+- Ruins of Wildwood (https://relic-lore.net)
+-- Forum: Members' Area (https://relic-lore.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: The Genius Bar (https://relic-lore.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+---- Forum: News Desk (https://relic-lore.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+---- Thread: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes (/showthread.php?tid=15660)
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Castel - Sep 04, 2017
- Removing the 2 week waiting period: Honestly, I have no strong opinion on this one. Personally, I am a person who gets swept up in ideas and random muse, so I know that I have a tendency to bring in characters and regret it. Therefore, I understand why the rule is there in the first place. Now that I am more aware of how the site works, I would know not to bring in characters every other day or whatever. I can see how the two-week rule is helpful for newer members, but maybe you can take it away after the account has been active for however many months?
- Removing the 200 word minimum for posts: I dislike having to count words, but I don't think that removing the rule would be a good idea. As some others have stated before, I think it might lead to one/two line posts. It's not very hard to get a decent-length post out, and 200 words isn't really that much. Maybe if you left it at 200 words with some leniency involved, so that the site itself is more relaxed. Make sure that people know the minimum is around 200 words.
- Removing the restriction on puppies not being able to survive on their own before 8 months of age: I have very little opinion on this one. I don't think it would change much about the site, to be honest with you guys.
- Removing the rule that a pack must have two leaders of the opposite gender: Please. This has been in my head since I joined RoW back in January - I think it would be an excellent idea. The arguments about it being unrealistic are valid, but RoW is about wolves who talk to one another, have forbidden romances, can be LGBTQ, are sarcastic, etc., etc., etc. I would love a pack with same-gender alphas.
- Level of Knowledge about Relic Lore: No, I don't think it's a good idea for the characters to know about Relic Lore if they have not been/if they don't have wolves in their life who could have told them about it.
- Gray area with powerplaying rules: If someone gives expressed permission in each situation for someone to PP their wolf, then it should be alright. However, I don't think it would be right otherwise.
- Thread Completeness: I think a complete thread should just be when the people who are threading together decide it should end, and archive it there. I enjoy the 10-post rule.
- PG 13 Rules: I don't think that you can have a precise definition for this, because there are so many opinions and viewpoints that there just isn't a good rule for it. I think that the players here do a good enough job of deciding what is/isn't okay.
- Wolf Subspecies: I'm all for more subspecies. Bring on the woofs!
- Characters based on fictional works: I think it's fine to base a character off of a fictional work. There are places where it could cross the line, but there's nothing wrong with drawing inspiration from other places. In a creative writing place like RoW, the users aren't profiting from these characters, so it wouldn't be making any money from it anyway. Not to mention the fact that these are wolves, and that they cannot have the same history/appearance/etc. as a human character.
Other Changes
- Remove Negative LP Docks: Please remove the negative LP docks ;.;
- Remove free pass system: Only if you remove the two-week waiting period.
- Removing unnecessary fields from character profiles: I think you can keep them. I like the height/weight/length, etc. on the profiles - it gives me a better idea of the appearance of the wolf.
- Library Updates: Updates are life. Please do <3
All-in-all, I really like the way the site is run, but I do agree with several of these changes, and disagree with others. Thank you for taking us into consideration.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Odin - Sep 04, 2017
I am fine with all of this. As for PG, we have M tags - people just need to remember to use them. I'm unsure on the question of thread completeness? Are we talking about whether things that happened in dead threads may or may not have happened, or the way people wrap threads up? Because I don't have a problem with the way either things are done currently. I agree that we should be able to have leaders of the same gender. As for level of knowledge, on the location? Not a huge deal knowing RL exists but as for knowing people in game already and where they are I think that needs to be discussed with the people involved? I seem to remember there was a character whose relatives may have known of Tainns? I mean we've had enough characters travel on and off site but if someone I never met suddenly knew all about my character I'd be squinting, so as long as it's kept vague and the person impacted is ok with it.
I would generally like to see things relaxed around the way pack leaders do things as well, it used to be enjoyable and mostly self-managed but recently it's become a total chore and a bit like walking on eggshells (a big factor behind stepping down twice this year). Things like having rank titles dictated (why can't we have a little wiggle room with what we name ranks within our own packs to build a little culture for each? we have a pack guide where we can clarify what each title fits under as far as demonstrating skills clarification goes and it could remain under a standard title for LP claiming without matching what the word on the roster is) and restrictions on adding people to the roster because (x, y, z reason that has 0 impact in the long run other than perhaps resulting in another post in the OoC join board or a few days difference in when someone is added or removed). I agree the thread should reach a point where the outcome is obvious, but life happens and stretching that interaction to 10 posts just to claim LP shouldn't impact the ability of a new joiner to move on and have threads with their new pack mates. You generally have a fair idea of whether someone is going to be a fit or not and with more chaotic characters, I don't think you'd reach that point until around the 10 post mark anyway. The limbo kills me, and I've let characters drop simply because I was waiting to see what the outcome may or may not be - but didn't want to do an OoC join because I also wasn't certain of how my character would gel with a pack.
Removing the negative docks would be a big help for everyone and allow for more organic character development, nobody wants to see puppies die but I'd also like to keep the height/weight fields, simply to avoid what we had before where every big wolf was bigger than everyone else, even other big wolves, but instead perhaps, make it an optional field rather than one that has to be filled in. The grey area on power-playing, I like having my casual power-playing threads where I can say "It's ok to say my character has been doing x, y and z," and I haven't had any issues with people abusing that, it's usually just a casual mention anyway. Wolf subspecies is a bit more touchy, I think we have a good range already but as long as there's a realistic explanation as to how the wolf got here, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I wouldn't be ok with maned wolves suddenly popping up or Eurasian wolves just walking across water to get here but if they can handle the temps.
I joined in what? 2012? and I'll admit, I want to be able to read other peoples threads again but at the moment, outside of my own threads I'm having trouble even logging in. Even I'm worrying about what the next big non-issue is going to be each day. I can't even imagine how draining it must be on you guys. This is your place to come and chill out too and I'm all for simplifying things so you can get back to enjoying your characters and away from having to deal with things that, really in the scheme of things aren't a huge deal.
I have to run to an appointment now, you know me. If I think of more I'll edit it in when I get back.
Oh, fictional works - it's ok to be inspired but you need to have your own twist on it.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Kerberos - Sep 04, 2017
Tried to squeeze in my thoughts on each topic here. Will edit if anything else strikes me.
-----
Removing the 2 week waiting period for bringing in new characters: I am neither for or against this. I completely understand why the rule is there and it makes for a good buffer so that all the plot bunny characters aren't running rampant. Then again, a player should be able to manage themselves on what's too much for them.
Removing the 200 word minimum for posts: I'm personally for removing it. I understand that people have concerns about one or two liners appearing but I trust that our community can easily write above a simple sentence and give players enough to respond to. Could just keep it 200 minimum for your first character application? Just to try and waiver any concern about someone getting flooded with one-liners. I also trust everyone on RoW to not be offended or get upset if someone asks them to give them just a bit more to work with.
Removing the restriction on puppies not being able to survive on their own before 8 months of age: I don't have strong feelings on this. Taking it away might be more helpful for those who have real life issues to deal with but want to still play the pup, because if you applied and accepted the pup then the player has interest in them.
Removing the rule that a pack must have two leaders of the opposite gender: While the idea sounds exciting and rather interesting, I'm unsure how it would actually work if implemented which leaves me feeling a bit iffy on the idea.
Level of Knowledge about Relic Lore: If your character has relations to someone who has been to Relic Lore before then perhaps it's okay to know a bit about the land. Your wolf in no way should know absolutely everything without being here themselves, in my opinion. But if your wolf has no relations to any pre-existing Relic Lore wolves they shouldn't know about where they are. Adds to the excitement of learning about the place and its rich history too.
Gray area with powerplaying rules: Have permission from the player of the wolf you're PPing. Obviously, don't go wild with them saying "oh yes Wolf A would do that with Wolf B" (or something along the lines of "yes that's okay). Be respectful. Be mindful.
Thread Completeness: When a thread is complete (whether it hits 10 posts or not) I think of it as either 1.) Having all wolves have posted an exit or 2.) It has been faded out.
PG 13 Rules: Mature tags and trigger warnings can be extremely helpful. I think overall the content should remain PG-13 but if you and whoever you're writing with are okay with strong language or some slight graphic writing then you should perhaps just give a warning to those of us who are going to read. What might upset Person A might not upset Person B. Even if the thread as a whole isn't Mature perhaps just a disclaimer at the top of the posting indicating what might be mature about it. (language, sensitive topics, etc.)
Wolf Subspecies: I don't have any strong opinions one way or another.
Characters based on fictional works: Inspiration strikes everywhere. I think it's okay to have characters based off of fictional works. I think this being a wolf site and having so many other influences through other characters, it's unlikely that a character in Relic Lore can word for word be a popular fictional character.
Remove Negative LP Docks: I am all for removing negative LP docks. A character's LP count shouldn't be lowered because they go through a negative character development.
Remove free pass system: If the two weeks go, then this should go also. Of course, talk with your writing partners and yourself if you can't handle a certain character. Muse can be fickle and I think most (if not all) of us here can understand and sympathize that.
Removing unnecessary fields from character profiles: Den Location can easily be removed since it doesn't seem to get too much use. I personally enjoy having the weight, length, height fields - just for comparison and an idea on size relations.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Sahalie - Sep 04, 2017
Well, given that me and Shadow talked about all these it's probably pretty clear on where I stand on some of these things, but I wanted to offer my opinion/insight into some of these and also propose some of my own
In no particular order:
1. I don't think removing the word count minimum would lead to an immediate or eventual degradation of post quality. Right now there's nothing but politeness motivating people to match their partner's length, and I would definitely prefer to keep it that way. There have been a number of times I'd rather have a response in two weeks that was short than a month to have something that had the same word count. And really for the most part we're all old enough and mature enough to know what a good post length is for a given situation. There are other members that might not, but they learn eventually. We've all been there. And these days we are pretty good at turning away those that we do not feel would meet the quality standards of RoW. So I don't really think there would be any people constantly posting two liners. Some people might be more inclined to do it than other people, or might do it to spree out a thread, but if that makes them happy then so be it. Similar to what Chelsie said, a short post can be of much higher quality than some longer posts. Or maybe that's just a matter of different tastes. I know I'm a pretty succinct writer. But in the end, I believe all our existing members would pretty much continue writing as normal.
Another reason no one has touched upon, probably because this is a staff perspective, it that it would make it so much easier to reward LP because we wouldn't have to squint at anyone's posts. We could just count 1-10 and then be done with it.
2. Speaking of awarding LP and "complete" threads, there's a particular reason that this is a question mark here. While a lot of you might think it's simple and it's just "the end" or "when there's a fade," some people don't always write fade. Some people just sort of end a conversation, but no one walks away or leaves. While in some instances it's easy to imagine the movie cinematics and someone yelling cut at the end or something, sometimes when you're not actively reading or you're not "in the moment" you just get to the end of the thread and it feels like things just....cut off suddenly. In those instances, it doesn't feel like a "finished" thread. Should we require all those people to put "fade" at the end? I personally never write "fade" cause... Idunno, personal preference I just don't. It feels weird to me. So I wouldn't really want to require that of people. All I'm trying to say is it's certainly not as black and white as it seems.
3. Regarding not killing puppies, and also a larger point I feel needs to be made: I don't want the staff to be the "bad guy" anymore. A lot of times it feels like we have to tell people no, which, I know, as the people that make and maintain the rules we do have to stop people from time to time, but sometimes --i.e. puppies-- this really just gets in the way of peoples fun. We enforce realism, but at what cost? I've had puppies killed off while I was gone and I've come back and been really upset. When you have to leave for real life reasons and then have to worry about the extra burden of "what if I'm killing a pup and making things hard on the parents and other people" you just feel worse. I guess what I'm suggesting is technically passing the ugly duty of puppy killing onto the parents, if they so choose, but I think at least this would mean at least the parents--if they were too busy, themselves--wouldn't also have to feel guilty if they caused their puppy to die. I just think that we should let players behave as they wish. If they want to keep their puppy alive, then sure. Already people can basically do plot gymnastics to keep puppies alive by sending them away with an adult or retroactively saying "this adult went after them" when a pup suddenly disappears. Why not just give them total control?
4. Same sex leaders. I proposed this not so much so that 2 female leaders in a mix gendered pack scenario could play out -- because that sounds awfully complicated. I intended this more as "if one leader drops and theres no other available character to lead we don't cull your pack." Sometimes packs just don't need another leader. I do think, in cases where there are just no other members of the opposite sex around then yeah, sure, two female leaders or whatever. I'm not saying I'm against two same sex leaders in a mixed gender pack, but I'm definitely saying I don't have a proposed solution to that mess. There would be a lot of coding involved in solving this issue.
5. Level of knowledge about Relic Lore: this one wasn't really such a big thing. But we did have a person that joined, brand new, having already read tons of threads and all of our history. They wanted a character to have history/roots in pre-relic lore. We let them, because they seemed so well versed. I can't really imagine this happening again, but it's a thought experiment. Plus, some wolves come in and they seem to "know" names of places without going out and learning them anywhere --I suppose this goes for established characters exploring new places too. Idunno it's just a weird sort of continuity thing to me. Not really a huge deal as it's just been sort of a thing I actively ignored.
6. Wolf subspecies: I don't think we'd ever let Ethiopian wolves --lol--since technically I think they're not even wolves? But maybe I could see letting in something as far fetched as a Eurasian wolf if someone had a realistic backstory for it. We have wolves that know languages not native to this continent, so why not the wolves themselves? Granted, languages travel easier than physical bodies, but at the same time it brings about the question where the wovles are learning the languages from. Humans?
7. Removing unnecessary fields from character profiles: the main reason for them being removed is mostly new people. They often times cite being completely overwhelmed. And, as someone who is pretty bad at math myself, often times I'm just making up numbers without regards to what they mean. A lot of wolves--trust me, I've done the stats 3-4 times over already--just set their height as the max height. I think, actually, that having concrete numbers has encouraged a sort of height/weight/size creep over time. I would much rather, as someone suggested, put in a build type like "sickly/lanky/hefty" whatnot.
And as to the den site, I've seen people tell me that they thought their wolf had to come into Relic Lore through Stonewatch Timbers --the default densite--and honestly I think this has contributed to the dearth of wolves on the east side of the map. You can try to say that it has more to do with activity, but I also think that's a self fulfilling prophecy. If more wolves start in the north, stay in the north, etc then of course there's going to be more activity. And for quite awhile I was very active on the east side and only succeeded a little in drawing people over there. Because people only rarely started their wolves on the east side. And then there's all the other reasons people mentioned: it's redundant if it's a pack wolf, or people never update it, or wolves don't actually make 'dens.' All of these, to me, seem like pretty good reasons for removing the field. It's one less thing to ask of new people who might struggle to find the map. It's easy when you know it, but it's a gargantuan task when you don't.
8. In response to Becu about giving leaders complete control over their role system. I mean, if we did that, then I'd want to remove the article about the different roles, the system we created, and maybe even the LP attached to roles themselves. It just wouldn't make sense if a pack had, say, all the traditional roles and then one extra, or less roles. It would be awkward to have a bunch of different translations, so to speak, for each role. I would rather just hand over the reins entirely and not leave anything on the staff/policy sides of things to moderate, watch, or whatever. I still don't think I would allow "lead" roles though, since that in the few times I saw it actually messed up the hierarchy... though maybe I'm being overdramatic. I guess IC there were/are/could bea wolf that was more knowledgeable about hunting that even a leader would defer to them, or a wolf above them on the hierarchy. I don't think, though, that we'd allow you to place a wolf wherever you wanted in the hierarchy upon accepting them if that's also something you were looking for. Just because that would disrupt something in the core of RoW that I truly enjoy: that everyone has to work IC rewards.
.... I was going to propose some wilder things but right now I've typed so much and I'm tired, so I'll make another post at a later date.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Odin - Sep 05, 2017
I agree that wolves should still be added to the bottom of the roster/over yearlings, but I would support getting rid of role lp and going back to something more freeform than they have become. I literally don't care if pack A has a teacher labelled as a storyteller because they teach through stories. I don't care if you make joiners go off and do an additional test before accepting or if you are a leader and recruit off territory then take the person home. It's your party and really has little impact on me at all, or the flow of the game in general.
The only flow on effect may be the requirements for pack creation but there are plenty of other ways to claim skill lp outside of 10 demonstrating threads.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Eskil - Sep 05, 2017
Removing 2 week waiting period:
Get rid of it. If one person is going nuts with making and dropping characters, that person should be talked to. I don't see a need for a rule restricting people who can behave themselves.
Removing word minimum:
Personally I would like the wordcount removed. I don't think word counts guarentee posts will be good, I personally have written my share of 250 word piles of introspective garbage just to meet the word count. And let me state on the record that I hate post matching. I'm just at the point where I just want to write the amount I have the motivation for, however little that is, and I've considered moving on to a wordcountless site just to get my low stakes writing fix. But, I don't think RoW nessicarily needs to be all things for all people and wordcount vs no wordcount is a matter of taste and I have different tastes now than when I joined way back when.
Removing the restriction on puppies not being able to survive on their own before 8 months of age:
Yes. It's stressful and sad.
Removing the rule that a pack must have two leaders of the opposite gender:
Yeah I like this one, if someone wants to and is able to run a pack as 1 leader then go for it. As far as same sex pack leaders, I know on the backend it'd be impossible to do and realistically one wolf would be even slightly more dominant but... Maybe we could bring back the Second (or Beta) role and use that as like, second leader? Like they can do stuff like accept members and lead pack events and all the leadery stuff kinda thing without actually being both 1 on the roster.
Level of Knowledge about Relic Lore
I'm ok with newbies having base knowledge (there is a place called Relic Lore, or what the locations are called) but not OK with newbies automatically knowing plots and characters unless there is an IC reason they should know.
Gray area with powerplaying rules
I think powerplaying with consent is OK (I.e. somebody says its okay to assume their wolf is doing such and such)
Thread Completeness
Maybe just dumb it down to 3 posts per character in a thread? I think having to put fade or whatever is kinda silly.
PG 13 Rules
Could we get like, a Mature tag or something? Like where you can pick AW or Join so its easier for people to remember to tag?
Wolf Subspecies:
Maybe just state that north american subspecies of wolf are allowed? I think a european wolf is a stretch.
Characters based on fictional works:
I don't think this is worth policing at all. If someone wants to play Hodor-wolf, let em at it. (Like how is staff gonna know if someone makes a carbon copy character but its from some franchise they aren't familiar with?)
Remove Negative LP Docks:
Yes remove them
Remove free pass system:
See thoughts above on 2 week waiting period.
Removing unnecessary fields from character profiles:
Get rid of den location. I have mixed feelings on the height/weight feild because on one hand everyone just picks random numbers, but on the other hand at least it forces people to stick to the random numbers they picked.
Other thoughts:
I feel like a lot of the LP stuff could be simplified or streamlined (Why does demonstrating a pack role needs 12 posts but everything else needs 10? and recruit a pack member needs 5 posts of recruiting or that and fight threads need 6 posts of fighting (from both chars or one??)). Just a lot of inconsistent stuff. I dunno, I feel like we could be more easy going with handing out LP rather than making it stricter, and it would make it easier on the staff too if they didn't have to finely comb every thread and make sure Fred was actively hunting for 8 posts. *throws points everywhere*
I'd also like the free-form roles or if it were easier to get pack roles like it was way back when, just cuz I thought it was fun when packs had actual healers and guardians and stuff instead of like, 4 wolves training to be healers. I think the guide in the library about the different sub-roles is just a bit much, and most people don't even make it to the first tier, let alone everything after. Like I dunno if a pack wants to call their guardians "Knight"s or wants to have a Botanist or a titled Pup Sitter or something I think that's would be fun.
I'd just like if things were easier and more laid back in general.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Aideen - Sep 05, 2017
I agree with a lot of what has already been said, especially in the areas where there seems to be broad agreement (profile fields, character activation, puppies etc.) So I'm gonna try and just stick to the areas where I feel like I'm adding something:
Word count is a tricky subject: on one hand I don't want people to feel pressured or impaired in their writing, by having to reach a certain number - sometimes a post is just "finished" before the 200, and I can definitely see the point of people feeling discouraged by it. On the other hand I have the same concerns as raised by others, RoW is about writing, and I don't want it to turn into one sentence back and forth. Now I think most people understand that, and are interested in doing longer posts, so it probably wouldn't be a big issue, but still, I'm against removing the word count completely. It might seem fine to go for “post matching” or whatever, but if we’re aiming to make the rules more simple and straight forwards, I think it’s best to just have a number, whether it’s 100 or what.
Powerplaying is another one that’s difficult to define. I like the opportunity to have “assumed interactions” and the likes, especially within packs where wolves associate daily, but not every interaction is, or can be, played out. At the same time there are rules against powerplaying for a reason, and it should be clear, especially to new people, what is and isn’t okay. Clear consent should be given in all cases, and it needs to be easy and un-intimidating for players to approach others, or staff if necessary, about plays they didn’t condone.
Thread completeness feels like a none issue to me, as long as all participants agree that a thread is finished, that’s good enough for me. Policing in this area is just extra work for staff.
Mature contend, as others have mentioned, is hard because it differs so much what people find offensive. I like the idea of an official M tag, as well as staying firm on our existing rules about explicit sexual content.
Subspecies, I don’t have any strong feelings about. As long as they’re proper wolves (Canis Lupus x) and there’s a good explanation of how they got to RL, I’m fine with it. Though I would like to keep the rule of no domestic blood.
Fiction based characters is another place where I just don’t think it’s worth the effort to police. We’ve only had few incidents of complete copies, on the other hand there have been many characters drawing, to different degrees, on other works. Someone from a more obscure franchise can always slip through, and it’s just too much of a hassle. I say let people draw inspiration as they wish.
I say yes to removing LP docks, they really have no positive effect in my opinion, and it’s kinda messy because LP is more of a reflection on character development than health, so docking loners is nonsensical. Put a limit on health (like with pups) instead. This would also help to really simplify the LP system.
Pack rankings is the big one. I agree with Becu and Kydnt, that we should loosen up our pack policies. The one male + one female leader rule came from a good place in realism, but I think it has outstayed its welcome, and we should open up for people having different command structures - If you only have members of one gender, then fine, if you can make it work then that’s great!
As I see it, we don’t necessarily have to change the way the rosters work, keep ranking members down the list and let them work up, but give the pack leaders/members more freedom to handle the specifics the way they want - whether that’s one leader packs, or something more communal; Or whatever else someone might think of.
And honestly, I’m for abolishing the pack role system. It’s so much work for little reward and has lead to less people pursuing and getting roles. Let leaders distribute how they see fit, remove the LP for gaining roles and change the role guide to be less defined and more of a suggestive guide to most common roles. Or abolish it completely.
Again I think this could do a bunch to take work away from staff and freeing up the game for the players.
Otherwise, I agree with Kydnt on equaling out the LP rules, make everything 10 posts or something, just, put the same requirements on everything to make it simpler.
That’s all for now, we’ll see if I think of something more.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Askan - Sep 05, 2017
It's me again, I've slept, ate and don't feel like I'mma pass out so here I go:
WC
The topic of the WC- really seems to be a point of contention with people, which is understandable really. Though I doubt people will resort to doing one or two sentence posts, I still think people should play it by ear. If people are looking for a quick, rapid response thread then shorter posts are to be expected. (e.g saron and namir robbing folk blind).
And so on so forth, rather than staff having to worry about policing post length, let the roleplayers talk it out and let each other know what they're looking for, or what they expect of the thread? Only if there is a problem, say with miscommunication should staff step in to help out? That said, we're all mature folk here, so I don't think it'll come to that very often, but it's a good option to have anywho.
8+ month old pups
Like Namara suggested I'd like it if pups of this age could enter the site under specific circumstances. Such as, their parents (primarily their mother) must have already been to the lore, and in turn have a good reason to bring her pups there. And two, they must have adult supervision to enter the lore. Whilst they are nearly yearlings, they're not quite there yet. And so, it'd seem like an adult throwing a pre-teen out into the world and expecting them to get by just fine.
Fields in character profiles
I really like the idea of there being set adverbs to describe your wolf with rather than numbers. Numbers are-at a glance- helpful to differentiate between wolf sizes and such, but it's hard to visual what they really look like. And as others have mentioned often random numbers are picked and not even really considered.
Pack rankings and structure
I think at a first glance, with their history, location and so on so forth, packs appear to be far more varied than they actually are. I'd like it if somehow leaders were granted more freedom to construct/adjust the nature of their pack. Be it titles, roles- gender and otherwise. Culturally they should be different, as the packs consist of wolves from all different walks of life, but really they all seem pretty samey.
In doing so, I think these changes would encourage leaders to take a more active approach in governing their pack and would allow them to explore what sort of regime their characters would run, and this might in turn effect pack relations as a whole? Who knows?
Whilst it not be entirely accurate, I do like the idea of two male/ female leaders. As it would most certainly affect the culture or feel of the pack. That said I'm not entirely sure how it would work out. Maybe these two wolves could come to an agreement as to who is the leader leader, whilst the other has the came duties and powers without the title, or maybe the pack could come up with a suitable title on their own?
Subspecies
For the sake of simplicity I think it would be best to only allow american subspecies to join, who can realistically survive in the climate of ROW.
Fictional characters
I think it's fine to be inspired by a fictional character, or to loosely base them around one, but an exact replica seems a little much to me. Too gimmicky. This is a creative writing site, is it unfair to ask for a little creativity when it comes to making a character?
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Anastasia - Sep 05, 2017
If I can think of more to say/add on, I'll edit this post but for now I just want to weigh in on one in particular. It's been so long since I've been a long-term member that I'd have to read up on all of these changes that have been made since my most permanent residence here!)
- I'd like to see the minimum word count reduced or taken out, honestly. That is probably my biggest ... reason as to why I've been super flakey in the past couple years. I've always done posts that are readable and, to be knowledge, the other person can easily RP around it/with it so when I have to copy/paste my post into word to check how many words it has, it almost discourages me because I feel like by forcing myself to write a few extra sentences that my post becomes less presentable and more jumbled (most of this opinion has already been stated by Chelsie!). I end up repeating myself, I feel.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Lana - Sep 07, 2017
I'm all for removing the two week rule, and the post minimum. If someone has an issue with a roleplayer not matching/writing enough then they don't have to roleplay with them. I think that's better than someone endlessly writing words like 'very' xD
All for removing restictions on puppies. It's so confusing. Especially the limbo of having two weeks before the activity check, and then the parents scrambling to find someone else to play it.
All for removing the two opposite gendered leaders as well. I know that this is a semi-realistic roleplay, but once we give these characters brains, and circumstances, I feel like it sometimes would make more sense. At least in our little RoW world LOL
I feel like this is going to be a good thing guys! I'm sure that all of these rules and this confusion puts a lot of strain on the staff's ability to post/actually have fun here.