A Measure of Success

[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]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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.

Yes.

Though we are restructuring dramatically, the final result will (and should) still have elements such as:

• This being a Tolkien website, the games will be Tolkien-themed
• No sex, obscenities, or other rudeness permitted (WWTD?)
• If you don't want to write collaboratively, making a conscious effort to work with others in a meaningful way, perhaps the concept of a community based forum with an active role playing section (as opposed to an RPG forum that happens to have people who like to talk at great length) has been lost on you
• Make an effort to provide posts that are not full of typographical errors, etc
• Be conscious of tone (it is easy to misinterpret the tone of voice in writing, and easy to be offended by something not meant to offend) and willing to adjust, edit, apologize, and forgive as necessary

These are not dictatorial issues that are in place for the sheer sake of power structure. Though this is a community oriented forum, it is still privately owned and the opinions of Himself must be adhered to. Also, due to the collaborative nature of RPGing, keeping general rules in place to ensure that posts reflect a generosity and kindness of spirit, and a careful thought, rather than selfish or lazy writing, is more in the spirit of Tolkien and how he would approach writing with his name attached to it, than it is a reflection of HOW EVERYTHING MUST BE EVERYWHERE.

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Form

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.

This is funny, because this is what I think the Downs style has been like. The *play out the plot step by step, using the characters to complete the plot* (which means sometimes everyone sorta collectively using the characters)...

The Downs RP 'style' may change a bit, it may not. It has nothing to do with whether it's good or not. A certain style, a certain etiquette is going to just simply exist, regardless of what you try to put into the rules or if you just leave it all out except for the basics.

Why not leave room for variety? For some things a little different? No one's going to pop in and just change the status quo if you don't outline every little style point in the rules. For one thing, the status quo is pretty *solid* here...for another, that just doesn't happen.

And the problem is you have one perception of the 'Downs RP style.' It's quite different from mine. I have no idea about anyone else's, but just looking at this thread, it seems like a lot of us are in different worlds. And the fact is, the style has changed over time, fluctuated a great deal. In the particulars, the style can differ from game to game and certainly from forum to forum, which was part of the point of the three forum system (the differences seemed to get fewer over time, I guess).

So, I just think what you're trying to put into rules, to 'preserve' the style...it's a bit much, and not what rules are for in my opinion.

And yea, on a personal level, I'm *whining* because I don't like people using my character to move along the story or accomplish something they want to accomplish.

Re Fea's post:

Yea, I think we can all agree on those basic rules, regardless of wording. Though I think rule #3 applies to any community. And of course #5 is a tricky thing to put into rules. I mean that just falls under general forum rules of interaction.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Durelin

This is funny, because this is what I think the Downs style has been like. The *play out the plot step by step, using the characters to complete the plot* (which means sometimes everyone sorta collectively using the characters)...

Well, I daresay I've read you wrong in many respects... while at the same time I have to heartily agree that we see things here from drastically different perspectives. I am content to agree to disagree. In any case, my point has been made, while perhaps not articulated well enough for complete comprehension...

Originally Posted by Durelin

Why not leave room for variety? For some things a little different? No one's going to pop in and just change the status quo if you don't outline every little style point in the rules. For one thing, the status quo is pretty *solid* here...for another, that just doesn't happen.

First of all, in case there's any impression to the contrary, I am not opposed to having few spelled out rules. Nonetheless, we have to have *some* rules, and even some rules that have been written down. This particular sidetrack developed out of a discussion regarding the current rule about not godmoding. My (overdone) defencive was never really intended to give the new forum a detailed, down-to-the-particular situation rulebook. While I definitely got distracted regarding the formulation, application, and interpretation of this particular law (for which you can thank my affinity for canon law), it's worth noting that my point was to affirm the validity of the current rules, and more importantly to note that the reason those rules existed--namely to safeguard the rights of players--was still valid.

Granted, if in fact the current system, for all its rigidity on that point doesn't actually safeguard a player's right to their character, but actually railroads them in the direction of the plot... well, in that case my impassioned legal defence is sort of beside the point, whatever its intrinsic value.

Originally Posted by Durelin

And the fact is, the style has changed over time, fluctuated a great deal. In the particulars, the style can differ from game to game and certainly from forum to forum, which was part of the point of the three forum system (the differences seemed to get fewer over time, I guess).

So, I just think what you're trying to put into rules, to 'preserve' the style...it's a bit much, and not what rules are for in my opinion.

"Style" is one of the worst of a few bad word-choices I've made, and you'd think a Philosophy/English student would know better*. My usage keeps being interpreted as something a lot more nitpicky and detailed than I meant it to be, and that's probably my fault for responding in a nitpicky way to a nitpicky issue, while having the -unstated- intention of speaking about big things, which were, at best, only alluded to.

So, to make it extra, crystal-clear...

I don't want to make lots of little rules detailing the exact specifics of every possible situation--and, in that respect especially, my use of the word "style" was unfortunate.

That being said, however... I do think it's extremely important to be having nitpicky, even contra-factual, discussions about the "rules/etiquette." For one thing, it provokes opinions, and for another it lets one examine the full consequences of a change. Do we want to have less restrictive rules? Yes, I think we all agree on that in principle. At the same time, however, do we want to do away with the motivations behind the rules as they stand? Taking your case, of displeasure at having your character railroaded for the sake of the story, then it seems to me that, in the case of the rule about not godmoding, that you still would want the principle behind it being forbidden to remain in place.

As to Fea's basic rules... they're the principles behind all the rules we have now, and are essentially what I've been defending--albeit, perhaps they were never under attack...




*Trivia fact: we don't. On the contrary, we tend to redefine words and make the subconscious assumption that everyone else will figure out the "new meaning" through a combination of context and miraculous osmosis.

[Bêthberry]

To clarify what I meant . . .

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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.

Although I stepped in between your discussion with Durelin, I wasn't responding specifically to her points or that question of "bunnying" other people's characters. (And if you look back over my posts you will find I was adamantly against game owners controlling other gamer's characters and style. I even spoke of an experience I had where the game owner wanted my character to react in a particular way that I felt was contrary to her psychology.)

Instead, I was responding to the general tenor of the posts about new guidelines/rules and your to me rather frightening statement that implied things ain't gonna change when you said the new forums will resemble the old. If the new forums simply cut and paste and edit the old rules, I don't think they will accomplish the rejuvenation that we all hope to see. I like the word "etiquette" to describe the gaming milieu here and I like Fea's points, all generously describing things without becoming too prescriptive. Nicelythought out and nicely said and lightly too! And I thank you, Formy for clarifying that you meant to uphold the ethos of the games.

And to be honest, sometimes it was the games themselves that were discouraging to me (can't speak for others). I came to feel that the planning and even discussion threads were taking the place of the interactive nature of RPGing, so that writing the actual post became perfunctory and even redundant. It had already all been said! We seem to be very good at coming up with clever characters but somehow the stories just don't get written.

Originally Posted by Formy

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.

Of course!

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.

That's not what I mean by any means.

Anyhow, thanks Formy for replying at length and so generously to my concerns.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Anyhow, thanks Formy for replying at length and so generously to my concerns.

You're most welcome--if there's anything I do well, it's writing at length. :-p

For what it's worth, I may as well mention that my "hermeneutic" for approaching change is strongly influenced by a variety of theological and liturgical opinions that really have nothing to do with RPing, but have a lot to do with how I make analogies in my head from RPing to the Second Vatican Council. Put as simply as I can make it, I'm all for aggiornamento and opening the windows, so the speak (I agree things are shabby and in need of a thorough opening up), but I am by nature concerned that in opening the windows and dusting things off that the furniture will end up getting chucked out the window.

Not that this is by any means liable to happen in the Downs RPing forums... but that gives you a sort of mindframe to view me through: a Vatican II Catholic with a hermeneutic of continuity with what came before. Change is good, but not change for the sake of change.

[/off-topic]

[Mithadan]

Mithadan has downloaded the last several pages of this thread (without member names, intentionally) to a Word document to read it all and make some decisions. It's taking longer than expected.

FYI the Word document, in 10 point type, is 74 pages long!

So, I'm working on it....

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

FYI the Word document, in 10 point type, is 74 pages long!

We... we love you a lot.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

So, I'm working on it....

But are you billing us for it?

Mithalwen (still a Lawyer's brat) also knows she would have been burnt at the stake in an earlier era....

Probably just for being obnoxious rather than from theological ideology...

[Mithadan]

$400 per hour. Pass the hat...

[Mithalwen]

Nah, with my bean counter hat on I will break it down to find the words per minute rate and invoice the individual posters proportionally....

That, or see if the Pan Man is cheaper...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

$400 per hour. Pass the hat...

You're fired unless you agree to work pro bono.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

For what it's worth, I may as well mention that my "hermeneutic" for approaching change is strongly influenced by a variety of theological and liturgical opinions that really have nothing to do with RPing, but have a lot to do with how I make analogies in my head from RPing to the Second Vatican Council. Put as simply as I can make it, I'm all for aggiornamento and opening the windows, so the speak (I agree things are shabby and in need of a thorough opening up), but I am by nature concerned that in opening the windows and dusting things off that the furniture will end up getting chucked out the window.

Not that this is by any means liable to happen in the Downs RPing forums... but that gives you a sort of mindframe to view me through: a Vatican II Catholic with a hermeneutic of continuity with what came before. Change is good, but not change for the sake of change.

[/off-topic]

*coughs*

Possibly you were sounding more like the Council of Trent than the Second Vatican Council and I wasn't quite thinking of myself as a heretic.

*coughs*

[/end off-topic]