While I am happy to know that I am not the only one who has seen the
recent decay in text based RPGing, I think we are both looking
different problems. When talking about post length, descriptive
writing, character biographies, etc. you guys are talking about the
quality of RPGs today. In my initial post about all RPGs being flawed
from lack of creativity (from the Mods and Players), I was talking
-survival- of the whole RPG culture. As much as I once enjoyed it, I
think that today's RPGs are based on a fundamentally flawed system,
namely: one that has an infinitely long introduction that can only run
out of steam and decay into entropy.

If even the poor RPGers who write terribly, but who tried at least
made the attempt at creativity, would be a small step to revitalizing
the whole system. I have seen some great descriptive and engaging
writers in my time RPGing, but even they fall into submission because
they are not allowed (or they do not think that they are allowed) to
create. RPGers that are merely poor writers can get better with
practice and hopefully some helpful guidance. However, this "Infinite
1st Act Syndrome" affects us all because no matter how well we write,
we might not be able liberate ourselves from this cycle.

As much as I abhor Mr. Williams' ideas about adding 'systems' to our
RPGs (because, I feel, they take away from what original drew me to
RPGing in the first place), if this is the only answer to stop the
decay we must take it. But, somebody, please tell me that there is
another way that we may keep our pure creativity and not be bound by
any strict laws.

I fear that if do not make some kind of changes soon, all of text
based RPGing culture will run out of steam in an incredibly long first
act of Moderators and Players trying to treat the symptoms with rules,
but never curing the true source of the entropy.


--- In role_playing_for_dummies@yahoogroups.com, "Robin"
<robinvoigt@...> wrote:
>
> Here is where I point out that while that may be true for some of the
> people on here bellyaching about round robin excercises with no rhyme
> or reason, some of us actually do incorporate actual systems into the
> games we play, even when we do them online. Sitting with cheetos at a
> tabletop is no more valid a way to play a game.
>
>
> --- In role_playing_for_dummies@yahoogroups.com, "Alexander Williams"
> <thantos@> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Nichole <nichole672000@> wrote:
> >
> > > A lot more of these groups are destined to fail for another
> reason. You
> > > ever seen how many one or two line post role playing games that
> are out
> > > there? Heaven forbid you get an actual paragraph. The quality of
role
> > > playing games has just gone completely down hill. A free for all
> is not
> > > the answer either. But yes, some mods could stand to loosen up.
> >
> >
> > Is this where I step in and point out that what you ladies are
> describing
> > really aren't role-playing games? I think that's my usual role here,
> punnily
> > enough. I haven't laid it out in the forum in a while, so I
suppose it's
> > time to revisit that essay again.
> >
> > Consider the elements of the term: role-playing game. The forum-based
> > prose-content exchanges in question definitely involve roles. They
> involve
> > playing. But there is an almost total (and in most cases, is a total)
> > absence of game involved. While trying to gauge the limits of each
> > Moderator, their intents, and then trying to write something that
> plays to
> > them might, technically, describe a "game," but that game is not the
> "game"
> > people generally signed on for.
> >
> > The problem as I see it, and speaking as someone who's written for and
> > designed actual RPGs over the years, is the absence of actual
mechanics
> > which govern interactions and which are known to all the players
> up-front.
> > There are an increasing number of game designs which are Game
> Masterless,
> > that is which don't require anything but an actual "moderator" for a
> > community and not someone overseeing the play itself, because the game
> > has discernible rules which help govern and shape interaction.
> >
> > There've been a lot of game developments in the past year or two I
> haven't
> > gotten around to mentioning on here as suggestions and guides, but I
> > certainly can and should now:
> >
> > - Lexicon: an RPG
> <http://www.20by20room.com/2003/11/lexicon_an_rpg.html>
> >
> >
> > Absolutely something that can (and arguably should!) be played online,
> > requires no Moderators in the draconian sense you guys've been
using and
> > turns out something very, very cool. Totally breaks the general
> theme of a
> > "round-robin prose-writing exercise" while turning it into a
"structured
> > simultaneous dictionary writing exercise." The rules are simple and
> concise.
> > I'd personally love to see what some people came up with as a
result of,
> > say, "a concise history of the Galactic City era and introduction
of the
> > electro-priestesses commonly thought of as magical girls."
> >
> > It could be I'm weird, though.
> >
> >
> > - It's
> Complicated<http://dissolutegames.wordpress.com/tag/its-complicated/>
> >
> >
> > Fairly straightforward to play online, it might actually be played
> best there.
> > Again, a GM-less game where the rules are almost entirely about what
> kind of
> > scene you can introduce when it's your turn and what other characters
> > can/must be involved. No dice, of course, the main physical mechanic
> is a
> > large board which contains characters quirks and motivations where
> you draw
> > lines connecting them and other folks' lines they cross are drawn
> into the
> > scene. You can download a little tool to draw the board for free
> from their
> > site, so every post could easily link / embed the board at the end
> for the
> > next person to use.
> >
> > I actually ran this face-to-face at Anime Weekend Atlanta, and it was
> > awesomely fun, but fell apart a bit in endgame for reasons I have
yet to
> > adequately work out.
> >
> >
> > - Dungeons and
> >
>
Douchebags<http://www.slideshare.net/SquidLord/dungeons-and-douchebags-v01>
> >
> >
> > Written by ... well, me. More of an unfinished sketch of a game than
> a full
> > game, it's still very, very playable and the engine could be turned
> to any
> > kind of ensemble cast game fairly easily. The key mechanic here, and
> one I
> > think would work very well for online play in general, is a kind
of coin
> > economy which lets players introduce elements, make claims, etc. Worth
> > checking out and exploring.
> >
> >
> > - Universalis <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/ramshead/>
> >
> > I'm sure I mention this one every time I bring this up, but it's
> really the
> > father of most of the coin-based mechanics you'll ever see. Absolutely
> > incredible, the only problem is that it generates an enormous
amount of
> > back-story that you'll want to keep up with -- and in face to face
> games,
> > that means you'll end up with tonnes of 3x5 cards sprawling around.
> Online,
> > however, you can use a wiki or Google Document to keep up with
> things and
> > it's an absolute snap. The one complication with running Universalis
> online
> > is that conflicts are resolved with die rolls. There are a number of
> sites
> > that'll do secure die rolls if there isn't a trust established between
> > players, but if you trust them well enough, let them roll their own
> physical
> > dice.
> >
> > Ultimately, the problem as I see it isn't in the fact that there are
> > draconian Moderators who want to run a freeform prose-based
round-robin
> > writing exercise like a LARP
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_action_role-playing_game> without
> any of
> > the support that kind of game has for resolving conflicts. In fact,
> the lack
> > of an understood, simple, straightforward means of resolving
> conflicts (even
> > so simple as "the person who created the scene has absolute
> authority but
> > nothing that occurs in a scene is necessarily binding -- including
> death")
> > is one of the things that cascades to all the other problems you've
> > seen occurring in games, possibly including too-short replies --
> after all,
> > when people don't know and understand their abilities to narrate and
> limits
> > on narration, they tend not to.
> >
> > Just a few thoughts from the grumpy old crochety guy in the corner.
> > --
> > Alexander Williams (thantos@)
> > Operation BSU (http://operationbsu.livejournal.com)
> > "Like a morning show. Only interesting. And at night."
> >
>