The Future of RPG Approval

**Snelly** · May 14, 2014

First post hijacked by GSR, since this was split from the RPG Contest topic: People are interested in talking about what the best path for RPG approval/creation is going forward, given the low contest activity. I'm all for that discussion, but it's clogging up the current contest topic a bit.

Please use this topic to discuss ideas for overhauling or replacing the RPG Contest system for Bionicle RPG approval. And heck, general thoughts on activity in the forum probably aren't out of place either. Just remember to keep it civil. -GSR

----------------------------

It doesn't help that most contest rpgs that win tend to die after a week or so. We don't have the player base to keep them alive anymore.

Edited May 15, 2014 by GSR

sunflower · May 14, 2014

The actual tri-monthly contests are a nice thing, but as Mr. Kittens said above, we really don't have the player base to support that model anymore. Yes, it is a great way to run things, and it works perfectly. Just not anymore

That being said, OTC-style RPG selection would work much better with our player base.

The Lorax · May 14, 2014

It doesn't help that most contest rpgs that win tend to die after a week or so. We don't have the player base to keep them alive anymore.

City of Legends disagrees.

We kept that game alive, kept it running for three whole months until the story reached its end, with an active core of just five players.

These things are possible with small numbers of players. You just have to be careful with how you go about it.

(By the way, another big thanks to those who played that game. You are all awesome, and I immensely enjoyed what we did together.)

Toa Levacius Zehvor · May 14, 2014

The actual tri-monthly contests are a nice thing, but as Mr. Kittens said above, we really don't have the player base to support that model anymore. Yes, it is a great way to run things, and it works perfectly. Just not anymore

That being said, OTC-style RPG selection would work much better with our player base.

Needs citation?

If you were to execute an OTC-style set up, the only logical way you could do it would be to start a judging process to choose two RPGs from a list of applicants whilst simultaneously rebooting the BZPRPG (as in a proper reboot with a whole new setting, like four or five years ago or whatever it was, with about a three day down time between) to simulate the player-base spread of that forum as the curious spread out. Now, I can't think of a single person on the forum (myself included) that wouldn't be ticked off by at least one element of this rather ridiculous plan.

Which is why, after thinking about it for a moment, it actually sounds perfect. Not factoring in those small details like, "Who would be the judges?" and "Why would that make more people submit RPGs?" and "What would they be judged on?" and "What separates a Bionicle RPG from an OTC RPG with Bionicle characters?" and "Who would want to play when everyone would be angsting about not getting there way?"

Besides, we already decided all of this in a pol. Not to mention that the majority of people who voted "OTC-judging" when we did the poll never even play contest RPGs anyways.

(I'm sorry if this came off a little harshly, but this idea has been proposed for a long while, and it's gotten somewhat old for me. I don't mean any offense, and frankly don't have a better idea... but without more backing, I honestly don't see how it could be an improvement.)

Now me... what do I think? I think that the job lies on the GMs to try new, experimental things. Find ways to take advantage of the smaller player-base. And, more importantly, being dedicated; I've seen far too many GMs simply leave an RPG - on a few occasions, in order to play another (leaving is understandable; playing another is irresponsible).

-Toa Levacius Zehvor :flagusa:

**Snelly** · May 14, 2014

If you were to execute an OTC-style set up, the only logical way you could do it would be to start a judging process to choose two RPGs from a list of applicants whilst simultaneously rebooting the BZPRPG (as in a proper reboot with a whole new setting, like four or five years ago or whatever it was, with about a three day down time between) to simulate the player-base spread of that forum as the curious spread out. Now, I can't think of a single person on the forum (myself included) that wouldn't be ticked off by at least one element of this rather ridiculous plan.

Yeah, that does sound ridiculous. Why on earth would you have to reboot the BZPRPG? Doesn't really have anything to do with the other rpgs.

Which is why, after thinking about it for a moment, it actually sounds perfect. Not factoring in those small details like, "Who would be the judges?" and "Why would that make more people submit RPGs?" and "What would they be judged on?" and "What separates a Bionicle RPG from an OTC RPG with Bionicle characters?" and "Who would want to play when everyone would be angsting about not getting there way?"

Never heard of an OTC RPG with Bionicle characters, kind of defeats the purpose of being an OTC RPG.

Besides, we already decided all of this in a pol. Not to mention that the majority of people who voted "OTC-judging" when we did the poll never even play contest RPGs anyways.

Needs citation?

Edited May 14, 2014 by Princess Anna of Arendelle

Ghosthands · May 14, 2014

I have never played a contest RPG or an OTC RPG, but it seems to me that the contest system was designed for a very different environment to the one we have today in the RPG forum: one that was chock-full of players, many many of whom wanted to run their own Bionicle-themed RPGs. Bionicle (and by extension, BZPower) was much more popular back then, so it was necessary to find a fair way of limiting the number of RPGs running at any one time.

This is no longer the case. The contests keep turning over, sure, but with dwindling interest and activity. From what I've heard, it seems to only be the occasional anomaly that survives long enough to see its plot through.

Now let's look at the two other places on BZPower where RPGs take place: OTC and Lego RPG. The former is unfamiliar territory for me, but I understand that they both use an approvals system.

Zehvor, I don't think it's at all necessary to mimic the entire setup of OTC RPGs. Frankly, the suggestion that the BZPRPG ought to be rebooted for the reasons you gave seems out-of-the-blue and completely absurd. No; all that needs to be done is to remove the contest system and replace it with one where an RPG is pitched to the forum staff - perhaps requiring a certain number of co-submitters or supporters - and if judged worthy, the GMs can set up the game.

This would allow RPGs to rise and fall based on -demand-, rather than a thrice-a-year system that may not coincide at all with when people want to play a new game. It seems to me to be a more natural way of organising things, and one that could potentially breathe new life into the Bionicle RPG forum.

Krayzikk · May 14, 2014

The actual tri-monthly contests are a nice thing, but as Mr. Kittens said above, we really don't have the player base to support that model anymore. Yes, it is a great way to run things, and it works perfectly. Just not anymore

That being said, OTC-style RPG selection would work much better with our player base.

Needs citation?

If you were to execute an OTC-style set up, the only logical way you could do it would be to start a judging process to choose two RPGs from a list of applicants whilst simultaneously rebooting the BZPRPG (as in a proper reboot with a whole new setting, like four or five years ago or whatever it was, with about a three day down time between) to simulate the player-base spread of that forum as the curious spread out. Now, I can't think of a single person on the forum (myself included) that wouldn't be ticked off by at least one element of this rather ridiculous plan.

Which is why, after thinking about it for a moment, it actually sounds perfect. Not factoring in those small details like, "Who would be the judges?" and "Why would that make more people submit RPGs?" and "What would they be judged on?" and "What separates a Bionicle RPG from an OTC RPG with Bionicle characters?" and "Who would want to play when everyone would be angsting about not getting there way?"

Besides, we already decided all of this in a pol. Not to mention that the majority of people who voted "OTC-judging" when we did the poll never even play contest RPGs anyways.

(I'm sorry if this came off a little harshly, but this idea has been proposed for a long while, and it's gotten somewhat old for me. I don't mean any offense, and frankly don't have a better idea... but without more backing, I honestly don't see how it could be an improvement.)

Now me... what do I think? I think that the job lies on the GMs to try new, experimental things. Find ways to take advantage of the smaller player-base. And, more importantly, being dedicated; I've seen far too many GMs simply leave an RPG - on a few occasions, in order to play another (leaving is understandable; playing another is irresponsible).

-Toa Levacius Zehvor

I truly can't disagree with this more. Not only do I find it to be inaccurate on an ideological level, but on a factual level as well. Now, don't get me wrong; I love the contest system. It's been in place for as long as I can remember, and some of my favorite RPG moments have occurred in the RPGs that have won. I remember BZProvince, I remember City of Fear, I remember Techna (Both times), Loophole, on and on into infinity. The contest system has a long legacy here.

But it is no longer viable.

Now, point by point, let us look at why;

First of all, your only logical course is far from logical. The BZPRPG doesn't even factor into it; It never has. Why would the BZPRPG need to change its system for the needs of the other games, needs which aren't really there? It has run just fine for over ten years (Though it is now having internal problems of its own), so there is no need to change it. Nor is there any reason why two games would need to be picked from a list of applicants. What is being suggested, and urged, here is a complete switch to an open submission process. There wouldn't be a list anymore; Just people who have submitted games, just like in the OTC. The plan you outlined is absurd only because most of the aspects of it aren't actually necessary.

Next, the questions you bring up; Actually, most of these have been answered. The "little details" are simple. The Judges can be appointed by the staff of the Forum as they see fit, just as with the OTC, the RPGs will be judged on a similar set of standards as the OTC ones (And, really, this is pretty simple. Everyone here knows an RPG that won't run properly when they see it.), and it wouldn't have to make people submit more. If the rate we're at continues, we'll end up with the same number anyway; But we may remove the popularity contest that I have seen the RPG Contest accused of being. And, as you may have noted, many of those who vote in the contests never play the games. Or even really venture into the forum. Most importantly, there shouldn't be anyone angsting over not getting their way; I think the majority of people here are mature enough not to kick the sandbox if what the other people are making isn't there style.

Yes, there was a poll held; A poll held before the contest with the single least turnout in the contest's history. And, as I noted before, many of those who vote in the contest don't play the games anyway. The "popular vote" has always been a bit distorted. Nor was that poll a decision; It was a way for B6 to get feedback, and not everyone chimed in. In contrast, in other places, I see a good dozen people talking about how much better an OTC-style system would be.

The blame for this is not on the GM; An RPG has always needed to be able to stand on its own two legs when the GM is away. Small experiments do not fix a large scale problem. The climate has shifted massively; There are fewer players, and those players often have little time, because the age demographic has experienced a boost of a few years. This requires a drastic change to correct.

The Contest RPGs are a great and honored tradition. But they are no longer viable in the current climate.

25K Now! · May 14, 2014

tl;dr

everyone becoming old geezers so they have no time to play games all the time

Canis Lycaon · May 14, 2014

Ghost - LEGO RPG consists of PMing the RPG to one of the moderators (now, this is GSR) and having one say yes. It is by far the easiest way to get an RPG.

Ghosthands · May 14, 2014

Ghost - LEGO RPG consists of PMing the RPG to one of the moderators (now, this is GSR) and having one say yes. It is by far the easiest way to get an RPG.

I'm aware of that - I staff EFRPG, remember? It's OTC that I'm unfamiliar with.

Toa Levacius Zehvor · May 14, 2014

I believe my point has been proven. To answer the question why BZPRPG is involved, it's simply a matter of population. BZPRPG has been the only constant for four years, and as a constant, it attracts the majority of people. One simply needs to look at the Profiles topic to see the vast numbers. In order to simulate the player spread of the OTC, you need to get rid of having a singular monolith.

In any case, I'm not arguing with you that the idea itself is terrible, if my commenting on its flaws in the first paragraph and sarcastic reply in the second was not already painfully obvious.

So if you support "the OTC format", don't get defensive and suddenly change it to, "the OTC format but not entirely, because I want things my way."

Needs citation?

The poll is here. Look through the comments and then look through the RPGs posted over the last few contests. I'll also direct to Ghosthands comment.

Never heard of an OTC RPG with Bionicle characters, kind of defeats the purpose of being an OTC RPG.

What this refers to is an RPG on this forum that could easily be made into an OTC RPG because, other than the characters, it has no reason to be Bionicle. The setting isn't Bionicle, the biology isn't Bionicle, canon characters that appear are out of character; really, it only has Bionicle characters to be on this forum.

The blame for this is not on the GM; An RPG has always needed to be able to stand on its own two legs when the GM is away. Small experiments do not fix a large scale problem. The climate has shifted massively; There are fewer players, and those players often have little time, because the age demographic has experienced a boost of a few years. This requires a drastic change to correct.

I am not arguing that. Unfortunately, RPGs do not have a large enough player base to stand without a GM on this forum anymore. It's not even that recent - if you recall, Techna: Breakdown, right in the middle of its maximum activity, when into almost complete silence when one of the GMs was gone for just a few days. Like it or not, GMs have a lot of power.

My proposal isn't an attack on GMs, it's simply an observing that new things need to be tried out. Contest or voting, it makes no difference on this matter. I've got a few tricks myself I'd like to test out.

---

I have a few more comments I would like to make, but I'm a little pressed for time right now, so I'll just leave it at that.

-Toa Levacius Zehvor :flagusa:

**Vezok's Friend** · May 14, 2014

I believe my point has been proven. To answer the question why BZPRPG is involved, it's simply a matter of population. BZPRPG has been the only constant for four years, and as a constant, it attracts the majority of people. One simply needs to look at the Profiles topic to see the vast numbers. In order to simulate the player spread of the OTC, you need to get rid of having a singular monolith.

It does not work this way. This is not an issue of population but investment and interest. If you want to see a movie you will go to the theater that has the movie you want to see. If they pull that movie from their listing the crowd that wanted to see it won't come and split up and fill the showings of the other movies - they go to the cinema that has the movie they want to see.

Ghosthands · May 14, 2014

I believe my point has been proven. To answer the question why BZPRPG is involved, it's simply a matter of population. BZPRPG has been the only constant for four years, and as a constant, it attracts the majority of people. One simply needs to look at the Profiles topic to see the vast numbers. In order to simulate the player spread of the OTC, you need to get rid of having a singular monolith.

We're not talking about 'simulating the player spread', we're just talking about the method used to select RPGs, for which OTC provides a good model. The approval system is not reliant on the exact demographics of the OTC forum.

And the very reasons for which you're arguing the BZPRPG would need to be rebooted are flawed, I'm afraid. Have you considered that it is in fact possible for a person to play more than one RPG at once?

Besides, the number of profiles in the BZPRPG Profiles topic is not a good indication of how many people play it. Take it from me, a large proportion of the posts you see there are from users who never end up playing the game, and many more have started playing and subsequently stopped.

So if you support "the OTC format", don't get defensive and suddenly change it to, "the OTC format but not entirely, because I want things my way."

I'm not sure who you're referring to here, because I don't see any of the people arguing for the OTC-style system 'suddenly changing' their point of view. It seems to me that you either misinterpreted their argument, or are now deliberately misrepresenting it.

Never heard of an OTC RPG with Bionicle characters, kind of defeats the purpose of being an OTC RPG.

What this refers to is an RPG on this forum that could easily be made into an OTC RPG because, other than the characters, it has no reason to be Bionicle. The setting isn't Bionicle, the biology isn't Bionicle, canon characters that appear are out of character; really, it only has Bionicle characters to be on this forum.

Your definition of what is and isn't 'Bionicle' seems to be the problem here. A 'Bionicle RPG' doesn't need to stick to canon - why would it? Nobody is going to make a 'Bionicle RPG' that is totally unrecognisable as Bionicle.

My proposal isn't an attack on GMs, it's simply an observing that new things need to be tried out. Contest or voting, it makes no difference on this matter. I've got a few tricks myself I'd like to test out.

Everbody so far has been observing that new things need to be tried out. The difference is that we have been suggesting a potential change to the system, and you have been giving various flawed reasons why it 'wouldn't work without rebooting the BZPRPG' and contributing nothing of your own. So by all means, let's hear your ideas.

It would also be nice to see your response to the other points made in Krayzikk's excellent post above - points you appear to have ignored.

sunflower · May 14, 2014

With the limited number of people here, we need a much more fluid way to run the player-created RPGs here.

Having a contest with entries and polls and time limits is far too rigid.

OTC has a structure that promotes creativity and is fluid.

RPGs would come and go as they please.

It would no longer be a popularity contest.

It would require minimal overview and moderation by Staff.

As evident by this contest, we no longer have hordes of RPGs, thus no reason to limit to three.

If an RPG is unsuccessful, it may close without incident.

If an RPG is successful, it may run for as long as it is alive, not limited to three months.

The community itself would be much more involved in the overall creation and approval process.

The Lorax · May 14, 2014

I'm no expert on the OTC system for RPG approvals, but I'll throw in my two cents here.

It seems to me that successful RPGs are the ones that a good number people want to play, and are willing to stick with (not that the GM isn't important too). The best measure then, of an RPG's potential success is a poll of how many people would want to play it, not how well a panel of judges think it might hold players' interest.

So I'm for keeping the contests, or at least a form of the contests.

Yes, the current system has it's problems (a lot of them, sometimes), but I don't think judging will fix them, so it is not the change we need. Our current problem is the small player base, and games not holding their players long enough to run the full term. With this in mind, we need a system that selects the RPGs that the most players like and want to play, a system that generates anticipation and excitement in the lead up to new RPGs beginning, and a system that allows all players to feed back on how prospective games could be improved to attract more players.

And that is a contest system.

To compare, a judging system would select games that a few people think are great, and their opinions might not line up with the playerbase as a whole, so there would be no guarantee that the "winning" RPGs would have good player-pulling power. Also, a judging system gives much more weight to the judges' feedback than the players' because the judges are the only ones with the power to approve games. Under a contest setup, authors need to consider any and all feedback, no matter where it comes from, which, ultimately, will make for better games for everyone, rather than games tailored to a few people's tastes. When those few peoples' tastes are all that matter, certain types of games could end up getting locked out, while others run over and over. This might be avoided by selecting the judges very carefully, but who gets what say is a huge can of worms to open.

So while I agree that some change might be good, even necessary, I don't think a judging system will solve the forum's problems. Something else may, and if so I'd be very willing to test it out (perhaps this contest/judging hybrid?).

As evident by this contest, we no longer have hordes of RPGs, thus no reason to limit to three.

I think we now have all the more reason to limit to three. People can play more than one game at once, but the fact remains that most of us have limited time to spend playing RPGs here. We are probbaly going to put about the same amount of time and effort into our RPing no matter how many games we are playing. A constant amount of potential activity spread out over more games equals less activity in each game, not more.

The community itself would be much more involved in the overall creation and approval process.

Err, how? A judging system involves the GM and the judges. Contests involve everybody.

Silvan Haven · May 14, 2014

To compare, a judging system would select games that a few people think are great, and their opinions might not line up with the playerbase as a whole, so there would be no guarantee that the "winning" RPGs would have good player-pulling power. Also, a judging system gives much more weight to the judges' feedback than the players' because the judges are the only ones with the power to approve games. Under a contest setup, authors need to consider any and all feedback, no matter where it comes from, which, ultimately, will make for better games for everyone, rather than games tailored to a few people's tastes. When those few peoples' tastes are all that matter, certain types of games could end up getting locked out, while others run over and over. This might be avoided by selecting the judges very carefully, but who gets what say is a huge can of worms to open.

I highly doubt that the tastes of the judges picked would have anything to do with what RPGs were let through. The judges are only there to ensure that a certain level of quality is met.

sunflower · May 14, 2014

Thanks Silvan, was busy, you summed up what I wanted to say well.

The Lorax · May 14, 2014

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Although, if quality is all and RPG needs to get approved, wouldn't we get a lot more than three RPGs trying to run at once? Maybe a lot more than the player-base can reasonably support?

sunflower · May 14, 2014

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Although, if quality is all and RPG needs to get approved, wouldn't we get a lot more than three RPGs trying to run at once? Maybe a lot more than the player-base can reasonably support?

Technically, yes. Though in practice, most of the time RPGs tend to close if there isn't enough players to support them. Think of it as sort of self-regulating, where because of the small playerbase, the number of active RPGs naturally stays around a certain number.

Krayzikk · May 14, 2014

Speaking as someone very active in the OTC, allow me to step in;

The Judging system works on several levels. First of all, a game has to be meet the necessary requirements. That is to say that it needs to have all that an RPG will require to run, a reasonably thought out plot, a GM and a Co-GM, et cetera. From that point, the judges next consider the game as a whole. To take a direct example, there have been three tries at a Transformers RPG in recent years. The first ran decently, but ultimately died due to mismanagement and player behavior. The second never truly got off of the ground, and neither did the ones that came after it. After the first two failed, the judges, taking note that there was low demand for such a game, stated in the approval for the third that it was the final shot; If it didn't drum up players and died because of it, Transformers RPGs would not be considered unless there was evidence of considerable demand.

Now, this is the first level of the system. The judges sort through what works and what doesn't, and ensure that any game that is approved can, theoretically, function properly. However many games do not even get to that point, because they are strongly encouraged to go through the OTC Planning Topic first. This is to check both quality, based upon peer review, and to ensure that there are players who actually want to play it. If there aren't, the game is usually dropped before it even reaches the approval phase.

There is a third level to the system as well, and that is something that Grav touched on; It is self-regulating. If a game is doing badly, or if people don't want to play it, it dies. In contrast, if it's popular, it lives, so long as it is managed properly. This is more of a test of whether people actually want to play it than a contest could ever be, and it very easily solves the problem of a game overload; The community itself finds the level of games that it can support, and the ones that are liked survive and continue. Highly Darwinian, but highly efficient.

As I said before, I really do like the contest system. It was a great way of managing things when there were lots of applicants; In those days, a judging system would never have worked. The forum would have been saturated inside of a month, and they all would have died. But that isn't the case anymore. As we've seen, very few people are actively submitting RPGs. This level is easily sustainable by a judging system, and it not only allows ones that are popular to run indefinitely, it allows for many more ideas to be tried since no one is competing for a top three spot.

To use the OTC as an example again, it has found its balance. It currently has three running games, all of which are at least somewhat popular, and it supports them easily. Games that aren't well liked tend to quietly die out after they're approved, leaving only what the playerbase actually wants.

In short, it is a highly efficient, self contained system that is more true a judge of what the community wants than any contest could ever be. As noted above, many people who vote will never actually play the games, and there are people who will vote on brand-loyalty (War Zone comes to mind) alone. This eliminates both evils, and actually frees up the potential for games.

Toa Levacius Zehvor · May 14, 2014

We're not talking about 'simulating the player spread', we're just talking about the method used to select RPGs, for which OTC provides a good model. The approval system is not reliant on the exact demographics of the OTC forum.

And the very reasons for which you're arguing the BZPRPG would need to be rebooted are flawed, I'm afraid. Have you considered that it is in fact possible for a person to play more than one RPG at once?

Besides, the number of profiles in the BZPRPG Profiles topic is not a good indication of how many people play it. Take it from me, a large proportion of the posts you see there are from users who never end up playing the game, and many more have started playing and subsequently stopped.

Peoples inability to identify sarcasm continues to astound me; I never seriously proposed the idea. I do not want to reboot the BZPRPG, nor am I arguing to do it. The comment I made was to point out that there is no way to replicate the OTC system on this forum, and that any idea which would replicate it would be met with distaste. Considering that simply presenting the idea generated this much, my statement is correct.

And yes, I have considered that people play multiple RPGs. But one of the leading problems with declining RPG activity is that a lot of people don't or can't, because there's simply not enough time.

I'm not sure who you're referring to here, because I don't see any of the people arguing for the OTC-style system 'suddenly changing' their point of view. It seems to me that you either misinterpreted their argument, or are now deliberately misrepresenting it.

Deliberately misrepresenting it. I just hate everyone and want them to be angry.

That was sarcasm.

You're the one misinterpreting my argument, I'm afraid. The comment was made that we should have an OTC-style system. The modest proposal I made was an overhaul to an OTC-style system. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy that people pushing for change seem to only want change when its what they want. The moment someone even suggests a change that they don't want, it's immediate backlash.

Unless it's really that unclear, I don't want there to be any change. I like the system exactly the way it is now.

(Also, I'd suggest anyone unfamiliar with the term "modest proposal" click this link. Any responses made by someone unfamiliar with the term will be both ignored by me and inspire quiet laughter.)

Your definition of what is and isn't 'Bionicle' seems to be the problem here. A 'Bionicle RPG' doesn't need to stick to canon - why would it? Nobody is going to make a 'Bionicle RPG' that is totally unrecognisable as Bionicle.

Does it need to stick to canon... no. But I've probably read nearly one hundred fifty RPGs on this forum, and I can say that easily a quarter of those were only on this forum because the writer wanted to make a Bionicle RPG. Less than that were actually so uniquely tied to a Bionicle setting that you couldn't just rewrite it with super-powered humans and move it to another forum.

But again, this is merely proving my point - who decides what is and what isn't?

Everbody so far has been observing that new things need to be tried out. The difference is that we have been suggesting a potential change to the system, and you have been giving various flawed reasons why it 'wouldn't work without rebooting the BZPRPG' and contributing nothing of your own. So by all means, let's hear your ideas.

It would also be nice to see your response to the other points made in Krayzikk's excellent post above - points you appear to have ignored.

Yes, ignored. Because that's the word for not answering a post when you have only have a few minutes to leave the house. Because I have time to reply to every small detail on BZP that's there when I wake up in the morning, and I am just deliberately being evasive.

That was sarcasm.

I don't think it would work in general, BZPRPG or not. Again, I think some re-reading is needed.

As far as your change, you've given absolutely zero reasons why it would work. "Better suited for our player base".... how? How does more RPGs help with less players? And when the RPGs close down, we do have a system in place - the runner up takes charge. That's why Outbreak is currently running.

Now, what do I think would work? Well, mostly it's within RPG. These are my favorites.

First, there obviously needs needs to be an active staff member at all times (meaning: at least once per day, hopefully more but never less) for approving profiles, managing certain NPCs, and maintaining the rules. RPGs can drag along slowly with even a few players, but the hardest thing to recover from is a full stop; if the staff can do everything they can to avoid this, that takes away one of the biggest worries you can have.

Secondly, I believe it's clear that the sandbox is all but dead in contest RPGs. Focus now should be on smaller areas and players being close by, so they don't spread out across the map.

Thirdly, and this one is the most experimental, I want to see the effects of giving the players a little more power. The ability to develop their own elaborate little side plots and such within the story; to have a bigger part within the story. Now, this is the one which I'm most worried about for a number of reasons; however, when trying new things out, you have to be willing to take risk.

Since I apparently "ignored" Krayzikk, here's a full response, in red.

I truly can't disagree with this more. Not only do I find it to be inaccurate on an ideological level, but on a factual level as well. Now, don't get me wrong; I love the contest system. It's been in place for as long as I can remember, and some of my favorite RPG moments have occurred in the RPGs that have won. I remember BZProvince, I remember City of Fear, I remember Techna (Both times), Loophole, on and on into infinity. The contest system has a long legacy here.
I'll open this up with a joke - yes. Yes you could. I've been fairly restrained across this whole thing.

But it is no longer viable.

Now, point by point, let us look at why;
I look forward to learning why the contest systems are no longer viable. If you can convince me, I will be impressed, as I am quite stubborn.

First of all, your only logical course is far from logical. The BZPRPG doesn't even factor into it; It never has. Why would the BZPRPG need to change its system for the needs of the other games, needs which aren't really there? It has run just fine for over ten years (Though it is now having internal problems of its own), so there is no need to change it. Nor is there any reason why two games would need to be picked from a list of applicants. What is being suggested, and urged, here is a complete switch to an open submission process. There wouldn't be a list anymore; Just people who have submitted games, just like in the OTC. The plan you outlined is absurd only because most of the aspects of it aren't actually necessary.
Avoiding a small, historical flaw which I shall keep private, let's actually discuss this post. You're right - there is no need to change it. I shall repeat once more, as I have twice (three times?) already, that my comment was done in sarcasm. Not that anyone here seems to notice that, which leads me to believe that I have located my lost sticks. The plan presented was intentionally absurd. Now, I am aware of the proposal. We get rid of the contest, and we have a RPG Approval topic like over in OTC with a few judges to approve RPGs. What I'd like to know is why you believe it would work better that way. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, after all.

Yes, there was a poll held; A poll held before the contest with the single least turnout in the contest's history. And, as I noted before, many of those who vote in the contest don't play the games anyway. The "popular vote" has always been a bit distorted. Nor was that poll a decision; It was a way for B6 to get feedback, and not everyone chimed in. In contrast, in other places, I see a good dozen people talking about how much better an OTC-style system would be.
Not everyone chimed in. However, to make up for it, there is what i mentioned before - that I really don't see a lot of people pushing for the OTC-style system that active on the forum. I understand that time is an issue, which is why I'm not particularly judgmental about it. But nevertheless, it's quite true. Now, while your points here are valid, there is a glaring flaw - the assumption that simply because people are talking about it means that it must be a good idea.

The blame for this is not on the GM; An RPG has always needed to be able to stand on its own two legs when the GM is away. Small experiments do not fix a large scale problem. The climate has shifted massively; There are fewer players, and those players often have little time, because the age demographic has experienced a boost of a few years. This requires a drastic change to correct.
You underestimate how much power a GM can have. Small experiments may not fix the problem in the long term, but at this point, I don't believe anything can. Let's face facts - BZPower is not what it used to be. A new system of choosing RPGs won't bolster activity, it will simply change the activity that's present. Thus, what happens within the RPGs is what has power now. As players, GMs, and forum goers, we should be pushing for that.

The Contest RPGs are a great and honored tradition. But they are no longer viable in the current climate.
A powerful closing statement, with evidence... but so what? You never gave a reason why the judging system would be better; only that some people say it will be better. To that, I say that those good dozen people should be actually trying to bolster activity, rather than complain about it not being there. Because we certainly have less than twelve active players most of the time.

I highly doubt that the tastes of the judges picked would have anything to do with what RPGs were let through. The judges are only there to ensure that a certain level of quality is met.

Maybe. But judges, like everyone, are fallible. And what, pray tell, defines quality? The use of flowery language? Correct spelling and grammar? A unique story or setting? Length, short or long? With a voting system, this is left to the people - in particular, the players, who actually play the RPG and pick something they want.

With the limited number of people here, we need a much more fluid way to run the player-created RPGs here.

Having a contest with entries and polls and time limits is far too rigid.

OTC has a structure that promotes creativity and is fluid.

RPGs would come and go as they please.

It would no longer be a popularity contest.

It would require minimal overview and moderation by Staff.

As evident by this contest, we no longer have hordes of RPGs, thus no reason to limit to three.

If an RPG is unsuccessful, it may close without incident.

If an RPG is successful, it may run for as long as it is alive, not limited to three months.

The community itself would be much more involved in the overall creation and approval process.

Rigid how? Players can write an RPG before the contest begins. If an RPG closes down, the list of runners up is there as replacements, thanks to the last change we had.

Promotes creativity how? I don't mean this one sarcastically/rhetorically, I'm actually interested in this one.

When I suggested on OTC the idea of an RPG that would come and go, perhaps with a few short objectives to complete or whatever, I was criticized for hating the ancient institutions of the freeform sandbox. So coming and going... no, not really.

The popularity contest may be gone, but that only assumes the judges have no biases. Humans are fallible.

Save for getting the topic approval at random times, instead of a set date one can plan for. And while the staff may have less, the judges will now have a job to do.

True, if we had hordes of players. We don't.

If the RPG is unsuccessful with our current system, we replace it in two weeks.

If an RPG is successful with our current system, you can run in the next contest.

No, they wouldn't. The judges would be. We have a review topic, after all. One which I am currently neglecting dealing with this rather pointless argument, which neither side can win due to the fact that we have no verifiable way of proving the judge-based system would work better without actually trying it, and both sides are too stubborn to give in.

---

This is the internet - people don't change their minds. Frankly, this entire post I've made it stupid and pointless, and I can honestly say I only made it because I'm too prideful to stand down. Considering the average age range of this group, I'd say the same goes for everyone else arguing, too; anyone claiming otherwise either sucks at introspection or is a liar. Unfortunately, we're probably going to keep going at this until someone finally says stop. I'd have to be completely without self-awareness to have not figured that out by now.

-Toa Levacius Zehvor :flagusa:

Edited May 14, 2014 by Toa Levacius Zehvor

**Vezok's Friend** · May 14, 2014

This is the internet - people don't change their minds. Frankly, this entire post I've made it stupid and pointless, and I can honestly say I only made it because I'm too prideful to stand down. Considering the average age range of this group, I'd say the same goes for everyone else arguing, too; anyone claiming otherwise either sucks at introspection or is a liar. Unfortunately, we're probably going to keep going at this until someone finally says stop. I'd have to be completely without self-awareness to have not figured that out by now.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Toa Levacius Zehvor · May 14, 2014

This is the internet - people don't change their minds. Frankly, this entire post I've made it stupid and pointless, and I can honestly say I only made it because I'm too prideful to stand down. Considering the average age range of this group, I'd say the same goes for everyone else arguing, too; anyone claiming otherwise either sucks at introspection or is a liar. Unfortunately, we're probably going to keep going at this until someone finally says stop. I'd have to be completely without self-awareness to have not figured that out by now.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I've always loved this line because it is, itself, an absolute. A testament to the hypocrisy of the Jedi Council at the time. If it weren't for the writing that surrounded it, that line could have been genius. Thanks, Lucas.

Though I suppose that's beside the point. Anyways, I'm off to review Midnight City. Going off of my initial reading, it looks pretty good. Still, there's never been an RPG that couldn't be improved in some small way.

-Toa Levacius Zehvor :flagusa:

Edited May 14, 2014 by Toa Levacius Zehvor

**EmperorWhenua** · May 14, 2014

I highly doubt that the tastes of the judges picked would have anything to do with what RPGs were let through. The judges are only there to ensure that a certain level of quality is met.
Maybe. But judges, like everyone, are fallible. And what, pray tell, defines quality? The use of flowery language? Correct spelling and grammar? A unique story or setting? Length, short or long? With a voting system, this is left to the people - in particular, the players, who actually play the RPG and pick something they want.

Hiya, I'm a Senior OTC RPG Judge and you're wrong. :bigsmile:

I'll grant you that we're fallible and human—we've made bad calls in the past—but you know who else is human and fallible? Everyone who votes in a contest poll. They can be swayed by flowery language, wood by proper grammar and wowed by a unique story or setting, and they can also vote for their buddies' mediocre game and never be seen again. The contest system is what is flawed here.

You know what is still flawed but less so? The Judge system. We were picked for a number of reasons, such as our experiences playing and running TBRPGs, our maturity and our objectivity. And things work pretty well overall. Some of us help a hopeful GM produce their game (I don't but that's besides the point) and all of us pore over the game when it is submitted for our approval. If a game is up to snuff, we give it a go-ahead.

What makes us approve a game, though? We look for the following:

A story and setting people will want to play. It should be unique compared to what is currently around.
A skeleton that fundamentally can function as an RPG; if it's a sandbox it should have supervision, if it's a linear tale it should have structure.
A set of rules and backup staff to ensure the game will exist at least for a while.
A mature GM who at least isn't a hyperactive kid who thinks it'll be cool to play god for a while.
Proper grammar is useful, too, but we don't nitpick on it.
Rules to govern playing.

Quality is quality, it's not subjective. If the game theoretically works, we give it a pass. We've let experimental games pass, too, so we don't only allow tried and tested fundamentals. We make sure people know what the ###### they're doing when they submit a game and then polish it off so it;s ready for players to participate in. And since most of us are players, as well, it's a win-win solution.

We try to be professional in our approach, and I think a similar process can work here in this forum. It helps GM hopefuls produce better games, it supervises them to make sure they don't crumble on their own and it foments a creative process that isn't encumbered by popularity contests and bias. Please educate yourself on something before you decide to critique it.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Crown Princess Yumiwa

Krayzikk · May 14, 2014

Actually, I am quite familiar with 'A Modest Proposal'. We read and analyzed it for AP English class not a month past. The point of it was to make a suggestion so outlandish that no one would ever take it seriously, but more importantly, to provoke discussion about a very real issue. From what I am reading here, it is not causing discussion; Rather, people are commenting on it in an attempt to have discussion, only to be met with sarcasm and demands for proof that would not look out of place in a debate meet.

No one here is suddenly changing gears when someone mentions an alternate change; There have been no actual alternate changes suggested. In contrast what we have is a group of people suggesting a change, only to have you rather viciously lecture them for attempting to have a discussion on a very real issue. In short, you are doing the opposite of what 'A Modest Proposal' was intended to do.

That stated, I would kindly ask you to either calm down, or allow this conversation to continue on without you. Because that is what people are trying to have; A conversation. And rather than pointing out that having a discussion about it doesn't make it good, I would like you to look at how this discussion has broken down; Two voices against it, one yourself, and the other Lorax. And rather than get sarcastic with the other parties, Lorax has instead expressed his views, and listened attentively when the alternate possibility is explained. He isn't being combative; He's being constructive.

Now, to move on to the points you have brought up;

I have, in fact, explained just why a Judge System would be better for this climate. A mere post above yours. Better than that, however, I can tell you why the Contest System is no longer working; You cite the new rule regarding the runner up taking the place of a dead game, but allow me to make a counter point. That runner up is the game that the playerbase did not want to succeed as much as the ones before it. Therefore, it is equally, if not more, likely to suffer a similar demise to its predecessor. As seen this contest, we barely have enough entries for there to be a contest, as well.

To directly address your contentions (Comments in blue):

First of all, your only logical course is far from logical. The BZPRPG doesn't even factor into it; It never has. Why would the BZPRPG need to change its system for the needs of the other games, needs which aren't really there? It has run just fine for over ten years (Though it is now having internal problems of its own), so there is no need to change it. Nor is there any reason why two games would need to be picked from a list of applicants. What is being suggested, and urged, here is a complete switch to an open submission process. There wouldn't be a list anymore; Just people who have submitted games, just like in the OTC. The plan you outlined is absurd only because most of the aspects of it aren't actually necessary.
Avoiding a small, historical flaw which I shall keep private, let's actually discuss this post. You're right - there is no need to change it. I shall repeat once more, as I have twice (three times?) already, that my comment was done in sarcasm. Not that anyone here seems to notice that, which leads me to believe that I have located my lost sticks. The plan presented was intentionally absurd. Now, I am aware of the proposal. We get rid of the contest, and we have a RPG Approval topic like over in OTC with a few judges to approve RPGs. What I'd like to know is why you believe it would work better that way. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, after all. See the post just above your most recent, as well as Gravity's and Silvan's, where we analyze the use of the Judge System in this climate.

Yes, there was a poll held; A poll held before the contest with the single least turnout in the contest's history. And, as I noted before, many of those who vote in the contest don't play the games anyway. The "popular vote" has always been a bit distorted. Nor was that poll a decision; It was a way for B6 to get feedback, and not everyone chimed in. In contrast, in other places, I see a good dozen people talking about how much better an OTC-style system would be.
Not everyone chimed in. However, to make up for it, there is what i mentioned before - that I really don't see a lot of people pushing for the OTC-style system that active on the forum. I understand that time is an issue, which is why I'm not particularly judgmental about it. But nevertheless, it's quite true. Now, while your points here are valid, there is a glaring flaw - the assumption that simply because people are talking about it means that it must be a good idea. No one is necessarily stating that it is; But tradition is not a valid enough reason to continue something. All options should be considered and discussed, which is what we are trying to do. Additionally, as earlier noted, consider the breakdown of this discussion; Two people entirely against the idea, in the entirety of the discussion. It is not a poll, but I think that fact alone indicates that it is worth considering, even if you ignore the idea's inherent potential.

The blame for this is not on the GM; An RPG has always needed to be able to stand on its own two legs when the GM is away. Small experiments do not fix a large scale problem. The climate has shifted massively; There are fewer players, and those players often have little time, because the age demographic has experienced a boost of a few years. This requires a drastic change to correct.
You underestimate how much power a GM can have. Small experiments may not fix the problem in the long term, but at this point, I don't believe anything can. Let's face facts - BZPower is not what it used to be. A new system of choosing RPGs won't bolster activity, it will simply change the activity that's present. Thus, what happens within the RPGs is what has power now. As players, GMs, and forum goers, we should be pushing for that. A new system will not change the activity itself, no. Not inherently. The point here is that after multiple contests of decline, it is becoming clear that the Contest format simply isn't working. Whether a tweaked version might be more successful is another matter, but this is the point to begin considering alternative options. The Judging System has a long history on this site as well, and unlike the Contest System, it has adapted well to the decreasing activity.

The Contest RPGs are a great and honored tradition. But they are no longer viable in the current climate.
A powerful closing statement, with evidence... but so what? You never gave a reason why the judging system would be better; only that some people say it will be better. To that, I say that those good dozen people should be actually trying to bolster activity, rather than complain about it not being there. Because we certainly have less than twelve active players most of the time. I don't see anyone complaining about a lack of activity. I see people trying to come up with solutions. And I can easily tell you that there are a good twenty people I talk with on a regular basis who are active participants on this forum, slightly less when we remove those who don't historically play contest RPGs. And many of them aren't participating in contest RPGs anymore because of their disillusionment with the current system.

Rigid how? Players can write an RPG before the contest begins. If an RPG closes down, the list of runners up is there as replacements, thanks to the last change we had.
But it can only be replaced with one on the list, a new idea cannot be attempted in between these now four month periods, and the game can only run for four months before it needs to try again.
Promotes creativity how? I don't mean this one sarcastically/rhetorically, I'm actually interested in this one.
Simple; It allows more people to try more ideas in less time. As I mentioned in my above post, which you still should really read, the ones that work well survive, the ones that don't will die out. Darwinian selection, directly influenced by the community's desires.
When I suggested on OTC the idea of an RPG that would come and go, perhaps with a few short objectives to complete or whatever, I was criticized for hating the ancient institutions of the freeform sandbox. So coming and going... no, not really.
You were criticized for its execution, particularly considering the nature of the game. Nor was such an issue the only criticism. If you look in the OTC, there is a game that has recently started, FTL, that adopts a more direct progression influenced by the characters that has proved quite popular.
The popularity contest may be gone, but that only assumes the judges have no biases. Humans are fallible.
Yes they are. Which is why the judges are only tasked with gauging whether or not the RPG meets certain requirements, considering past similar attempts, and making a judgement from there. They don't control what comes in; They gauge its practical qualities, construction, and the playerbase reaction, and allow it through if it fits the requirements.
Save for getting the topic approval at random times, instead of a set date one can plan for. And while the staff may have less, the judges will now have a job to do.
The judges would have voluntarily accepted that position, and it doesn't take much time for them to do that job. The lack of a set date is a good thing; It allows things to be attempted as the idea strikes, rather than having to wait potentially months. The staff have less to do because the system, as explained in my earlier post, is self-regulating, as influenced by the community.

True, if we had hordes of players. We don't.

If the RPG is unsuccessful with our current system, we replace it in two weeks.
If an RPG is successful with our current system, you can run in the next contest.
If an RPG is unsuccessful in the Judge System, it doesn't matter. Because anyone else can submit a game and have it approved at any time, surviving or failing on community approval, and will not be restricted to waiting or playing the runner up, even if no one really wanted the runner up. Simply allowing the runner up is a rigid attempt at mild reform in a system that it doesn't really fit in; Mild reform isn't what's needed.
No, they wouldn't. The judges would be. We have a review topic, after all. One which I am currently neglecting dealing with this rather pointless argument, which neither side can win due to the fact that we have no verifiable way of proving the judge-based system would work better without actually trying it, and both sides are too stubborn to give in. I disagree with this statement. This isn't a topic about winning; It's about discussing possibilities, and debating their merits. Of course we can't know for sure until it is tried, but we can't know whether it should be tried until it has been discussed, either.

In short, Lev, everyone here is trying to be open-minded and discuss new issues. No one, apparently except you, is trying to 'win'; We're having this discussion not because "lolconflict", we're having it because we want the forum to be healthier. To close;

The comment I made was to point out that there is no way to replicate the OTC system on this forum, and that any idea which would replicate it would be met with distaste. Considering that simply presenting the idea generated this much, my statement is correct.

Bringing it up has only been met with bitter distaste from one person. From everyone else, it has been met with constructive discussion.

**GSR** · May 15, 2014

If I may poke my head in and be an FL for a minute here - this is a good conversation to be having. It's not really a secret that there's been a dip in contest activity, and I'm happy to see people proposing ideas to help it out.

That said, it's starting to get a bit warm in here, so a quick reminder not to get too personal with your arguments.

Toa Levacius Zehvor · May 15, 2014

I highly doubt that the tastes of the judges picked would have anything to do with what RPGs were let through. The judges are only there to ensure that a certain level of quality is met.
Maybe. But judges, like everyone, are fallible. And what, pray tell, defines quality? The use of flowery language? Correct spelling and grammar? A unique story or setting? Length, short or long? With a voting system, this is left to the people - in particular, the players, who actually play the RPG and pick something they want.
Hiya, I'm a Senior OTC RPG Judge and you're wrong.

I'll grant you that we're fallible and human—we've made bad calls in the past—but you know who else is human and fallible? Everyone who votes in a contest poll. They can be swayed by flowery language, wood by proper grammar and wowed by a unique story or setting, and they can also vote for their buddies' mediocre game and never be seen again. The contest system is what is flawed here.

You know what is still flawed but less so? The Judge system. We were picked for a number of reasons, such as our experiences playing and running TBRPGs, our maturity and our objectivity. And things work pretty well overall. Some of us help a hopeful GM produce their game (I don't but that's besides the point) and all of us pore over the game when it is submitted for our approval. If a game is up to snuff, we give it a go-ahead.

What makes us approve a game, though? We look for the following:
A story and setting people will want to play. It should be unique compared to what is currently around.
A skeleton that fundamentally can function as an RPG; if it's a sandbox it should have supervision, if it's a linear tale it should have structure.
A set of rules and backup staff to ensure the game will exist at least for a while.
A mature GM who at least isn't a hyperactive kid who thinks it'll be cool to play god for a while.
Proper grammar is useful, too, but we don't nitpick on it.
Rules to govern playing.
Quality is quality, it's not subjective. If the game theoretically works, we give it a pass. We've let experimental games pass, too, so we don't only allow tried and tested fundamentals. We make sure people know what the ###### they're doing when they submit a game and then polish it off so it;s ready for players to participate in. And since most of us are players, as well, it's a win-win solution.

We try to be professional in our approach, and I think a similar process can work here in this forum. It's help GM hopefuls produce better games, it supervises them to make sure they don't crumble on their own and it foments a creative process that isn't encumbered by popularity contests and bias. Please educate yourself on something before you decide to critique it.

I have no quarrel with you guys, nor am I critiquing the judge system in place there. My issue is with whoever is chosen on this forum, in the event of a judge-based system. One of the arguments for the judging system is that it would be more fluid and quick to execute; doubling the workload of the OTC judges, who can already take extended periods of time to even read an RPG that's been posted, seems to defeat that purpose.

I'll give you credit in this being the first post I've seen about switching to the judging system that actually made it sound like a good idea. But the problem is, you're using an example of where it has worked, in a very different forum environment than this one. We have a very limited player base to work with, and the judging system is not designed with that in mind.

One of the problems with your argument is the assumption that voters are somehow less capable than judges, with rather startling implications (I apologize if that is interpreted incorrectly, but your use of "swaying", "wooing", and "wowing" aren't ones I usually use when attempting to convey respect). The truth is, with a voting system, there is a clear advantage over the judging system which cannot be refuted - the players make the choice on what they want to play. With so few players left, this is incredibly important; unless the RPGs created at what players are looking for, activity will drop. Not rise.

Actually, I am quite familiar with 'A Modest Proposal'. We read and analyzed it for AP English class not a month past. The point of it was to make a suggestion so outlandish that no one would ever take it seriously, but more importantly, to provoke discussion about a very real issue. From what I am reading here, it is not causing discussion; Rather, people are commenting on it in an attempt to have discussion, only to be met with sarcasm and demands for proof that would not look out of place in a debate meet.

I'm glad to here there's actually classroom analysis done in some parts of the world still. Most of our analysis was done as students, since our teacher is, in fact, incompetent. Needless to say, things like that have only been increasing my bitterness over the last year at our public education system.

Perhaps my memory is unclear, but things went like this. Gravity mentioned the OTC judging idea once more. I replied with an obviously sarcastic comment pointing out the flaws in the idea. I wake up in the morning to find three separate people, all taking my comment at face value and criticizing it as if it were intended seriously. I made a reply, and then came home to find myself being called out for ignoring posts and misrepresenting people whilst, even after stating that I was being sarcastic, there were still comments made taking it as not being so.

Still, I'm trying to keep from being irritable. If it's that obvious, I'll try to tone it down.

Now, I never actually saw the post you made, because for whatever reason the forum didn't provide a notificationwhen that post came up. That, or I never saw it. So I'll address that now.

The Judging system works on several levels. First of all, a game has to be meet the necessary requirements. That is to say that it needs to have all that an RPG will require to run, a reasonably thought out plot, a GM and a Co-GM, et cetera. From that point, the judges next consider the game as a whole. To take a direct example, there have been three tries at a Transformers RPG in recent years. The first ran decently, but ultimately died due to mismanagement and player behavior. The second never truly got off of the ground, and neither did the ones that came after it. After the first two failed, the judges, taking note that there was low demand for such a game, stated in the approval for the third that it was the final shot; If it didn't drum up players and died because of it, Transformers RPGs would not be considered unless there was evidence of considerable demand.
How would this particular element translate to our forum? Would we ban RPGs with Skakdi because ever RPG with Skakdi failed? Or perhaps a setting? Unless we find some way to divide up Bionicle RPGs into categories (by genre, by linear/sandbox nature, by setting, etc.) we can't institute a similar practice. While this does sound like a good idea, it does have a glaring negative - it could very easily counter creativity. What if two players want two RPGs in the same category, for instance?

Now, this is the first level of the system. The judges sort through what works and what doesn't, and ensure that any game that is approved can, theoretically, function properly. However many games do not even get to that point, because they are strongly encouraged to go through the OTC Planning Topic first. This is to check both quality, based upon peer review, and to ensure that there are players who actually want to play it. If there aren't, the game is usually dropped before it even reaches the approval phase.
Peer review is also present with Contest RPGs, as we have a Review Topic as well as a Planning Topic. So a good point, but a null one. In fact, Contest RPGs actually have the advantage in that anyone can make a review in any situation. With the Judging system, if they don't actually go to the Planning Topic, only the judges can actually provide commentary.

I also have a related suggestion. I've watched some of the RPGs on the OTC Forum go through the approval process, and combining that with my own personal philosophy (that every RPG can be made better), I think it should be a requirement that any RPG submitted must have at least two judges find improvements that can be made.

There is a third level to the system as well, and that is something that Grav touched on; It is self-regulating. If a game is doing badly, or if people don't want to play it, it dies. In contrast, if it's popular, it lives, so long as it is managed properly. This is more of a test of whether people actually want to play it than a contest could ever be, and it very easily solves the problem of a game overload; The community itself finds the level of games that it can support, and the ones that are liked survive and continue. Highly Darwinian, but highly efficient.
Nothing to say here, but I have some related comments below that slightly touch upon the matter.

As I said before, I really do like the contest system. It was a great way of managing things when there were lots of applicants; In those days, a judging system would never have worked. The forum would have been saturated inside of a month, and they all would have died. But that isn't the case anymore. As we've seen, very few people are actively submitting RPGs. This level is easily sustainable by a judging system, and it not only allows ones that are popular to run indefinitely, it allows for many more ideas to be tried since no one is competing for a top three spot.
For the last few contests, we've averaged within the eleven range. Is that as many as we used to have? No, but it's still way more than the judging system could support. Before we're quick to judge (pun intended), we should look at the time. This is the month of May. Most players are in high school or college. For a good number of people, this is the month of finals, preparing for graduation, prom, etc. Not very much down time. Really, it's no big surprise that the number of submissions is as low as it is. I can guarantee that next contest will have more player simply because the players will have more time to prepare.

To use the OTC as an example again, it has found its balance. It currently has three running games, all of which are at least somewhat popular, and it supports them easily. Games that aren't well liked tend to quietly die out after they're approved, leaving only what the playerbase actually wants.
Can't argue with you here. My question is, do we have enough players to maintain that many? I'd hate to see us only having one RPG struggling along under the system, maybe two. Further, there's a contradiction here. You state that the process will encourage experimental ideas and new RPGs, and yet if a small number of RPGs are popular, people aren't likely to just drop one of them to try out a new one after investing time into it. This means that once the "balance" you mention is found, no new RPG can come about until one of the RPGs closes down.

Now, if we actually do switch to a Judging system, there is a remedy for this - having an end game. Basically, every RPG needs to have an "endpoint" - you can't just make a neverending story. If not that, at the very least a time limit should be set. This isn't to say that you couldn't make a sequel, or that you couldn't make a new RPG; simply that there must be a time. Doing this also has another advantage - a goal to work towards. When goals are set, the activity in an RPG tends to increase. By giving players an objective, this would not only allow alternations between RPGs, but it would keep the ones currently open active.

In short, it is a highly efficient, self contained system that is more true a judge of what the community wants than any contest could ever be. As noted above, many people who vote will never actually play the games, and there are people who will vote on brand-loyalty (War Zone comes to mind) alone. This eliminates both evils, and actually frees up the potential for games.
There's not much of a defense I can use against this argument, truth be told. But the thing is, this is going to be true in any situation where voting is involved. In fact, any situation in general will have it, to a limited extent. As stated above, what happens if a good RPG is approved, but it comes in at a time when players are already active in other RPGs that they simply don't want to drop out of? It might be what the players would otherwise want, but without a contest to allow new RPGs to come in as replacements, it will simply die off.

You underestimate how much power a GM can have. Small experiments may not fix the problem in the long term, but at this point, I don't believe anything can. Let's face facts - BZPower is not what it used to be. A new system of choosing RPGs won't bolster activity, it will simply change the activity that's present. Thus, what happens within the RPGs is what has power now. As players, GMs, and forum goers, we should be pushing for that. A new system will not change the activity itself, no. Not inherently. The point here is that after multiple contests of decline, it is becoming clear that the Contest format simply isn't working. Whether a tweaked version might be more successful is another matter, but this is the point to begin considering alternative options. The Judging System has a long history on this site as well, and unlike the Contest System, it has adapted well to the decreasing activity.

Sure, in the small scale. But here's the issue - Bionicle RPG is shrinking. OTC is growing; at the very least, remaining steady. Bionicle isn't exactly as relevant as it once was, after all of these years; the OTC, and related RPGs, provide a newer frontier for a lot of people. It's not that the Judging System is adapting; it's that the forum is adapting. If the number of players between Contest RPGs and OTC RPGs was equal, things would be different.

A powerful closing statement, with evidence... but so what? You never gave a reason why the judging system would be better; only that some people say it will be better. To that, I say that those good dozen people should be actually trying to bolster activity, rather than complain about it not being there. Because we certainly have less than twelve active players most of the time. I don't see anyone complaining about a lack of activity. I see people trying to come up with solutions. And I can easily tell you that there are a good twenty people I talk with on a regular basis who are active participants on this forum, slightly less when we remove those who don't historically play contest RPGs. And many of them aren't participating in contest RPGs anymore because of their disillusionment with the current system.

You don't think that if more people were playing, the system would work? Because it would. The larger the player base, the better off the forum is, regardless of how it's run. I don't mean to be judgmental, but refusing to play an RPG simply because you don't like the system that wrought it is not a solution, it's a problem.

Rigid how? Players can write an RPG before the contest begins. If an RPG closes down, the list of runners up is there as replacements, thanks to the last change we had.
But it can only be replaced with one on the list, a new idea cannot be attempted in between these now four month periods, and the game can only run for four months before it needs to try again.
There's an advantage to this. By creating a time frame, it allows people who come up with a new idea midway through to begin the creation process and continue fine-tuning the RPG. Patience is a virtue, and this process is useful in allowing more time for development.

Promotes creativity how? I don't mean this one sarcastically/rhetorically, I'm actually interested in this one.
Simple; It allows more people to try more ideas in less time. As I mentioned in my above post, which you still should really read, the ones that work well survive, the ones that don't will die out. Darwinian selection, directly influenced by the community's desires.
My commentary on that above. While yes, creativity may be present at first, after a time it will become a lot harder to push through new ideas. What starts off a good thing can very quickly become... well, a lot less good.

When I suggested on OTC the idea of an RPG that would come and go, perhaps with a few short objectives to complete or whatever, I was criticized for hating the ancient institutions of the freeform sandbox. So coming and going... no, not really.
You were criticized for its execution, particularly considering the nature of the game. Nor was such an issue the only criticism. If you look in the OTC, there is a game that has recently started, FTL, that adopts a more direct progression influenced by the characters that has proved quite popular.
Well, I do have a tendency to jump for extremes. Still, that does actually give me some hope for a few of my ideas.

The popularity contest may be gone, but that only assumes the judges have no biases. Humans are fallible.
Yes they are. Which is why the judges are only tasked with gauging whether or not the RPG meets certain requirements, considering past similar attempts, and making a judgement from there. They don't control what comes in; They gauge its practical qualities, construction, and the playerbase reaction, and allow it through if it fits the requirements.
I have a tendency to jump for extremities. Still, that does actually give me some hope for a few of my ideas.

Save for getting the topic approval at random times, instead of a set date one can plan for. And while the staff may have less, the judges will now have a job to do.
The judges would have voluntarily accepted that position, and it doesn't take much time for them to do that job. The lack of a set date is a good thing; It allows things to be attempted as the idea strikes, rather than having to wait potentially months. The staff have less to do because the system, as explained in my earlier post, is self-regulating, as influenced by the community.
An RPG takes roughly an hour to review and analyze to pinpoint possible corrections, so yes, not very much time. That doesn't guarantee that approval will happen so quickly, however.

True, if we had hordes of players. We don't.

If the RPG is unsuccessful with our current system, we replace it in two weeks.
If an RPG is successful with our current system, you can run in the next contest.
If an RPG is unsuccessful in the Judge System, it doesn't matter. Because anyone else can submit a game and have it approved at any time, surviving or failing on community approval, and will not be restricted to waiting or playing the runner up, even if no one really wanted the runner up. Simply allowing the runner up is a rigid attempt at mild reform in a system that it doesn't really fit in; Mild reform isn't what's needed.
See my below statement.

No, they wouldn't. The judges would be. We have a review topic, after all. One which I am currently neglecting dealing with this rather pointless argument, which neither side can win due to the fact that we have no verifiable way of proving the judge-based system would work better without actually trying it, and both sides are too stubborn to give in. I disagree with this statement. This isn't a topic about winning; It's about discussing possibilities, and debating their merits. Of course we can't know for sure until it is tried, but we can't know whether it should be tried until it has been discussed, either.
My problem with the discussion is that it's been tried, and the conclusion hasn't really changed. I'll give you that more people are probably in favor of the Judging system now than before (I believe this includes you, no?). But the thing is, if try a major reform, we can't just go at it for a short time. We'd need to go into it for the long haul, and actually observe it over a long period. If it works, sure, great. But if not... we're signing away the Bionicle RPG forum to a long, cold sleep.

I have a few other comments that I could make if you'd (Krayzikk) like to discuss them over PM, but they have only slight relevance to the remainder, and I don't feel that this is the proper topic for any of them.

-Toa Levacius Zehvor :flagusa:

Edited May 15, 2014 by Toa Levacius Zehvor

**GSR** · May 15, 2014

Split this from the RPG Contest topic, since it wasn't really all that related to this current contest. This is definitely a discussion I want to hear, though, so please - use this topic to give ideas on how we can improve RPG approval and creation for the forum!

sunflower · May 15, 2014

There's an advantage to this. By creating a time frame, it allows people who come up with a new idea midway through to begin the creation process and continue fine-tuning the RPG. Patience is a virtue, and this process is useful in allowing more time for development.

-Toa Levacius Zehvor

Don't have a lot of time, though I wanted to comment on this from personal experience.

Yes, having a time frame for RPG submissions does at times allow for more refinement and fine tuning of ideas, and yet it's stuck between two extremes, as it can also serve as a limiter for the amount of time allotted for the creation of RPGs.

A few contests ago (or maybe one, I don't quite remember), I submitted ERA, an RPG of which I had plenty of time to plan, create, and refine. I got it in with room to spare, and I was pleased with it. I had no problem at all with the deadline.

And then there's this contest, where because of a number of factors, I was compelled to get Midnight City out as soon as possible in order to meet the deadline. To say the least, I'm not entirely pleased with the amount of time spent refining.

Basically, having a deadline for a creative process such as this can be perfectly fine at times, though it can also create problems. Having a much more free-form system for submissions would completely alleviate this problem. RPGs could be submitted whenever their creators feel as though they're done and ready to be shared.

While I do agree that RPGs should have a definite end in mind (iffy on the time limit, though the ___ days without posting, RPG closed seems to help fight inactivity) at approval from the beginning, I don't think that they should have a set start time, nor be forced to start at a set time.

(And yes, I most certainly could have waited for the next contest to submit Midnight City, though I most certainly would not have the time then to even submit it.)

**Snelly** · May 15, 2014

Geez I leave for 14 hours and this all happens? D:

You don't think that if more people were playing, the system would work? Because it would. The larger the player base, the better off the forum is, regardless of how it's run. I don't mean to be judgmental, but refusing to play an RPG simply because you don't like the system that wrought it is not a solution, it's a problem.

I'm refusing to play the contest RPGs because everytime I do they die from inactivity. And I can't help but notice that it doesn't seem to happen with the OTC RPGs I play. There have been a lot of Contest RPGs I really liked, voted for, played enthusiastically, and then they died before they really got started. I don't feel like putting my time and effort into an RPG that isn't going to go anywhere in the long run.

So yeah, I think we need a new system, or at least heavily modify the current one.

Toa Levacius Zehvor · May 15, 2014

I'm refusing to play the contest RPGs because everytime I do they die from inactivity. And I can't help but notice that it doesn't seem to happen with the OTC RPGs I play. There have been a lot of Contest RPGs I really liked, voted for, played enthusiastically, and then they died before they really got started. I don't feel like putting my time and effort into an RPG that isn't going to go anywhere in the long run.

I understand the plight, but I can't help but feel that the increasing spread of these beliefs is why we're in the situation we are. While I'm not one to encourage blind optimism, a more positive mindset is necessary to keep an RPG running. Expecting failure will only cause it.

Yes, having a time frame for RPG submissions does at times allow for more refinement and fine tuning of ideas, and yet it's stuck between two extremes, as it can also serve as a limiter for the amount of time allotted for the creation of RPGs.

A few contests ago (or maybe one, I don't quite remember), I submitted ERA, an RPG of which I had plenty of time to plan, create, and refine. I got it in with room to spare, and I was pleased with it. I had no problem at all with the deadline.

And then there's this contest, where because of a number of factors, I was compelled to get Midnight City out as soon as possible in order to meet the deadline. To say the least, I'm not entirely pleased with the amount of time spent refining.

Basically, having a deadline for a creative process such as this can be perfectly fine at times, though it can also create problems. Having a much more free-form system for submissions would completely alleviate this problem. RPGs could be submitted whenever their creators feel as though they're done and ready to be shared.

While I do agree that RPGs should have a definite end in mind (iffy on the time limit, though the ___ days without posting, RPG closed seems to help fight inactivity) at approval from the beginning, I don't think that they should have a set start time, nor be forced to start at a set time.

(And yes, I most certainly could have waited for the next contest to submit Midnight City, though I most certainly would not have the time then to even submit it.)

Midnight City... not refined enough? If you still have more details to add, then maybe my Finnegan's Wake joke isn't too far off.

While the deadline can cause trouble, I still find that it does more good than harm. I can't tell you how many times I've thought up an idea and immediately rushed to sketch something up, and only realize in the later stages that something about the setting or story simply couldn't make for a viable RPG; other times, I've thought up better ideas. The current set-up, at least in my case, allows me to find something that will work and build on it over the course of the three months, and then finally develop all of the notes into an RPG.

I suppose that it's not entirely unlikely that I'm as much an anomaly here as in other areas, but my personal experience has never led to trouble. If anything, I've ran into more trouble with the judging system (not to say that said system isn't without benefits; I still recall my attempt at an Elder Scrolls RPG which started off as something I'd be ashamed to think about and, thanks primarily to TPTI, became something I'm only ashamed to look at [in hindsight, some of the suggestions I argued over are the same ones I critique other RPGs for now - but what would life be if we didn't continue to learn?])

-Toa Levacius Zehvor :flagusa:

Silvan Haven · May 15, 2014

You can take the same amount of time making sure your RPG is up to the right level with a judging system as you can with the contest.

**Seraphimon** · May 15, 2014

I've always thought that the contest system was a little ridiculous; or maybe not ridiculous but not capturing what it intends to capture. Public voting in general is problematic because it really is just a popularity contest; whoever gets the most votes wins. These votes can come from anywhere and it is not always the case that they come from the players that actually end up playing the game. And if it turns out that the emperor has no clothes and the RPG that is popularly elected ends up abandoned, then maybe the voting system isn't seeking to capture what it was seeking to capture in the first place.

If you really want to capture player demand for a game, then you need to see what the player themselves actually end up playing, which is not something that a poll can capture; it can only be captured by having the game itself be played. Public voting can show support and popularity but it cannot show sustainability, which I think is what this forum is really looking for at this point. And I don't think that many games have accomplished this on this forum. Games being abandoned were a problem almost immediately after the system was introduced. In fact, I feel like games that were successful are in the distinct minority at this point.

As such, I think a change is needed and some sort of freer, non-time frame specific approval process is probably best, as has already been discussed.

The Lorax · May 15, 2014

Thanks for answering some of my questions there Krayzikk, Gravity. You've given me plenty of food for thought. I can see some of the benefits of moving to a judge-based system, but I'm not yet completely convinced that it is the best solution. I'll have to give this issue more thought before coming to a strong opinion. A few more questions though, if you don't mind:

With a darwinian system as you propose, a lot of games have to die before you get down to your "strong herd" and arrive at a sustainable population (and to be honest I'm still a little worried that we'd end up with too many games and end up killing games that would have worked, had they had less competition for players' attention). You start with a bunch of potentially good, player-attracting games and then whittle them down to what is actually viable. Do we really want to move to a system that would deliberately kill off so many games, when clearly the current death rate is demoralising and turning away good RPers like Princess Anna?

It is true that votes in a contest poll are not always the same as player interest. Some GMs do ask their friends to vote for their games whether they intend to play them or not. There are problems in the system. I acknowledge that. Everyone who likes the contests knows that. But still the fact remains: many of those votes do come from players who are invested in the forum. The polls aren't a perfect gauge of player demand, but they do count for something.

With a contest system, we start with games that we know, absolutely for certain, have an interested player-base. If we were to go to a judging system in order to get all of the possible benefits that have been described, I think that one of the criteria for a game to start should be a list of at least ten people ready and willing to play it.

My other main concern is that BIONICLE RPGs on this forum (probably) do not have the same patterns of demand as OTC RPGs. The areas of demand are a lot more blurred. In OTC, you have your Transformers fans, your fans of this and fans of that. Each group is either large and active enough to support an RPG or it isn't, so self-regulation works well. Here in BIONICLE RPG, we're all fans of BIONICLE who like playing BIONICLE RPGs. Because of this, we get lots of BIONICLE RPGs pitched to us, and often end up playing and enjoying them even if a particular game isn't perfectly our cup of tea. In the contests, we are often prepared to play not only our top three, but down to our sixth or seventh choices in a good contest (or at least I am, I'm not sure about others). Since a lot of games that are submitted are agreeable to a lot of people, it could be much easier for activity to get too spread out, for the forum to get over-saturated with games to the point where everything dies. At that point, it doesn't matter how theoretically viable the games are or how well the GMs run them. The question is not "is there enough interest in this type of RPG" as with the Transformers example given above. The question is "how many BIONICLE RPGs can this forum support?" I don't think we would be able to answer that question just by approving more and more games and then sending them out to die when the player base gets too spread.

I know I'm not articulating this well this late at night, so I'll stop talking now. But that's the potential problem I see with a self-regulated number of games on the forum.

**Black Six** · May 15, 2014

For a little background, the contests were originally put into place to do a couple things:

Get input from people besides me on what RPGs should be started - back in the day, I was the lone approver, and obviously just because I like something doesn't mean everyone in the forum will.
Limit the number of concurrent RPGs - as has been mentioned, more RPGs tends to spread the player base out and limit the number of players each game has. Of course people can play more than one game, but not everyone has that kind of free time or can keep track of all those characters.
Encourage high quality RPGs - in theory, if you want to win a contest, you need to make your entry the best it can be.

I would be open to changing/revamping/removing the contest system as long as the above are maintained. Please keep that in mind in these discussions.

Toa Levacius Zehvor · May 15, 2014

It is true that votes in a contest poll are not always the same as player interest. Some GMs do ask their friends to vote for their games whether they intend to play them or not. There are problems in the system. I acknowledge that. Everyone who likes the contests knows that. But still the fact remains: many of those votes do come from players who are invested in the forum. The polls aren't a perfect gauge of player demand, but they do count for something.

As an addendum to this - War Zone was mentioned as an example of an RPG winning under unusual voting circumstances. But whatever our feelings on it are/were, it did wind up fairly successful for at least its first run. While quality and activity do seem to have a direct link, there's plenty of other factors to it.

That's why my push is more for changes in how we run/maintain RPGs, and not for how we decide which ones go live. Unfortunately, that's a decision that GMs must make, and not something which can be regulated.

-Toa Levacius Zehvor :flagusa:

Shadowhawk · May 15, 2014

Don't have much of anything really to add to the conversation, but I'd just like to throw my general support behind a long-overdue revamp of the Bionicle RPG system; from 'periodic contests w/time limit set on run length' to 'as per demand w/no time limit set on run length; if it thrives, let it'. Such a system seems to work quite effectively in the OTC, and I honestly haven't seen any conclusive evidence brought out to prove that it wouldn't work here as well.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Shadowhawk

**Eyru** · May 15, 2014

I think the state of the RPG forum and contest RPG's speaks for itself. Obviously, the system we have is not working; if we continue to use it and expect different results, we're just being silly. The time has come to make a change, because the contest model of yesteryear no longer works well enough to justify keeping it. Sure, we get the occasional RPG that sticks around for three months and finishes strong, but the vast majority dwindle and die.

My vote is for a judging system similar to the one used to approve OTC RPGs. RPGs will live or die based on quality and player involvement, not on the results of what is, often, essentially a popularity contest. Hopefully this change will eventually see an environment like OTC's: with strong, healthy RPGs that can run as long as they need to without excluding new, fresh ideas (and still keeping the junk out).

It works well enough for OTC; let's try it here.

Wyrd Bid Ful Araed · May 16, 2014

Public voting in general is problematic because it really is just a popularity contest; whoever gets the most votes wins. These votes can come from anywhere and it is not always the case that they come from the players that actually end up playing the game.

I've always had problems with this. You get people linking to the voting topic and asking friends to vote, friends who then don't actually join the RPG because they never had any intention to, they were just helping a mate out. It's why I rarely get a sig or banner advertising my entries because I'd rather get votes from people who know it already exists and definitely would play. I still ended up winning a number of times too, so yay me up on the moral high ground

Honestly, I think getting rid of the contest would be for the best. Even in this dry spell, we get lots of great and imaginative RPGs thought out. Why make it so only three of them can get through? If someone has an idea, if they can drum up players for it, if they're willing to run it, why not let them?

Zox Tomana · May 17, 2014

Disclaimer: I'm a newbie in the forum, so the following thoughts could be utterly wrong from the perspective of an experienced player. Don't hurt me, but...

I'm refusing to play the contest RPGs because everytime I do they die from inactivity. And I can't help but notice that it doesn't seem to happen with the OTC RPGs I play. There have been a lot of Contest RPGs I really liked, voted for, played enthusiastically, and then they died before they really got started. I don't feel like putting my time and effort into an RPG that isn't going to go anywhere in the long run.

I understand the plight, but I can't help but feel that the increasing spread of these beliefs is why we're in the situation we are. While I'm not one to encourage blind optimism, a more positive mindset is necessary to keep an RPG running. Expecting failure will only cause it.

...I have to agree with Zehvor here. The first TBRPG I played and the only one I have played at this point was Spirits of the Ice. I found the experience rather entertaining and it wasn't nearly as intimidating as the idea of getting myself started in the BZPRPG. The side ones the contests (or whatever style of generation we use) bring out can be good diversions for experienced players and nice introductions for newbies like myself, but only if people play them with at least half an expectation that the RPG could be good and survive. However, if people take one look at a contest RPG and say "Oh, it'll be dead in three weeks. Why bother?" then you get very thing you're trying to avoid. The OTC ones you play are alive...the Contest ones you didn't bother with died off... pattern?

Also, someone mentioned something about an RPG hitting it's three month mark and then going away: isn't there a contest rule that previous contest winners re-submit and if they win again it can keep going?

The Future of RPG Approval

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment