The RPG Soapbox: Let your voice be heard!

[Eddie Brock]

Now, I didn't take part in it, but I think JB's Thanos arc in Marvel's fourth season is a good example of how things like that can work out.

JB had a beginning, middle, and finale in his mind and how he wanted it to go. But everything was up in the air, everything down to the last few posts were up for the RPers to decide.

I think that's how is should go with these big things. Most of the stuff the DA2 arc did was off-the cuff for the most part. Just start with a basic idea and let the RPers fill in the gaps with interactions.

"You create the world of the dream. We bring the subject into that dream and fill it with their subconscious."

 

[Byrd Man]

"You create the world of the dream. We bring the subject into that dream and fill it with their subconscious."

If only we could get a sexy French chick to run around in the arc and try to sabotage it all.

 

[Eddie Brock]

Seriously, though, the Inception metaphor is exactly what I'm aiming for. The arc's "architect" needs to have a rough of idea of what he wants to see accomplished, as well as having an idea of when and how to end it, and then he sets the posters loose on it - just as you suggested.

 

[trustyside-kick]

Seriously, though, the Inception metaphor is exactly what I'm aiming for. The arc's "architect" needs to have a rough of idea of what he wants to see accomplished, as well as having an idea of when and how to end it, and then he sets the posters loose on it - just as you suggested.

That has been the case many times over though. Plenty of people, myself included, have tried in like every RPG that concept but there has always been things that come up you cannot control (that boggle and slow things down or kill it). We will be like "ok, so long as x, y, and z occurs I'm good...have fun with it and do what you want, surprise me".

I just realized I haven't directly directly worked with you EBJ but the only reason has been the character choices we both play. So that makes sense why this might seem new to you.

 

[Byrd Man]

That has been the case many times over though. Plenty of people, myself included, have tried in like every RPG that concept but there has always been things that come up you cannot control (that boggle and slow things down or kill it).

That's when the job of keeping the arc alive falls to the GM. The GM is in charge of the game, so it's their job to see it through to the end. That's why I think a big arc planner or whatever, should give the GM a list of all the stuff he wants to have happen and how it'll end, so he can step up and do it for him in case **** goes bad.

We talked about doing something similar in WoH before Watchman stepped back up.

 

[trustyside-kick]

Yea, I think that night we accomplished a lot. We set-up a loose back-up plan.

And maybe, that is all we need really. There are instances where the GMs DO do more than approve applications, though normally it is behind the scenes stuff. It is our responsibility to take hands-on approach when a big arc falters.

I think we should vote on it: When an arc is slowing down should the GMs be allowed to bunny a character or characters just to get it moving? I'm talking like a post or two if need be more than a post of bunnying.

 

[trustyside-kick]

I just realized I haven't directly directly worked with you EBJ but the only reason has been the character choices we both play. So that makes sense why this might seem new to you.

Hmm, byrd brought to my attention that this could be read the wrong way to your directly EBJ. I guess lemme just clarify all that is meant is that I haven't directly planned with you, and discussed plans with you, for you to see that the idea you are talking about is something some of us have tried to do already. I'm more than aware you have been involved in planning arcs or what not so it wasn't something like I was saying you don't know what it is like to plan an arc and try that.

 

[Carnage27]

I think we should vote on it: When an arc is slowing down should the GMs be allowed to bunny a character or characters just to get it moving? I'm talking like a post or two if need be more than a post of bunnying.

I don't think it's a question. The GM should be able to.

I also think that every one of the long-term games has a GM and one or two dedicated AGMs that can help out with situations like this.

 

[Batman]

I've often thought about that, actually. Both in the dragged out periods of the Starro arc in Ultimate DC and the Blackest Night arc in World of Heroes, I thought about either writing a paragraph explaining how things went ahead myself or suggesting the same thing to Byrd, so that people would be able to leech off at a point that was more comfortable for interaction.

While it would certainly interrupt the flow of the story, times like that are when you have to set aside that mentality for the good of the game's survival and the arc's momentum. Much like a D&D session, the GM should have the power to move things ahead, so long as they keep the rest of the game informed of it.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Seriously, though, the Inception metaphor is exactly what I'm aiming for. The arc's "architect" needs to have a rough of idea of what he wants to see accomplished, as well as having an idea of when and how to end it, and then he sets the posters loose on it - just as you suggested.

As has been said, though, this is hardly new. With the Dark Alliance 2 arc, I had the climactic "rocket sent to destroy the sun" gambit in my head right from the get-go and foreshadowed it in my opening post of the season. Heck, when I did the whole viral thing over PMs beforehand it was under the codename "Project: ICARUS". And at one point in the story I brought back into play a doomsday device first established in Season 3. But the long-term planning didn't hamper any creative freedom, and a lot of the arc's content was made up on-the-fly, including plenty of subplots, fights and side-missions that I wasn't even aware of before they happened.

I think some people outside of these arcs think it's all tyrannically planned down to the very last detail, but most of the big arcs I've been involved with have been very open and flexible, with plenty of room for people to do their own thing with it or even ignore it completely. Big arcs that flop aren't a cause of inactivity, they're a symptom. When there's a big game-spanning storyline and everyone's on-board, it boosts the game, gives everyone a hook and a direction and gets people working together. But when there's a big arc and nobody's playing, all it does is leave people spinning their wheels - a lot of story to tell and not enough people to tell it. I've seen plenty of seasons without a big arc - devoted to this much-desired "creative freedom" to do solo arcs and small-scale stories - flop too. And funnily enough, it's a big arc that then gets the game out of its funk.

 

[Saved]

All these points are pretty much variations on the same complaint, so I'll handle them in a single response. I for one HATE the whole "it's a clique where only the favorites get to do anything important in the RPG and the rest of us are stuck on the sidelines" argument.

When I first joined the DC RPG, back when the first Dark Alliance story was well underway and I had no part of it, I just came up with my own independent storyline and went ahead with it, and other players started to become involved with it organically as it went on. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying, "You need to be a bit part player in the big mega-arc." It's just the onus is on you to do your own thing. The slump isn't down to the "Big Guys" spoiling things for the "Little Guys". Back when the games were at peak activity both had plenty to do. But activity is down right now across the board equally.

The reason that it's the same people in control of the major arcs every season is because THEY'RE THE ONLY PEOPLE INTERESTED IN ACTUALLY DOING IT. If Byrd or Watchman or wiegeabo or whoever didn't come up with a storyline, odds are there would be no storyline. I remember one time in the past, when Red X became incredibly outspoken about being frozen out of plotting arcs, so we gave him pretty much complete creative control to do his own Civil War in the Marvel RPG.... the fact that we later had to reboot says it all. And similarly, perhaps it's the same people involved in the big climax every season because they're the only people with the drive and commitment to see the game through to its end each season? Don't complain that the current story sucks if you're not going to offer anything of your own in return. The best remedy is to bring your own thing to the table. I'm not involved in the big season arc every season, but every season I find something for The Joker to do.

I'm not saying it's a clique deal - I never said that. However, because the people who are most active are making the major arcs, anyone who's moderate to very active never gets a chance to propose an arc because the next big arc was already planned last year. Is this a constant? No. But it happens, and it is a contributing factor, no matter how small, to the problem.

I do agree that re-enactments of recent comic book events don't work too well. With incorporating Blackest Night into the DC RPG, it was an attempt to line up our continuity with the comics and introduce a slew of popular characters that didn't exist in DC continuity before our cut-off point. In theory, it would have been this slew of popular characters being picked up by players - we were careful not to proceed until the major roles at least were all filled by player - but the mass drop-out of activity once the saga started pretty much hobbled the story and left it NPC-dominated. But we're better doing our own thing in the games, I think, rather than aping what's trendy in the real comics.

I don't, however, agree with your complaint that heroes fighting huge, world-threatening foes is wrong. Welcome to the superhero genre. Intimite, personal, existential dramas tend to be found in other genres, though I'm impressed with how much character work many writers have been able to work into the tapestry of these large-scale stories. Similarly, the concept of characters dying and getting brought back to life is very much reflected in the comics that inspire the games. As for the status quo of characters never really changing, I think we have a responsibility to leave characters largely as they were when we picked them up, so as to make it easier for new players picking up the characters to do their own thing rather than be beholden to what we put them through.

So we're to follow the comic's tradition and just do the mundane? I don't know if this is what you're getting at, but you of all people would be the last I'd expect that type of response from. And, as I said, major cosmic threats or what have you aren't bad and do belong in these games. However, when that's ALL we do and never anything different, just the same model with different villains or locations, then it gets really commonplace and people get bored, leading to inactivity. That was my point.

I can understand wanting to leave a character where you found them, but regardless of that fact - something's happened to that character and is now a part of their history. I don't think we should be making drastic character changes to every character out there, but when the status quo is always re-established, the idea of "what's the point of playing the character if it'll be retconned/ignored" comes up in the minds of posters, and then they gain a sense of apathy with regard to joining into certain games.

None of this is meant as a personal attack, Syn. You just brought up some points, and I'm trying to present the other side of the argument.

None of my responses were meant as an attack on you either. Just, simply, my rebuttle.

 

[Andy C.]

I can understand wanting to leave a character where you found them, but regardless of that fact - something's happened to that character and is now a part of their history. I don't think we should be making drastic character changes to every character out there, but when the status quo is always re-established, the idea of "what's the point of playing the character if it'll be retconned/ignored" comes up in the minds of posters, and then they gain a sense of apathy with regard to joining into certain games.

On the other end of that, picture you're a new player coming into a game and really want to pick up a character--let's say, Captain America. However, the last guy who played Captain America did an arc where he grew bitter and jaded and threw away the Cap persona, becoming a ruthless anti-hero vigilante instead. Now even if that previous arc was really good and was able to explain the massive character shift in a way that made sense, the fact of the matter is that Captain America would no longer be the same character that the new player wants to play. So the new player either wouldn't be able to play the character the way he wants, or would have to undo everything the previous player did to get him "back to normal."

There's a reason why comics tend to maintain status quo with their mainstream heroes: so new readers can jump in at just about any time and not be completely lost. That same reason allows new players to pick up the characters they want and play them the way they want, without having to just reprise the role of "so and so's version" of the character.

 

[trustyside-kick]

I agree with Shirley.

(Gonna be if people quickly pick this up.)

Though, if the player restores them back to neutral attitude before dropping them after doing something so drastic then fine. We've all done stuff that have taken characters to certain edges but they bounce back because in the end those changes are not THEM just a phase they went through like regular people go through.

 

[Saved]

On the other end of that, picture you're a new player coming into a game and really want to pick up a character--let's say, Captain America. However, the last guy who played Captain America did an arc where he grew bitter and jaded and threw away the Cap persona, becoming a ruthless anti-hero vigilante instead. Now even if that previous arc was really good and was able to explain the massive character shift in a way that made sense, the fact of the matter is that Captain America would no longer be the same character that the new player wants to play. So the new player either wouldn't be able to play the character the way he wants, or would have to undo everything the previous player did to get him "back to normal."

There's a reason why comics tend to maintain status quo with their mainstream heroes: so new readers can jump in at just about any time and not be completely lost. That same reason allows new players to pick up the characters they want and play them the way they want, without having to just reprise the role of "so and so's version" of the character.

I love how everyone always uses the extremes in an example to get a point across, when in reality, the chances of a scenario such as that happening are minimal.

In addition, I've emphasized the point that major changes are NOT what I'm promoting. Also, how many times has a character been left in an arc that binds them pretty tight because no one knew the original intention of the rpger playing the character prior to dropping them mid arc? The arc doesn't have to be a different version or frame of mind of a character for a poster to not want to pick the character up in their current situation. If it wasn't an important enough arc for the poster to finish, it deserves to be retconned.

 

[wiegeabo]

EBJ this is irrelevant to the topic at hand and I know this most likely won't change a thing but...gah I wish you would change your avy.

That chick is fugly I tell my bro that every time I catch him watching that horrid show.

I just want to...kick her face in at the chance she might be more pleasing to the eyes.

Sorry...just a lot of build up...only have vented to my brother how much I've hated her entering that show--not that the show wasn't already doing bad--and just her looks.

And now I can never take anything you have to say seriously ever again. Because you are wrong.

Utterly, and completely, wrong.





...although she does wear too much makeup on the show. She looks much better in that avatrr.

 

[trustyside-kick]

Fine, I will admit in that avy it's not THAT bad but in the show aside from hating her character itself when I'd try to watch the show the entire time I'm like "...she's not even hot".

 

[Batman]

On the other end of that, picture you're a new player coming into a game and really want to pick up a character--let's say, Captain America. However, the last guy who played Captain America did an arc where he grew bitter and jaded and threw away the Cap persona, becoming a ruthless anti-hero vigilante instead. Now even if that previous arc was really good and was able to explain the massive character shift in a way that made sense, the fact of the matter is that Captain America would no longer be the same character that the new player wants to play. So the new player either wouldn't be able to play the character the way he wants, or would have to undo everything the previous player did to get him "back to normal."

There's a reason why comics tend to maintain status quo with their mainstream heroes: so new readers can jump in at just about any time and not be completely lost. That same reason allows new players to pick up the characters they want and play them the way they want, without having to just reprise the role of "so and so's version" of the character.

At the same time, to argue Syn's point, I don't think we should be limited just because of tradition. Otherwise, we'd have lost tons of really great development with wiegeabo's Sinestro during the seasons where he was trying to do the right thing, rather than be malicious or hateful of The Green Lantern Corps/Guardians. Now, say wiegeabo had a really big event happen in his life and he was unable to continue with Sinestro midway through the arc. No new player would be able to pick up Sinestro without either continuing another person's arc or, as you said, undoing all of someone's hard work. Does that mean wieg should have never taken the effort to make Sinestro a genuinely interesting character and explore him in his own way?

See, I don't think so. We should be creatively free to take the basic templates and mend them through experiences, fights, tragedies, and soforth in interesting ways. That's how characters grow. Is it a downer for new players? Sure, I'll totally admit that. But at the same time, I think that's why we have RPG's like One Universe, where Sinestro is still a Corpsman destined to become a bad guy. Or Ultimate DC, where you can take a character and do whatever you want with them from the beginning. Or even the short-term RPG's, now, where we'll get other people trying out characters like Superman, Batman, and the like. I think that we have enough variety to warrant creative freedom.

 

[Keyser Soze]

At the same time, to argue Syn's point, I don't think we should be limited just because of tradition. Otherwise, we'd have lost tons of really great development with wiegeabo's Sinestro during the seasons where he was trying to do the right thing, rather than be malicious or hateful of The Green Lantern Corps/Guardians. Now, say wiegeabo had a really big event happen in his life and he was unable to continue with Sinestro midway through the arc. No new player would be able to pick up Sinestro without either continuing another person's arc or, as you said, undoing all of someone's hard work. Does that mean wieg should have never taken the effort to make Sinestro a genuinely interesting character and explore him in his own way?

See, I don't think so. We should be creatively free to take the basic templates and mend them through experiences, fights, tragedies, and soforth in interesting ways. That's how characters grow. Is it a downer for new players? Sure, I'll totally admit that. But at the same time, I think that's why we have RPG's like One Universe, where Sinestro is still a Corpsman destined to become a bad guy. Or Ultimate DC, where you can take a character and do whatever you want with them from the beginning. Or even the short-term RPG's, now, where we'll get other people trying out characters like Superman, Batman, and the like. I think that we have enough variety to warrant creative freedom.

See, this is all fair. I'm not opposed to change. I inherited a Joker who overtly knew that Batman was Bruce Wayne, and did a whole arc around tearing apart his life and killing off Alfred. And I inherited a Hal Jordan that had a family, and have subsequently used that device to put the character through hell. You mentioned the great work wieg's done with Sinestro. In the early days of the DC RPG we had Barbara Gordon regain the use of her legs. There has already been loads of stuff done in the RPGs that takes characters in new directions and does new stuff with them.

But to read Syn's criticisms you'd think we do nothing but transcribe the comics to the letter and don't set a single foot outside of classic comic depictions. Which led to my assumption that Syn's problem is the changes we've made not being extreme enough, and in turn Andy C's assumption that extreme examples of change were warranted. Is the problem that we killed off Batman but didn't leave him dead? Would that have made the game more appealing for newcomers?

 

[Saved]

See, this is all fair. I'm not opposed to change. I inherited a Joker who overtly knew that Batman was Bruce Wayne, and did a whole arc around tearing apart his life and killing off Alfred. And I inherited a Hal Jordan that had a family, and have subsequently used that device to put the character through hell. You mentioned the great work wieg's done with Sinestro. In the early days of the DC RPG we had Barbara Gordon regain the use of her legs. There has already been loads of stuff done in the RPGs that takes characters in new directions and does new stuff with them.

But to read Syn's criticisms you'd think we do nothing but transcribe the comics to the letter and don't set a single foot outside of classic comic depictions. Which led to my assumption that Syn's problem is the changes we've made not being extreme enough, and in turn Andy C's assumption that extreme examples of change were warranted. Is the problem that we killed off Batman but didn't leave him dead? Would that have made the game more appealing for newcomers?

That's exactly my point. I'm glad you saw through my disguise of democratic debate to see the scurrilous intent behind my proposed problems.

 

[Keyser Soze]

That's exactly my point. I'm glad you saw through my disguise of democratic debate to see the scurrilous intent behind my proposed problems.

No need to get ********, Syn. This is a debate, and a pretty central element of that is disagreement. You got pissy and sarcastic with Andy C when he replied to you in the most diplomatic, civil manner possible, but he was probably too polite to call you on it and so said nothing. But I will.

 

[Batman]

Alright, both of you, calm the **** down. It's clear that you both misinterpreted eachother and that it's lead to an air of some hostility. I think Syn tried to explain himself further, but I really don't feel like his original post came off as obnoxious or critical as Soze is making it out to be. By the same token, I also don't think Syn should take it as personal in response, so both of you just take a little time to cool off.

 

[Saved]

You're putting words in my mouth, most likely from interpreting what I said falsely from what I meant, and using it as an arguement against me. That's why I'm getting sarcastic. Use what I say, dude - I'm not proposing new rules. I NEVER propose new rules in an RPG. EVER. I'm bringing up decisions people can make as posters, we don't need rules to keep order among the members of the basement with certain issues, like what I've touched upon so far.

Also, I'm not saying, nor did I ever, say that everything everyone's done has been a copy of the comics. I'm not even saying one third of the stuff that's happened in the RPGs is comic mimicry. What I'm saying is, when it comes to major arcs, MY opinion is not to just redo the current comics storylines with variations.

And, yes, I will be pissy and REMAIN pissy if we're going to misinterpret what I said because someone got the wrong idea from it. I mean what I say, because I take the time to write out the crap I type and think it over before I post it so discrepencies don't happen. I'm very literal when I'm not being a richard, so just take what I have to say at face value without any inferences - that's all I ask. It's who I am, sorry.

 

[Rain Dog]

Maybe we should switch up topics and start getting the things that most of us agreed on into motion?

 

[Batman]

Right. Here's the list, folks.

Declare a final season in WoH/OU

Maintain wiki for continuity

Limit consecutive seasons a player can own a character

Try single season games

Newbies should get a chance to apply before veterans

Limit # of short/alternate games in each board

Byrd mush be killed to take Gordon away from him.

Standard season lengths

Force increased post frequency

Punishment for players that pickup and drop characters without a post, or only a couple of posts

Increased GM activity

GM controlled NPC's and story arcs

Recruitment from outside the Hype

Better use of RPG Proposal board

D&D type GM control

Overall Character Caps

Detailed in-game knowledge of character before approval

Voting system implemented for approving games

Intricacies of handling major in-game arcs

 

[Catman_prb]

Well I know a guy we can hire to take Byrd out.