what is happening..?

[Ilokir lúinwë]

I don't think I it is surprising news when I say that there is a discrepancy between the new players in the character creation pool and the very low quantity of posts in the different groups on D.net. The legendary groups 6 and 4 were ended this and previous month due to a lack of posts. This clearly indicates the situation is becoming really grave. In group 3, another legendary group, there isn't made a single post for over almost a month yet.
I never thought it was that difficult to make a post within two, three days. I also don't believe we roleplayers are a nearly-extinct race. This post is meant to signal a problem. I think there are enough dedicated players and mods on D.net.
Finally, I want to adress to the new characters in the character creation pool. Rpg is all about fun, but it requires a minimum of engagement. That means, at least one post a week. Furthermore, I wish you a very exciting and active group to all of you.
I hope this post will prove unnecessary in the very near future. See you in Vikahr soon,

Ilokir 'Stormblade' Luìnwë
warrior level 2

[Tijminator]

I think this has to do with alot of people getting more and more occupations in RL, sucking up their time, and a lowish quality of chars in the creation pool. RPG - Group 10 is just starting, and a few groups could get more members (Group 8 anyone? ). I don't think the problem lies with the quality of the chars in the creation pool only though. Setting up a group takes time, and starting it takes even more time.

Also, if you have a group of, say, 5 players, there is bound to be someone who isn't able to cope with the time RPGing takes combine with RL. Then, you have 4 players left. If one of them is, per example, meta-gaming so often and much that the mod decides to kill him, there are 3 players left. If one of these players is on holiday/ill/busy/etc. this means the other two will have to wait for him, becouse RPGing with a group of 2 people gets annoying after a while. Hence the long silence in the 'legendary' groups. Now could a mod take over the holiday char for a few posts, but not for a long time. If then the char gets 'silent', you have a group of 2 people. With a lack of players competent and motivated enough to read the entire RPG and use it in their posts, this means the group falls silent. If the holiday char returns, it is very possible that the other two have quit, started another group, ar are inactive at all.

Also, if you have been RPGing for a very long time in the same group, it might get boring (not sure, my group is just starting). That could be another reason why 'legendary' groups fall silent.

Not very comfortable with RPGing yet, but reading from some old RPG's this is what I think is happening.

Tijminator

[Dread lord malice]

Hmmmm... I'd like to breake into the RPG sceane... But I have to admit that I dont know how, whats needed, etc.
Any suggestions?

[Fingol darkwater]

To be fair, it seems that the slightest bit of laziness you feel normally is enhanced tenfold when you join a group, and a hundredfold if you become a moderator. It's tough to stick with this stuff, and RL can make it impossible at times.

[The musashi edge!]

An idea I have been thinking about is to try and turn the problem into a feature. The problem is that for whatever reason, people often don't post regularily enough to really nourish an rpg thread, so maybe we could just allow this to happen.

As the story progresses, the characters often run into an NPC or two that could be played instead by a new player (with guidance fromt the Mod at first to ensure the story is furthered for the first few posts) then as the character's posts drop off, he is killed off or 'sent away' in similar fashion by the mod. This allows less serious RPGers to drop in, play for a while and let the natural (and unfortunetly short) life span of thier character run it's course while the more focused and diligent posters can form a small core that plays through out the whole story.

Even if it ends up beeing only two or three 'core' RPGers, enough short term players could probably be found to support the group and ensure the stroy flows. I;ve read through some of the other group's threads and it always seems to end with a couple of people who still want to play, but the other three or four have disappeared.

While this idea has some serious problems to be addressed, it could be an option for some of you more experinced and wiser RPGers to mull over. I know that I'd be willing to participate in a limited experimental verison of this kind of 'open' RPG if it ever gets tried out.

[Tarbo]

The things with NPCs is that they are typically designed by the host to fit a certain niche: give an assignment, act as cover, an enemy, the such. NPCs often require micromanagement by the host to fulfill their intended purpose. Allowing players to take over NPCs would really just force hosts to create their own NPCs anyway. Or that is my experience.

To be fair, it seems that the slightest bit of laziness you feel normally is enhanced tenfold when you join a group, and a hundredfold if you become a moderator.

This is very true. A lot of people think it is "cool" to become a host or moderator, and then silently slink away as they see the work surrounding it stack up to suffocate them. An RPG group is something you either keep a daily eye on, or quickly lose track of.

The "legendary" groups typically fall silent because a host bails out. This was the case with group 4 when I took over--Fingol needed to break in after the previous host left, but quickly had to move on to other duties. Group 8 had issues there as well, being that the group dropped silent for a while. In some cases, it's also that the host's style may clash with that of the players (combat <> dialogue, story <> character).

The newer groups tend to drop still because the players find a new fad to follow, or because the experience is disappointing to them. However, instead of stating their qualms or saying they'd rather quit--which I believe is the right thing to do in this case--they lose vigour, slack off, drag on the group, and make the experience unenjoyable for other players, who will then follow the same pattern.

In essence, it's a two-way street. With the number of computer-run RPGs out there, it becomes too easy to view an RPG as something you 'run through', or something you tune into like watching your television. In video games, it just so happens that the "host" (creator) put an immense amount of effort into it before you even pick up the game. In general, the players need to act, and the host needs to give them opportunities to do so.


If I may make this post even huger by referring to my favourite soapbox: the SAU. In many respects, it is the same as an RPG, albeit that the players are far more restricted and the host thus has much more leeway.

Like an RPG, many things in a SAU are based on action & reaction. However, this leads to people simply "waiting for something to happen". As this credo spreads over the players, the game drops silent and the bad guys can make with their improvisational surgery.

Inactivity is like a virus. If you don't quash it immediately, it will spread to others.

Edit: Proper negation is included with the basic package.

[Beastmaster kurlan]

well i think msot people can see, there are lots of players waiting to play, and there are hardly any groups that are either open or regularly active. and with group 10, now i see a slight problem which has alreayd been noted, only 5 players? ot be honest i do not see why 8 or 10 would be better because it means the group may go on for longer and people can form "mini teams against eachother, giving the game a bit more spice. also i agree with tarbo on the point soem people do see this kind of rpg the wrong way, but maybe if everybody got a chance then everybody cna see if its for them or not

just my 2 cents


Please make a conscious effort to capitalise, punctuate, and spell properly. We know you can, and we know you've had comments about it before. Don't think we don't dare follow up. -- Tarbo

[Tarbo]

Many people are waiting in the list, but those that I have attempted to contact to contribute to group 4 appeared to be absent or pre-elected for other groups. The latter case does show that there is a certain flux on players.

The number of players in a group is up to the host. The less players, the more detail the host can spend on those characters; the more players, the more the players can interact with eachother. 'Better' is subjective in this sense; it ultimately comes down to personal preference of both host as players.

Morvai (I believe it was him) played with the idea to have a kind of "pool" where prospective hosts provided a teaser of their plot/story with a few pointers to what players should expect (e.g. emphasis on story or combat, serious or slapstick). This may give people a better idea of what to expect before they step in.

[Mostlyharmless]

Perhaps you have not contacted the right people.

[Tich]

i'm looking to play but i can't find a group to let me in. if anyone knows of a group acepting players please let me know.