RPG Seasonal Rotation Thoughts

[Saved]

I was going by the two months thing. That alone is a long time to not play, but by delaying an RPG by a whole season at its current length? I find it silly that an option like that is even being considered.

Like I said, it has its problems. I mean, I don't back the two months at a time idea cause that would definently slow momentum. People would get in one arc or so, and have nothing to do for fear of being cut off.

 

[wiegeabo]

Like I said, it has its problems. I mean, I don't back the two months at a time idea cause that would definently slow momentum. People would get in one arc or so, and have nothing to do for fear of being cut off.

What if we went three months, then one off, three on, one off, three on, one off (that last time the month off is between the seasons)? It would just mean changing the groupings a bit.


But this isn't going to satisfy someone who wants four or five months to setup an arc. Although that begs the question, why do you need so long? Is the arc so big, with so many players, that it needs that much time? That's a valid point. But if it's just because the player has a bunch of other characters and needs the time because they're posting in other games, then rotation isn't the problem. Playing too many characters is. And no rotation scheme will fix that.

 

[Batman]

I'm all for setting a moderation on characters a person has. The thing is, while that is limiting, so is an inactive member keeping an arc or another person's character back (a subjection of which I am not, by any means, exempt). It would allow people to get creative, and really see which RPG's they're most passionate about, instead of randomly picking up him or her in any given game just because it's a cool character. That usually is why many characters are dropped, or go through alot of players... people aren't as passionate about some characters as they believe themselves to be, or people go into a role way over their heads (Which, again, I've done).

Limiting a number of characters one can have could, potentially, serve as both a solution for this current problem, and the problem of consistent drops.

 

[Charlie No-One]

I would go with limiting number of characters.

 

[Batman]

Infact, there could even be a thread made, in this very section, to keep a tally of how many characters everyone has. That way, gamemasters, in approving an application, could look to that thread in order to see if he or she is past the given limit.

Not to mention, players could link back to their post, for sig listings of the characters they play in Hype RPG's.

 

[Electro UK]

Limiting the number of characters is a silly idea, don't restrict people from what they can play, with someone like Bryd who plays in a lot and equally shares his time out, it'd be a little unfair.

 

[Charlie No-One]

This seems better to me then screwing with when people can play the characters they WANT to play.

 

[Electro UK]

So what happens when someone has a real winner of an RPG idea that everyone wants to take part in, but they can't because they've got too many characters already?

 

[Batman]

Limiting the number of characters is a silly idea, don't restrict people from what they can play, with someone like Bryd who plays in a lot and equally shares his time out, it'd be a little unfair.

Yes, but alot of people can't be Byrd.

 

[Batman]

So what happens when someone has a real winner of an RPG idea that everyone wants to take part in, but they can't because they've got too many characters already?

Drop someone to make room. It wouldn't be that hard to do, if we set the limit high enough. There are characters people are more passionate about than others under their belt.

 

[wiegeabo]

Limiting the number of characters is a silly idea, don't restrict people from what they can play, with someone like Bryd who plays in a lot and equally shares his time out, it'd be a little unfair.

But Byrd doesn't play a lot of characters at the same time. He plays them, does what he wants with them, then lets them go before picking up another one.

There's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is holding onto a bunch of characters, but only doing enough with them to hold onto them. Why short others of the opportunity to play those characters, and short yourself the opportunity to focus on just a few and really making them stand out?


Plus, each RPG could have their own limit. If it's a slow playing RPG, they could have a higher limit because it won't really effect player performance.



...Oh my god, I just realized that I defended Byrd.

 

[Electro UK]

Guh, the idea of an RPG board has been nothing but a plage so far.

 

[Catman_prb]

I'd rather leave everything be than limit my characters across the board. It's already slightly irritating, though I completely understand why, when the amount of characters I have in one RPG are limited. Just my two cents.

 

[Charlie No-One]

So what happens when someone has a real winner of an RPG idea that everyone wants to take part in, but they can't because they've got too many characters already?

What happens when someone really wants to play their character but they have to wait a while because that RPG is on hiatus so other RPG's, that some people don't want to play can get air time?

In either scenario, you are limiting what people can play. If you limit characters, they can play any RPG whenever they want. They would just have to drop a character for a little bit.

 

[Batman]

Plus, each RPG could have their own limit. If it's a slow playing RPG, they could have a higher limit because it won't really effect player performance.

...Wait a second. That, I don't agree with. Every RPG already has a specific limit on characters already.

 

[Charlie No-One]

Plus, each RPG could have their own limit. If it's a slow playing RPG, they could have a higher limit because it won't really effect player performance.

Well, that would defeat the purpose of the whole idea. The limit would need to be set and followed by all RPG's. For example, say the limit is 4, you couldn't only play in 4 RPG's, you could only play 4 characters. So you could have 2 in Marvel, 1 in Zombie, and 1 in DC and then you reached the limit.

 

[Charlie No-One]

I'd rather leave everything be .

Yes, the option of just leaving everything the way it is now is still an option.

 

[Red]

Can I change me vote.

 

[wiegeabo]

...Wait a second. That, I don't agree with. Every RPG already has a specific limit on characters already.

I didn't mean the number of characters a specific RPG allows a person to play within the RPG, but the number of characters they have total.


Ok, I'm confusing myself. Here's an example. A player already has 5 characters in the various RPG's. They want to join a new one. But the new RPG is pretty fast paced, so they need players that aren't distracted by other games. So the GM sets the rule that you can't already be playing more than 5. Which means this player wouldn't be allowed to join.

But another RPG, that's slower paced, says you can have 6 (or maybe doesn't have a limit). So that same player could join that one.


The advantages is that the GM's, over time, could adjust their limits depending an how well, or badly, the RPG is going. And any RPG that doesn't want limits doesn't have to have them. If this causes their game to suffer, it's their own fault, and they can change it anytime.

 

[Charlie No-One]

I didn't mean the number of characters a specific RPG allows a person to play within the RPG, but the number of characters they have total.


Ok, I'm confusing myself. Here's an example. A player already has 5 characters in the various RPG's. They want to join a new one. But the new RPG is pretty fast paced, so they need players that aren't distracted by other games. So the GM sets the rule that you can't already be playing more than 5. Which means this player wouldn't be allowed to join.

But another RPG, that's slower paced, says you can have 6 (or maybe doesn't have a limit). So that same player could join that one.


The advantages is that the GM's, over time, could adjust their limits depending an how well, or badly, the RPG is going. And any RPG that doesn't want limits doesn't have to have them. If this causes their game to suffer, it's their own fault, and they can change it anytime.

Oh I see. This is a great idea.

 

[twylight]

Guh, the idea of an RPG board has been nothing but a plage so far.

Trust me, to a certain extent I agree. >.<;


After reading so many of these ideas I think maybe we should think a bit more out of the box because so far:

Rotation: Not everyone agree's, the system would come out becoming overly complex (I was hoping getting input would come up with a very simple, flexible idea but it hasn't happened. Also people see fixated n this 'group' thing, perhaps we just need coordinated staggering which would allow new RPG's to be put in as they are accepted.

Limiting Characters: This would require and entire restructuring of the RPG's as they are played now, and might bring up the 'reserved' characters which seems to be walking a fine line as it is now since there are behind the scene's character trading going on with the larger/in-demand characters. How many RPG's will have people drop their secondary character there for them to join a different RPG, because of the limit. And they you have the dedicated players who can play more than x allowed characters, and play them well and they will be sore about it >.<;
It also will make the GM's have to be more involved *not a bad idea*


This brings up another point, because we had the board, and we didn't want to 'limit' peoples imaginations with their RPG's in th beginning, we let them basically have free reign, the issue is with the system. We're allowing people to show interest *which they do* then we accept based on the so called 'committed' interested parties. Only to have the RPG's die shortly after.

Maybe we should limit the application process, only 1-2 RPG applications allowed within an x amount of months.

We're getting a huge empty vacuum in these RPG's because we have so many..and there is no players to fill the demand/need for sustaining an RPG.

Also, MB is the Contents list up-to-date? I checked a few days ago but didn't see some of the newer ones.

 

[trustyside-kick]

I personally think that it should be harder for an RPG to gain acceptance to be made. Some of them are allowing 2, even 3 characters right off the bat. Then I look over at the IC thread and what do I see? A good amount of characters, but all by the same like 3 people, but 9 characters.

 

[twylight]

I didn't mean the number of characters a specific RPG allows a person to play within the RPG, but the number of characters they have total.


Ok, I'm confusing myself. Here's an example. A player already has 5 characters in the various RPG's. They want to join a new one. But the new RPG is pretty fast paced, so they need players that aren't distracted by other games. So the GM sets the rule that you can't already be playing more than 5. Which means this player wouldn't be allowed to join.

But another RPG, that's slower paced, says you can have 6 (or maybe doesn't have a limit). So that same player could join that one.


The advantages is that the GM's, over time, could adjust their limits depending an how well, or badly, the RPG is going. And any RPG that doesn't want limits doesn't have to have them. If this causes their game to suffer, it's their own fault, and they can change it anytime.

Also I want to remind people that for some of the RPG's the 'multiple' characters was never 'officially' accepted. For instance the DC RPG's multiple character thing was never officially 'adopted' it was something we did as a trial run a few seasons ago and never followed up on but allowed it as an evolution.

Wieg, I <3 the idea but as I mentioned up a few most people won't like it very much >.<;

 

[twylight]

I personally think that it should be harder for an RPG to gain acceptance to be made. Some of them are allowing 2, even 3 characters right off the bat. Then I look over at the IC thread and what do I see? A good amount of characters, but all by the same like 3 people, but 9 characters.

I'm at that point now, in the past we had no real 'official' way to make rule about it, but with MB as a Mod we can now and I'm all for it because the RPG's seemed to have reached a crisis in the level of players/characters/RP ratio.

 

[wiegeabo]

I personally think that it should be harder for an RPG to gain acceptance to be made. Some of them are allowing 2, even 3 characters right off the bat. Then I look over at the IC thread and what do I see? A good amount of characters, but all by the same like 3 people, but 9 characters.

I don't know what the restrictions for making an RPG are, but I have seen some pretty loose restrictions on allowing players in an RPG.

And I agree that an RPG should only be allowed if real commitment is going to be given. And if real commitment is there, then jumping through a few hoops (or extra hoops) shouldn't be a big deal.


I also think that there should be some hoops to go through before getting a character in an RPG. Might weed out some people who want to play a character who they think is cool (but have no long term ideas) in favor of those who really want to do something with it (and won't mind backing it up when joining).

Of course, that could be (and I believe is) left up to the GM's. And if they give players easy access, and it ends up biting them in the ass, that's a problem they made for themselves. But I would hope they realize that letting a new player in doesn't just effect they're game, but all the games that player is already in.