A Universal Guide

[Prince]

I see that there are several threads designed by the citizens of this site meant to help, inform and educate the population of the Guild. I want to create a larger one. I want to create a Guide that spans 1x1's roleplay to Nation roleplay. A guide to help those in free and to give insight to advanced. I want this because I feel that one of the best tools for learning and advancing in any subject is reference material, and who better to create such than the citizens that inhabit this site?

I do not want to create a Guide alone, and for several reasons. One perspective is not enough. One set of knowledge is hardly comprehensive for any subject. That said, I seek out any and all that would be interested in creating a Guide. I seek assistance, I seek council, I seek creativity and innovation. I seek more than just a single page or thread with a quick description. I have already created a wikidot for this project, but the project will come full circle. That wiki will only exist as a catalyst for information and discussion to be refined then placed back onto the Guild.

This will take time and dedication. I don't need a dozen people at all times. I seek a handful of people with knowledge in several fields and the ability to create structure. Then, I seek out the notable GM's and experts in any field. Then, I seek out those with a passion for a single type of roleplay. I seek out all of these people so that they may describe their niche and how it will reflect into the central themes to be described via the guide.

Anyone interested or with ideas, I implore you to speak up. Anyone with the time, passion or desire, don't let it go to waste.

[Vordak]

I can help out with the arena: links to the combat system used, power rankings and some additional detail to the rules we have established ourselves. Well, and a general description of what it is as of present day.

[AkiBlue]

Making my interest known.

[Jig]

I tend to be in advanced more often than any other forum. I don't have any major specialisms but I guess I'm interested in RP 'theory'. I've mentioned in the B!tching thread how I have a preference for players to be aware of OoC knowledge in order to better prepare plot developments and work out character arcs. While I don't say this is a better way of doing it necessarily (if I remember, you were a proponent of being truer to character and reacting to events as they unfold), it might be interesting to discuss different interpretations of 'how to' for players and GM's.

I also, on an old account I can't access any more, wrote this which I've been meaning to update a little bit, but I think is, on the whole, a decent guide. I'd be quite happy to have its content included in this project when I get round to updating it.

A couple of questions:
1) the simple one - what is a wikidot? Does it actually look like a wikipedia page?
2) the harder one - how do you vet content admission? If somebody ventures an opinion that is almost universally accepted as 'wrong' ("It's always easier to just control other player's characters if they don't do what you you want them to," for example), does that opinion get into the universal guide?

[TheEvanCat]

The people I'm with managed to set one of these up (exactly like this, actually) on our old forum before the tragic events made us move. We can probably help.

[Prince]

http://rpguide.wikidot.com/

It's bare at the moment, but it is made. It is set so that only site members can edit pages and site members must be approved via applications. I believe it's simply signing up through Wikidot, then hitting the Join button. After becoming a member, you can edit any page unless it is restricted to only admin/mods. Additionally, any revisions can be reverted unless deleted by an admin/mod.

Essentially, this will be a collaborative effort just like any other wikia, but I will be selective as to whom I allow to assist as they need to be knowledgeable and trustworthy, as well as productive.

Onto the second topic, I have yet to flesh out structure in terms of how I want the guide to be built, but I have plenty of ideas. The reason for this is that I did not want to design a site that just needed expert opinions tossed in. I do truly want it to be a collaborative effort not only for the increase to comprehensive quality but also as a symbolic gesture to what roleplay is. That said, I will discuss what I did have in mind.

As I said originally, I want the site to somewhat be a textbook and referent for roleplayers. All textbooks have chapters and are designed so that information adds to itself and becomes more complex as it goes along. This pattern is similar for almost all textbooks be them for Physics of Appreciation of Arts. With that in mind, I want to set aside information as core 'fact' that all theories we discuss will refer to and we will fit all models to be comprehensive of, then I want to discuss opinions, models, theories and the different styles of roleplay within a subtype and how they might bridge over and connect to different ones of a different subtype, or how there might be a pattern of sorts.

As you can see if you take into account just how many subtypes there are and the variety of different styles, this is definitely not an endeavor I can accomplish alone. No one can, really. The first step to this guide should be to set the ground rules and state the mission of the guide. You see that in the preface of almost every major textbook. This will not only lay the foundation for us as a team, but it will help the reader understand how the guide will work. After that, I would go on to set definitions that we design and agree on to define roleplay in such a manner that they will apply to all branches and subtypes. I would go so far as to try and make them so all-encompassing that they could technically describe roleplay such as LARP, tabletops, virtual RPG's and text-based adventure style roleplay. For instance, when I took on the title of mentor, I taught roleplay as such:

Roleplay - (verb) the act of simulating the thoughts, behavior and actions of a character to interact with other characters and a setting

In this case, the setting included the environment, society, culmination of plot-based events, etc. I made such known by setting a definition for what a setting is. Obviously, roleplay can be used synonymously with setting, thus I had to go through and create several different possible definitions for each word and if I referenced a definition within a definition I'd make sure that word had a superscript for reference.

All of these words will need defined multiple times and we may have to go back and edit them as we encounter new information and methods of thought. That should be part of the process.

As the 'chapters' would progress, we'll get more advanced definitions, sometimes create a definition of a word that is only applicable to a subtype. This is where the expert opinions in the field will come from. And, when it comes to an opinion that every just agrees is wrong, we'll omit it. Even though it isn't relevant to this guide, if you all voted against my stance on Elitism and social stratification within roleplay, I would forfeit it and move on. We might make a note of it somewhere that it's not a universal opinion. But, the point would just go on. Some people might drop the project in such a case, and if so, too bad. You can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.

After that, we can discuss and create pages for topics such as Character Concepts vs Character Sheets, what a Character Sheet is and should be, etc. I see dozens and dozens of splendid topics in the Roleplay Discussion Forum that we could format to our guide style. And, on that note, we would have to keep that in mind. Even if we have a thousand people cooperating, this is going to be a guide, not a rulebook.

[Rare]

Well, I could help out with Nation Roleplays and 1x1s since I know alot about them and how to run one.

[AkiBlue]

So, shouldn't we perhaps set up some organized way to go about this? I'm sure once you get members, it'll be hectic if, say Person A decides to do a page solely on 1x1s, but Person B wanted to do the same (with or without realizing the first) So now there's like two 'replicas' of the same information.

Will we all be working on one page at a time together, or will there be an assigned person to focus on each section (with everyone else adding their input on what to change or add)?

Just some things to think over in relation to the structure of how this should go.

[Prince]

I actually have plans for all of that, but I need more of a team before I go discussing structure and getting input. There is no point in designing a system no one wants.

[Brovo]

Maybe... I am working on my own guides, but maybe something could be worked out... Maybe, maybe, maybe. I think I'll need to sleep on it first, though.

[AkiBlue]

Why not...Why not combined it and have the ultimate guide? The insight you have will be beneficial for everyone~

[Prince]

My point exactly. If a new roleplayer has a dozen guides to look at, how much help is that? If they have one guide that a large sum of the community seems to support, then the decision is easy and everyone will be on the same page.

[AkiBlue]

Prince said
My point exactly. If a new roleplayer has a dozen guides to look at, how much help is that? If they have one guide that a large sum of the community seems to support, then the decision is easy and everyone will be on the same page.

One guide is better than looking at fifty. It's all in one place, people can just go back to it instead of searching for it, it's the people giving this information not just one particular person, *more advertisement* *more persuasion*

Do it for the people? All of those poor lost souls that want to RP but don't know how.
We have to be like Sarah McLachlan - "In the arms of an angel..."
We have to save the poor RPers haha

I'll be quiet now lol

[Jig]

Prince said
My point exactly. If a new roleplayer has a dozen guides to look at, how much help is that? If they have one guide that a large sum of the community seems to support, then the decision is easy and everyone will be on the same page.

You've probably already put thought to this, but, just to state the obvious for fear of it going missed, in the case of one freaking huge guide, then it simply has to be more easily navigable than a chronologically-listed series of threads in the guide section which isn't difficult, but still. Do you have a reference for what the guide might look like? The current wikidot page, bare as it is, leaves most of the format to the imagination. I presume it wouldn't look like a standard wiki/a - otherwise it would be called a wiki/a! :P

With that in mind, I want to set aside information as core 'fact' that all theories we discuss will refer to and we will fit all models to be comprehensive of, then I want to discuss opinions, models, theories and the different styles of roleplay within a subtype and how they might bridge over and connect to different ones of a different subtype, or how there might be a pattern of sorts.

Could you maybe clarify what you mean here? I didn't quite follow.

[Prince]

Jig, you ask the exact kind of questions I'm looking for. For your first question, I'll give you two answers that should provide more understanding. The wikidot functions two-fold: first, it will be the place that we create the prototype of the Guide before it is posted on the Guild; second, I could have picked another forum or even just used PM's or Skype to make the prototype, but I picked a wikia for its symbolic nature. A wiki is a site with tons of pages and posted information that any member (in this case, you do have to apply, but that is just a minor formality) can edit and add to. I want that to be the embodiment of this endeavor. This is not "Prince's Royal Guide to Roleplay" nor will it be the "Prince and Brovo Project, feat. Jig" - it is going to be a community project made by the community for the community, and that is the very essence of a wiki.

As to how the wiki will be structured, I intend on creating a 'portal' with an IRC, then a 'preface' page and then we go on through making page after page like chapters, adding on and editing in new content as we go over a new set of information and a new subgenre per chapter, then revise every former chapter as we see fit for the sake of consistency. However, and I stress this highly, even that system can be challenged and I will gladly let anyone take floor to either improve or present a better one.

Now, on to the second half of this.

As per the way I would want this designed, there would be a preface that functions as a) a guideline for the editors (us) to design the site and its foundation and b) an instruction manual for all those wishing to read the guide. This is where we would explain how it works (and how we want it to work), our mission statement as a whole, the fact its a community effort, etc. After that would be Chapter One, the core. For instance: Chapter One: What is Roleplay? That is all we do. Answer that question. But, how do we do it? I would say that we try to address and define the fundamental principles found within most forms of roleplay: plot, setting, characters, roleplay itself, roleplayers, moderation, mediums, etc. We explain what roleplay is and we look at several different models created by experts, such as Ron Edwards, basically just to understand the bigger aspects of it. We create a fool-proof definition and core understand that in and of itself doesn't shed too much light on roleplay, but it provides universal understand for the later chapters. Essentially, we would tell you what roleplay is, in a general sense, and the aspects that are needed for it, but we would do so in a way that did not apply to only text. For example, LARP'ing would have a different set of rules, but somewhere in there would be still a core element. Same for table tops. Same for nations. Same for all forms of roleplay.

Then, after we have the 'core definitions' set, we would design more. We would take these words we know and fabricate them in a formal sense to give them real definitions with a concrete level of understanding. Now, this might sound pointless, but here's where it goes on. Let's say we move on to chapter two. What would it be about? Well, I say that we change that up. Just like in a textbook, we should have "Units". Unit One: Chapter One: What is Roleplay? would lead into the Fundamentals of Roleplay which would lead into anything that any member would want to embellish on that would just apply to roleplay alone, but I'm sure that still doesn't make sense. It will as SOON as I bring forth the next Units.

Unit Two: Text-Based Roleplay. Unit Three: System-Based Roleplay. Unit Four: Other forms of roleplay like LARPING. Unit Two is obviously the big field of interest as the Guild is a forum and most of this is text-based. Here's the thing. It would ONLY and I do mean ONLY address text-based roleplay. System-Based roleplay would be meant for tabletops, RPG's, MMORPG's, whatever else you want. Essentially, you would not need to read all of Unit One to move to Unit Two. Why? Because, if you've picked up newer-age college-level textbooks, you realize that most of them don't have a chronology like that anymore. What we would do is at the beginning of each chapter simply state the suggested chapters to read from each unit to give a better understanding. All the information should be a) consistent b) integrated and c) flow smoothly. Why? Because as long as we build a core and we work off of it, every single chapter, unit and footnote should have trace elements that keep them on the same page. If we intelligently integrate the system so that a newbie wanting to learn about casual roleplay only needs to read two or three chapters and the preface, then he won't need to surf through 30 chapters to get his information. This would also allow us to create an end-of-text glossary where we can link the the words used to the chapter they were used in to fully understand the context. A word we might use in several subtypes of roleplay might have a different meaning in one kind, and why not design a system to clearly show that?

Each subtype would inevitably be its own chapter. We could even have two similar chapters in different units. Why? Character Sheets in System-based would be different than text-based. We could explain why we're using this system by looking at GNS theory by Ron Edwards which states the three core elements to roleplay are Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism. If that's true, why not divide those elements up into units and address them as such? So many experts have done a lot of work for us and we can adapt it fairly easily, if we work together.

And, lastly, as for how I would put this up on the Guild would actually be miraculously simple. Make the beginning post with the introduction and preface, then link every single chapter with its own reply so that we can permalink the thread within itself for convenience sake. Once it's done, just request it be locked. This would leave only one person to edit it, and in my head that was me, but I don't really care who: if we had a Mod cooperate, they could do it for us.

I hope this covers all of your questions. Ask any more. Again, this is how I would personally see it done. I don't mind discussing other ways and I'm sure someone is going to dislike the method because it's a bit more work (even though I would probably end up doing a large part of the organizing) and that it's more complex than the simplistic method of putting one chapter after enough to be followed. That's fine. I have my reasons for wanting this system (I've been in college 3.5 years now and I've read plenty of textbooks, so I feel methods like this are superior in terms of usability and learning), but I do want people to give me input and ideas, now at the beginning and as we progress through design. I want this to be a community-based, collaborative effort with no real limit on people, although as of now I'm looking for the core group. The core, in my opinion, would be me, Aki, you (Jig), EvanCat (and his collaborators), Brovo if he hops aboard. Then there would be Rare and Vordak for their respective subtypes, as they requested. This is just the beginning.

[Rare]

I got a question, Why didn't you use Wikia?

[Prince]

Wikidot has a simpler user-interface, loaded slightly faster when I tested it and admin access allowed me to freest and edit permissions as well as set site admins. The control over its navigation is also easier and it lacks the visual editor, which will push focus on content instead of the sit, which really is just a catalyst. Both Wikidot and wikia use wiki source code and have larger communities, but only Wikidot lets you mitigate some of that to selectively choose what is more beneficial.

[Rare]

Fair enough reasons. By the way, I'm Rare20 with the Mass Effect Picture. Someone took my username, so I had to come up with this..

---

So to be clear, Everyone works on what they're great (I would be great at Nation RPs, while Vordak would be great at TableTops RPs). I have started going over other user's nation rps and seeing what mistake they all have in common (besides dying xP). I think there should be Sections, like Section One could be about the common things that you would put on a character sheet, then Section Two would be about the uncommon things that you would put on a character sheet, etc.

[AkiBlue]

I don't necessarily believe the "subtypes" would necessarily need a chapter to themselves. I see it more as

Chapter One: What is Roleplaying?
- Definition
1.1 - Different types like LARPing
1.2 - Different types like Text Based
Etc, etc

It coul just branch off chapter one instead of giving EACH little thing a chapter of its own. And the Units I pictured more like:
Unit One: Fundamentals of Roleplaying (what it is)
Unit Two: Maybe something like Character Sheets and such
And so forth and so forth.

[Jig]

Another "stating the obvious just in case it goes unnoticed" thought-post.

I think a big set-backs for the model you propose are going to be:

[hider=Agreeing Definitions]RPing means different things to different people. When I tried to explain RPing to Jig's Very Patient Partner, I sort of fudged together the phrase "Community storytelling in traditional prose format" with the qualifier that each player is typically tied to their own character's/characters' actions. This looks very different to

You said Roleplay - (verb) the act of simulating the thoughts, behavior and actions of a character to interact with other characters and a setting*

and while a typical RP fulfils both of these criteria, having core definitions as you suggest (not a bad idea in principle by any means) to work off relies on those core definitions being foolproof. If I approach submitting content, which will inevitably be based on what I perceive RPing to be in my own specific way, and try to apply models to a definition that I don't necessarily feel is the most relevant or specific to that model, the application is going to feel laboured at best and potentially incomprehensible at worst. This isn't an impossible challenge, but it is a challenge nonetheless. At the same time, editorial rights are surely going to have to be restricted to those people that understand and accept the given definitions, to avoid the above problem, potentially reducing the overall community input through vetting people.

* obviously this example isn't perfect, because you're defining a verb and I, a noun, but hopefully you take my point.[/hider]

Ivory Towers

There is also the risk of over-complicating things. Bombarding a newbie with terminology and complex and precise examples and (literally) textbook jargon runs the risk of alienating them; I remember jamming with some people on the bass, and I asked for the chord structure and when they said words to the effect of "It's twelve-bar blues in A minor" or "It's just playing the root, the fifth and the seventh" I was dumbfounded and just wanted them to tell me what the bloody root notes of the chords were so I could work out where it corresponded on my strings.

Tl; dr - Being too academic runs the risk of making the guide an academic project rather than a useful one.

Individualism and Ownership

I've already touched on this, but people are different, and they will perceive different concepts in different ways and have different approaches. At what point is a given approach considered too radically different to be 'noteworthy' (to use Wiki's phrase)? To what point is an opinion that godmoding and power-playing are totally fine and should be encouraged given space in the guide? After all, it's simply (almost universal) opinion that says those practises are wrong in the first place.

At the same time, in those 'opinion-and-theory' sections (as opposed to the factual ones where we can hopefully reach a sterilised agreement - see above), I'm not sure at what point 'creative rights' kick in. Suppose (and this is an example that may be relevant), I propose a theory on a way of producing a collaborative post with reasons for and examples of and basically I work my bollocks off on it. I can easily imagine offence being caused to somebody embarking on a sort of 'pet specialism submission' if the team working behind the guide either makes editorial changes (either to content or presentation) for better or worse, or if that particular submission is swallowed into the Guide and the original author of that material goes uncredited. Can that material then be taken down if the original author wants to throw a hissy fit and be spiteful? There is an element of pride in producing work, whether it be academic or artistic, and nobody wants to feel like they've been plagiarised or have their work compromised.

Again, not an insurmountable obstacle, but it might be worth forming something almost like a contract clearly laying out what happens to submissions and editorial changes once they've been submitted. That way, there can't be any arguments later if there's a dispute over content.

"If you submit work to this project, you agree that it may be used without your permission and Jig gets the kidney of your first-born."

I'm reminded of a fault with TV Tropes, where each page is supposed to feel as though it's written by one almighty Tropelord, which makes sense for convention of presentation and readability, but comes with the downfall that 'opinion' is typically crushed. If written by 'one' community, what space is there for different interpretations of application of Tropes, or, in the context of this guide, the application of models and ideas.

Sub-type Overlap

From your recent post, you might think that RPs come in a small variety of neat, discrete types and each one can be nicely bottled-up and labelled. I'd be surprised if you agree.

While things like built game engines, PbP and LARPs might all be easily distinct, the concept of a system typically runs through each of them. While not necessarily detailed or even stated, PbP RPs do have conventions that you might consider a 'system' for the effective and enjoyable running of the game:

• Prose convention - typically written in 3rd person past historic so it reads fluidly


• Courtesy rules - no godmoding or powerplaying


• Write in a communal language - usually English


• GM authority

In specific PbP's, the system might be more or less obvious and might be more or less obvious through reading a page of IC. In a given conflict between two players, how has it been decided who wins? The most effective story-telling and meta-gaming wits of the player? The natural conclusion of a given circumstance with each character played perfectly appropriately to their personality, skillset and situation (as if!)? Has the GM swept in and decided? Flipping a coin?

Similarly, when I create a collaborative post (usually for the purposes of a well-integrated dialogue within a post without godmoding), this is typically done over an IM or Google Drive, so both players can discuss simultaneously and sort of Pre-LARP the scene before it is written up as a 'formal' post.

Any and all of these things can constitute a system, but none of them are strictly speaking necessary. My point here is that basically it might be easy to blur lines within the guide and outside it - hence the next challenge.

Pre-Guide Definitions!

Already I've come across several terms whose definitions I've challenged or asked for. Just as the guide and the audience need to be on the same page, so does the team behind this from almost the word go.

(Incidentally, this post will assume 'subtype' refers to different structures RPs can take, be they MMO, PbP, LARP, etc - a definition to subtype would be helpful for the purpose of this discussion. Also, if I don't otherwise specify, assume I'm talking about PbP RPs since I don't really have much concept of others)