say that you can't use someone else's character. The practice--what you're calling unspoken habits--is that we do use each other's characters, cautiously and sparingly in most cases, or more extensively when we know them better, always open to adjustment at the behest of the other character's player. The revision of this rule insofar as anyone seems to be talking about it would not impose any new burden of interaction on players who try not to use other people's characters, but would turn the currently illicit, but de facto situation of shared character use into a de iure case.

Originally Posted by Durelin

And new players must conform to these unspoken habits?

These unspoken habits, in my experience, are what happen after two players and their two characters have played together for a while--the players learn what they can reasonably do with someone else's character, and end up using them accordingly--beyond the limits proscribed by the current law. Extending the bounds of the current law to include what is already happening does not force new players to play right out to those limits. On the contrary, it gives them the confidence and freedom to know that they are not going to be blithely struck down if they so much as use someone else's concierge to sign them into a hotel lobby.

Originally Posted by Durelin

I mean, there's rules to help things go smoothly, and then there's rules that tell you how you should write, how you should RP, etc. The Downs is going to maintain a certain style regardless of how many unspoken habits you do or don't put into the rules. I guess it's how far you want to go. To be honest I just didn't know that not using someone's character without their permission is an entirely new way of thinking.

If I may make a candid, and possibly erroneous observation, Durelin, your biggest issue seems to be that "the Downs is going to maintain a certain style regardless"--and I am inferring that you think this is not an entirely good thing. Perhaps this is the whole problem here: unlike you (assuming I read you right), I want the Downs to maintain the good elements of its "certain style." What's more, I get the impression that most of the people commenting on this thread want to maintain what they think the good elements of Downsian roleplaying are. As a result, while maybe there is no "line drawn," it seems patently likely that the new Downs forums will resemble the old.

[Bêthberry]

If I may offer a few modest observations here . . . .

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I don't see that we're actually modifying the Barrow-downs roleplaying ethos all that much. We're modifying the superstructure, taking into account the current personnel situation and the experience of pluses and minuses of the old structure... but I don't think the overall style of playing is really being brought into question.

In other words, I think we're quibbling more over how the formulation of the rules will match the unspoken habits of using other characters that are already in play, rather than revising the rule structure to reflect a whole new way of thinking.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

it seems patently likely that the new Downs forums will resemble the old.

I think back to Mithadan's comment that the RPG fora have "become somewhat rundown and shabby" (post #218 on this thread). And I also think back to the several comments about different styles of games, those highly structured/organised and those more spontaneous or interactive. I thought the new incarnation would allow for both styles, whereas the current one allows only for the first, and would free gamers up from the tightly controlled structure that now exists, encouraging Downers to take a more active role in gaming.

So I was under the impression that what was going on now was an attempt to reincarnate the gaming at the Downs under guidelines that would be encouraging and positive where the current system can sound discouraging (just a whole lot of hoops) and patronising (if I can summarise some of the thoughts here), however well meant.

I suggest that if the current rules are simply carried over with some modification or tinkering, nothing will change, nothing will encourage new gamers to join, nothing will reinvigorate the RPG forum, because the framework will continue to stiffle creativity and fun. It will sound too much like the old fora and still seem just like too much work.

Consider the Guidelines for Forum Posting which Estelyn Telcontar wrote, found in N & N. They uphold the Downs style without sounding too heavy-handed. Granted that RPGing is a different context, but surely those differences can be incorporated in a framework that doesn't sound onerous and that gives ownership for gaming to the people doing it.

So, I don't think it's just a matter of streamlining what we have, but of reinventing how we describe what we do and what we would like to see.

Respectfully submitted,
Bb

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Consider the Guidelines for Forum Posting which Estelyn Telcontar wrote, found in N & N. They uphold the Downs style without sounding too heavy-handed. Granted that RPGing is a different context, but surely those differences can be incorporated in a framework that doesn't sound onerous and that gives ownership for gaming to the people doing it.

So, I don't think it's just a matter of streamlining what we have, but of reinventing how we describe what we do and what we would like to see.

That's definitely a good place to start. As you've said it's a different context, but it's still applicable to the RPG forum.

I mean, if we're talking about "hi-jacking" other people's characters. I think of it this way. The guide to posting says consider your own opinion and write it. I wouldn't take too kindly if Fea, started posting in the lore forums "Boro thinks Tolkien's an ancient relic, and an irrelevant has-been to modern society." Whether she's right or wrong isn't really the issue, I wouldn't like someone saying my opinions, when if I wanted to, I could speak for myself...thank you very much.

I'd feel the same about an RPG character. It's "my" character, unless I become negligent and am no longer posting, I don't want it taken over by someone else, unless:

1. They've asked me if it's ok.
2. Will go back and change stuff about my character that I think is necessary.

What I try to do, if I need to use other characters, but don't want to repeatedly ask if it's ok. I try to write how my character perceives another person's character. In this case, I'm developing my own character, without effecting anyone else's character, as it's only what my character thinks. No one seems to have had a problem with me over that? (I could be wrong though )

But the most important thing that I can take is #10 from Esty's post. Have fun, and yes I don't want people hi-jacking my character, but don't act like it's the end of the world if someone did. In another forum, I got into a debate with someone who said Tolkien was not a humorous author. LOTR is all serious and how dare the movies not be. Last I looked, I giggled at characters like Bombadil and all the situational irony/witty banter. Things can be changed, and if whoever has stepped over the line in using someone else's character flat out refuses to change it (which I can't see who would have a problem) the Mods can step in to make the edits...yes?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

If I may offer a few modest observations here . . . .

And they are well taken--perhaps I have been getting carried away in saying things like "most of the people commenting here." However, it's also possible I've overstated things in making a point...

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think back to Mithadan's comment that the RPG fora have "become somewhat rundown and shabby" (post #218 on this thread). And I also think back to the several comments about different styles of games, those highly structured/organised and those more spontaneous or interactive. I thought the new incarnation would allow for both styles, whereas the current one allows only for the first, and would free gamers up from the tightly controlled structure that now exists, encouraging Downers to take a more active role in gaming.

So I was under the impression that what was going on now was an attempt to reincarnate the gaming at the Downs under guidelines that would be encouraging and positive where the current system can sound discouraging (just a whole lot of hoops) and patronising (if I can summarise some of the thoughts here), however well meant.

Reading through that, I agree with you, and if this is the point Durelin was making, then I withdraw my responses as entirely too pedantic. However... I am reading you as saying that it's the system we go through to get at the games that is discouraging and patronising--not the games themselves. Since the rules we were/are quibbling over deal with the basic elements of interaction in the game, it seems to me that they would implicitly stand--at the very least as an informal etiquette. It is a valid critique to say that not everything needs to be codified into rules (and my last post, at the very least, would happily have verged in that direction), but that doesn't mean that the etiquette governing intra-game interactions is invalid.

Meanwhile, though, the point is well taken that in directing new members towards an understanding of this etiquette, the "rules" as posted should be less meticulously legal and more inviting. As far as that goes, I agree... but with regards to removing the principle altogether that a player ought to have the final say where his own character's characterisation goes? Even if that were not written into the rules anywhere, I would assume this principle unless I saw it stated otherwise--and if I did see it stated otherwise, I'd be much less inclined to sign up for a game.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I suggest that if the current rules are simply carried over with some modification or tinkering, nothing will change, nothing will encourage new gamers to join, nothing will reinvigorate the RPG forum, because the framework will continue to stiffle creativity and fun. It will sound too much like the old fora and still seem just like too much work.

Consider the Guidelines for Forum Posting which Estelyn Telcontar wrote, found in N & N. They uphold the Downs style without sounding too heavy-handed. Granted that RPGing is a different context, but surely those differences can be incorporated in a framework that doesn't sound onerous and that gives ownership for gaming to the people doing it.

Insofar as I agree that there needs to be a distinctly inviting tone, and that the actual procedures involved should be as simple as possible, I agree... and I accept any rebuke due to me that I've been encouraging discussion in a legal direction, which is counterproductive. That being said, however, "upholding the Downs style" is exactly what the new rules should do... and in that respect I feel like what I've been trying to say all along is that the new RPing forum(s) will be Downs forums, and that the in-game etiquette that is the practical expression of Downer courtesy and cooperation right now will continue in very similar ways in the future.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So, I don't think it's just a matter of streamlining what we have, but of reinventing how we describe what we do and what we would like to see.

Perhaps "streamlining" is the wrong word... but I had difficulty finding the right word. What I've been attempting to defend--and perhaps the need of any defence thereof was never present--is the idea that different etiquette will be found in the new forums. I've been calling this "ethos," or "Downer style," and I'm not referring to the process by which someone can start a game, or by which they can join a game, or even the style of game, but rather the interaction of people once they're involved together in a game.

Maybe different rules would be necessary then, for looser, open-ended, games, as opposed to more "traditional" games--in which case, I not-so-subtly suggest that we need distinct forums, ala my Doriath/Rivendell proposal . However, even in a looser, open-ended game, my impression was still that individual players would have individual characters, which implies a sense of investment and ownership. Given that, it seems only common courtesy to me that the player with that ownership would still be deferred to where that character is considered.

If we're talking about collaborative story-writing, where there is no identification of player with character, but merely mass ownership of the entire story without authorial division by character, then we're talking about something that hardly qualifies as role-playing, and might be more akin to co-written fanfiction. And while I'm not saying there's no room for that on the Downs, I guess I didn't think we were discussing that far outside the box.

In retrospect... seeing where I've come and all, I stand by what I said about "new Downs forums resembling the old." It was an unfortunate way to phrase it, but what I meant was that we would still be playing games recognizable as roleplaying, and that we would be interacting therein with a similar etiquette to what we have now.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Sigs have no place in games because they add irrelevant text to otherwise cohesive collaborative writing; it's more or less the same as OOC memos tacked onto the end of your creative writing.

Smilies make for lazy use of language (yes, I use them, but not in creative writing unless I'm really going for post-post-modernism) which is not what we try to encourage here, so I would vote for the rule of no-smilies to stay in effect. Emotion can be conveyed with writing style, with descriptions of appearances, actions, thoughts: smilies sort of give the effect of "hehe look how cute I am" or "just kidding!" which in both instances undermines the credibility of the text itself.

These general rules that are already in existence serve as good guidelines for making your writing clear and generous to others: it looks pretty and well organized. It's like double spacing an essay for your professor: readability matters, even if the content of the writing is otherwise brilliant.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So how about we still kept the rule of not doing things with other player's characters but made it clear it was okay when you had the mutual agreement with someone - so only when both sides agreed? How to write that in a rules -section beats me though.

The way you have spelled it out is quite clear: you may not use another player's character unless you have express permission to do so, and unless you are willing to make changes at the character owner's behest.