+- 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 - Lachesis - Sep 08, 2017
Removing the 2 week waiting period for bringing in new characters: I think this could be a good thing, just because whether there is a 2 week waiting period or not, the excitement of a new character could wear off regardless. If people think they can handle more than 2+ characters then let 'em. And if they drop them then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Removing the 200 word minimum for posts: I wouldn't be opposed to see a 100 word minimum for posts, as I still feel like there needs to be some sort of substance to the reply. I liked RoW because of the 200 word min, as I do enjoy reading the replies and, essentially, telling a story in my own. However, sometimes it is difficult to pump out 200 words. But I feel like there still needs to be a minimum, as a reply shouldn't just be a few sentences. I do feel like the courtesy of "post-matching" should also come into play if the word minimum decreases, as if someone is writing a 200+ word response, they deserve more than a handful of sentences.
Removing the restriction on puppies not being able to survive on their own before 8 months of age: Yes.
Removing the rule that a pack must have two leaders of the opposite gender: I agree with this, but I would also like to suggest the possibility of only having one leader if this comes into play. Realistically, it is not always a mated pair that leads the pack, as it can be an individual wolf. This could be interesting gameplay, as well.
Level of Knowledge about Relic Lore: I would assume that most wolves who arrive in Relic Lore are aware of the lands prior, as it would not make sense for them to be completely unaware of a large space of BC wilderness. So I think yes, a character could know details about RL without having been there/knowing a character who has.
Gray area with powerplaying rules: I agree with @Aideen -- I like the idea of assumed interactions in the pack threads (as most wolves follow the same duties/patrols). Aside from pack-related PP-ing, consent should always be given.
Thread Completeness: I think as long as both parties agree the thread is over (with a fade or exit) then it's completed. Otherwise it just makes more work for the staff!
PG 13 Rules: Perhaps there's a way to make a mature warning more prominent? Like having a tag beside the thread (I remember another forum doing this in the past), that way people can avoid certain threads if they would like to. I don't have a problem with cursing in posts myself, but if others don't want to read it there should be clear warning labels in the posts (same goes for TW).
Wolf Subspecies: I would like to see some more added, personally.
Characters based on fictional works: I say no. I think the idea of having a character loosely based on a fictional character is okay, but a complete replica seems to take away from the creativity process.
Remove Negative LP Docks: I know it would be tedious for you to remove the docks from profiles, but I think removing the docks is a good idea. Some loners are capable of surviving without a pack (especially when they join forces), and I feel like sometimes it makes new members to RoW feel as though they're forced to pick a pack without exploring RL and seeing which pack bests suits them (which can lead to them leaving the first chosen pack).
Remove free pass system: I'm on the fence about this. I want to say no, because if a character goes inactive while the others remain active it's obviously for a reason.
Removing unnecessary fields from character profiles: Honestly I like all of the fields :x I do feel like den location is the most unnecessary, but I do like the other fields.
I also agree with Kydnt here:
Quote: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.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Aleksei - Sep 09, 2017
Sorry for my late opinions on these! I won’t cover all of them because it’s a bit difficult.
Removing the 2 week waiting period for bringing in new characters.
I don’t mind either way—I’ve always struggled juggling lots of characters personally, so it’s never been a rule that’s really affected me. Perhaps make it a sort of “soft ban” instead, in cases where a player consistently brings in new characters only to let them fall inactive frequently.
Removing the 200 word minimum for posts.
I personally strongly object to removing the minimum word requirement. 200 words is not a lot. I don’t really like the idea of seeing two liners in threads. Perhaps, in pack threads, the limit could be dropped to 100 at minimum, but to do away with the rule completely seems really off putting.
Removing the restriction of puppies not being able to survive on their own before 8 months.
Parents should be able to take back their puppies. If someone goes inactive with a puppy, there should definitely be a time frame in which they can be readopted, but I wouldn’t want that to be an unlimited period.
Removing the rule that a pack must have two leaders of the opposite gender.
It’s a difficult thing to approach. From a technical standpoint, I can’t really figure out a way to display it that would make it work. Sure, the option to allow two male leaders (or female leaders) would be wonderful, but something about it makes me uneasy. I adore characters that strive for representation of non-hetero sexualities, but something has been irking me for a while. I’ll take the time to explain, and apologise for derailing the point.
As an LGBT+ person, I have, in the past and present, felt uncomfortable with how gay characters and relationships have been portrayed on-site. It almost feels like it’s been treated as a fad. There’s a fine line between allowing room for more identities and it becoming a “fashionable, cool thing”, and people have crossed that line and are crossing that line. People should never, ever write characters as having the personality type of “gay”. It’s extremely frustrating to see! I will apologise if this comes off as strongly worded, or maybe even mean, but it’s seriously something that upsets me; please, if you’re going to write a queer character, do so with respect. Don’t make it what defines your character. We aren’t “uwu adorable”. We’re people. Your characters should reflect that.
Level of knowledge about Relic Lore.
Personally, I don’t see how it’d make sense. News is spread by word of mouth, and unless the site allows NPCs to hang around the fringes of the site’s established territories, I don’t see how information would get to wolves in other regions.
Gray area with powerplaying rules.
I feel it should be entirely up to individual players—if you write a character, it should be entirely within your hands as to what is and isn’t powerplayed.
Wolf subspecies.
As long as the wolf species can be found in Canada/North America, I don’t see why we couldn’t allow more.
Removing negative LP docks.
I can see the lone wolf dock being fine, however I think the punishment for leaving a pack is far too high. 100LP is a lot, and being unable to fully explore your character’s feelings towards decisions because you’re worried about losing too much LP is a real let down.
Removing unnecessary fields from character profiles.
I love that they’re there, and I’d be sad to see them go, honestly.
Library updates.
Pleeeeeease and thank you.
As another topic of my own that I’d like to bring up … mandatory updating of profiles? I’ve seen far too many profiles that are left with outdated information (especially adopted puppies) so having set dates to spruce it up with information would be super duper appreciated.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Adelayde - Sep 12, 2017
Removing the 2 week waiting period for bringing in new characters.
I say do away with this. If someone can handle 2+ character, then so be it. This would lighten up the load on staff from having to patrol this.
Removing the 200 word minimum for posts.
I'd rather not see the minimum word count to be entirely thrown out. I can agree it is taxing sometimes when you have a quality short post and have to throw in unnecessary fluff in order to make the post count. I don't see anyone here currently to suddenly start only responding with one/two sentence replies if the word count was removed, but I do fear that if it was removed, our standard of what we expect that we have upheld for so long, would disappear. Perhaps, keep the 200 word minimum for joining threads, then lowered to 100 after accepted? We can generally weed out those we don't think would be a good fit by their join thread.
Removing the restriction of puppies not being able to survive on their own before 8 months.
Yes
Removing the rule that a pack must have two leaders of the opposite gender.
Technically, I know how hard this would be to accomplish within the site code and I couldn't even grasp how this could be accomplished at all with the way we currently have everything set up. However, it would be a breath of fresh air. This would create such an opportunity for a much larger pool of diversity within the packs and especially on this site, I think it would be well received.
Level of knowledge about Relic Lore.
Word travels and many characters travel outside the Lore. I can't see a wolf just plopping inside RoW and having no clue. I don't think anyone should know all the details of what packs reside where or all the names of the territory, etc. I do think there could be some knowledge that RoW exists - to an extent.
Gray area with powerplaying rules.
Should be up to individual players, clearly not everything can be played out especially within pack dynamics, but consent should be given and asked of what should be assumed.
Wolf subspecies.
I agree with @Aleksei
Quote:As long as the wolf species can be found in Canada/North America, I don’t see why we couldn’t allow more.
Removing negative LP docks.
Yes. Though, I do agree on why this was first implicated to deter lone wolves to stay without a pack as it wasn't realistic. But, I think it's outstayed it's welcome. There's always been a large number as lone wolves and I honestly haven't seen much of a change because of this rule.
Removing unnecessary fields from character profiles.
I frequently use the height/weight/length fields in determining size differences. Though, I do see many just cranking them all to the max. Please do away with den location.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Lekalta - Sep 16, 2017
...! Getting to respond to one of these is rather refreshing. :P
- Removing the 2 week waiting period for bringing in new characters: This rule was originally added to prevent players from making a new character whenever a new plot idea hit them and then dropping them once they lost enthusiasm for the idea. In practice, there's nothing stopping somebody from quickly dropping a character and it only leads to more work for the staff in tracking when a player last joined the game with the character.
- I don't see why not. This was one of the more eye twitching tasks. Saying that, it is frustrating to see people take on more characters than they can handle quite often, and then dropping them constantly. But at the end of the day.. if they lose the inspiration to play them, then.. who is anyone to say otherwise? I would say those that abuse this and their characters are removed every check constantly and then reapply should be limited by staff.. but then you end up policing that, and then the grey line is defining when staff interfere, etc.
- Removing the 200 word minimum for posts: This is by far the biggest change we are proposing, and it is a change we very seriously want to consider and discuss because of the impact it could have. Initially, RoW had a word count of 250 which was dropped to 200 a few years ago after members' requested it. At it's heart, the rule exists because RoW is about writing, and we wanted to push people to write well thought out posts. The word count has also served as a barrier to entry - there is a certain standard of writing that we wanted our community to have and word count was one way of achieving that. But we recognize that RoW is a hobby, and sometimes it is hard to write 200 words (especially in large pack threads where your character isn't doing much but listening). Our inclination is to maintain the 200 word count for joining applications, but do away with it in game so players can post as little or as much as they want.
- I would love to see this removed. Like.. YES YES YES PLEASE. I HATE the minimum word count. The method to my own reasoning is likely very different from everyone elses: when I come online to role-play, it's to do something casual and build small stories with people. It's not to embellish my writing skills, or to be taken seriously (and I'm NOT scoffing at those that use it for that, everyone's outlet is different) -- so for me.. the main reason I could not keep up with this place (for years, really) was because in order to sit down and post, I always had to make sure I was at a computer, had a chunk of certain time, and had to count out the words.. rather than just being able to liberally write. To me (as someone also writing novels to publish, also where most of my words and time go.. fingers crossed I start that business officially this year!) -- role-play is casual fun, and the greater the word count does not necessarily equate great quality. In fact.. I can pull dozens of posts from this board that would be hard to reply to, because most of them are a characters own internal bemoanings and thoughts (and therefore not something my character should know or could respond to) and many more that have fillers in them.. my own included. If you look at other sites that do not have a specific word count (such as Wolf, Horizon, etc) they don't have one liners.. in fact, many of their posts are quite rich in content.. and not always large.
I do think keeping it for entry level is wise, however -- because that will show who would be more appropriate for this community upon joining, etc.
- Removing the restriction on puppies not being able to survive on their own before 8 months of age: For those of you who have been a member of RoW during breeding season and the start of puppy season, you know that puppies are a really big deal on the site. Only available once a year, people get incredibly excited about the prospect of playing a new character from birth with family ties to other characters. But we all know the reality of the situation - by the time the pups are actually playable in May/June/July, a lot of that excitement has died off. It is hard to play a character who is realistically limited in what they can and cannot do, and we get that. Right now, the rule is in place to try and prevent puppies from being dropped. But it adds another layer of complexity for staff when conducting activity checks, and more often than not, we are more concerned with a puppy's inactivity than the parents themselves. By removing this rule, we're proposing that puppies are treated like any other character who goes inactive. If parents want to take their inactive puppy back, they need to work that out with the adopter themselves.
- I'm confused by the question -- are staff removing the tracking of puppies going inactive/dead and leaving it to the discretion of the puppies parents, or simply saying that after 8 months, they're done with it? Either way, I think this is fine, though I would like to see it maintained that characters re-joining (or joining the first time) of the game should still be a year?
- Removing the rule that a pack must have two leaders of the opposite gender: This has been a request for years, and has something we've avoided for a few reasons. These are primarily realism and technical concerns. From a technical standpoint, our rank system just doesn't allow two wolves of the same gender to hold the same rank, and from a realism standpoint, wolves of the same gender don't typically display the same level of dominance in the hierarchy (even if they're closely matched, there is usually one who is more dominant). But we're open to changing our stance on this if the community wants us too. The other thing this changes is what to do when a pack doesn't have a viable replacement for an inactive leader, which has happened many times over the game's history.
- Fine with this -- tbh, I wish the ranks were a little more fleshed out. I liked having 'Second' etc.
- Level of Knowledge about Relic Lore: Are characters who have never met any character connected to Relic Lore able to know details about the happenings of Relic Lore? We'd like to have a set blanket rule that can cover this, whether that means no, a character cannot know details about Relic Lore without having been there/know a character who has, or yes they can.
- I don't mind either way... I don't have any preferences to this.
- Gray area with powerplaying rules: We agree that in general powerplaying is not allowed, but a lot of packs and individual members have exceptions for things that can be generally assumed. We'd like to make this more consistent for new members especially.
- I liked an idea that was brought to the staff table a few months ago -- that there would be a place in profiles where members could check off what is powerplayable to their character: example: I could check in mine that pack wolves can assume they've at least seen my character/know her name, even when first joining.. but not check that pack characters can assume my wolf has partaken in actions without my written consent. There have been some interesting interpretations on what's acceptable here.. so it'd be nice to see this more addressed.
- Thread Completeness: For both LP and archival purposes, we require a thread to be "complete". But we don't ever define what that means. We'd like to have a concise definition that covers the whole site and applies to anything that requires a complete thread.
- I always considered an exit of a character or a faded ending to fit this. I'm not sure how you guys will define this, though, as I feel no matter what, certain scenarios will arise where you'll have to figure out where the line is. I'd almost say if someone has archived it, and it hits the minimum post requirement... let 'em go.
- PG 13 Rules: Our stance on mature topics isn't clear in our current rules at all, and we'd like to do better to clear up what is and isn't allowed. Many of us aren't bothered by things like cursing or graphic writing, but many people are. We want RoW to be a comfortable place for everyone and having a clear policy on these kind of plots and writing styles is important, and creating a standard so nobody ends up reading something they don't want to read is especially important.
- These rules have always been changing, depending on who might have witnessed what. Staff (myself) have requested players to not swear in OOC chat for example, while other staff have shrugged it off and said it doesn't matter. I personally don't care -- I actually swear a lot in person.. I just know a lot of people are put off by it. Either way, I'm glad something more concise will come about. I feel like graphic writing can simply have an {m} in the title.. or as a selectable icon. As for OOC.. meh. We're mostly adults.. I'd also like to think that if someone was put off by the swearing or certain topic happening OOC, they could voice it and people would respect that.
- Wolf Subspecies: Originally, only species listed in the guidebook were allowed, but that has since expanded on a case-by-case basis. We want to make this more consistent and update the library accordingly.
- I'd almost say just.. take out 'species' altogether and just have.. a wolf is a wolf is a wolf. Do we really need to have it listed that this character is an Eastern Timber Wolf and this one is a Mackenzie Valley wolf? As long as people keep within certain size restrictions for LP purposes, and color realism (which could be loosened, in my honest opinion.. RoW is not the super realistic game it started out as), then.. meh.
- Characters based on fictional works: We have an unwritten rule that characters should not be based on characters in fiction, in the sense that we've turned away a literal "Hodor" wolf before who was entirely modeled after the character from Game of Thrones. However, there's limits to how much we can enforce this kind of thing and we want to know what the community think is fair.
- I think blatant character rip offs should be avoided. I can see people taking inspiration from something -- but at the end of the day, they should make their character their own.
Other Changes
We'd also like to propose some other changes to items that are not necessarily "game rules".
- Remove Negative LP Docks: This would include the lone wolf docks, docks for leaving a pack, and docks for losing leadership (as well as any others I'm missing). The purpose of Life Points was to track your character's development, not to punish anybody. These changes would apply retroactively, which means we would update all character docks to remove the negative points from their history and totals.
- I think we already took out leadership loss dock.. years ago? I think it's fair to axe the docks. I would only worry that people won't join packs now if there's nothing rushing them too.. but I can also see how it's restricted people.
- Remove free pass system: Similar to the two week waiting rule between characters, this rule was implemented to let people rejoin with multiple characters at a time but limit the extent that people could serially drop/rejoin characters. Ultimately, we can't stop people from having multiple characters and this system made it more confusing than the problem needed. All we ask is that if you do have multiple characters, you be considerate of the people you're RPing with on all of your accounts. It's frustrating and hurtful when you're threading with Character A and the player stops responding with them, but posts a lot with Character B instead. By doing away with these two rules, we're relying on player's to be honest with themselves and their RP partners about what they can handle and commit to.
- Yup. Micro managing was the most stressful part of being an admin here.. anything to help you guys, and allow our members feel less confined.
- Removing unnecessary fields from character profiles: These include the den location, height, weight, and length. Ultimately, we find these fields to be unnecessary and can lead to confusion. There are places in your profile to include that type of info if you find it important to you.
- I actually don't see the dimensions of a profile as unnecessary - I like that they're there, just to keep people from proclaiming that their 'large' character completely overshadows mine in size, unless it's clearly their in their dimensions. Den location was cute for when the site was smaller.. but I can see how it could be annoying now.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Serach - Sep 17, 2017
Thank you everyone for the feedback and the suggestions! There's a few issues that have been brought up that we seem to have a general consensus on for how to proceed, while others are a little more contentious. I've outlined some of the changes we will be making below, as well as a few points for other items to consider as we move forward on the remaining ones. We'll be putting those to a vote in the next couple of days.
Removing 2 Week Waiting Period
General consensus is that this rule can be removed, so we'll be doing that.
Removing the 200 word count minimum.
This by far the biggest change and there's been the most disagreement with how to approach this. We're going to put this to a vote which will be going up in the next couple of days, but I wanted to add in some consequences that I haven't seen brought up yet if we do adjust this.
- No word count means no word count, which means yes, one liners would be allowed. Even if we maintain a minimum for joining applications, there is no restriction after the fact. So if somebody does continually post one-liners, then the only recourse would be to 1.) not RP with them anymore or 2.) Ask them if they could add a bit more to their posts.
- This impacts LP too. Right now, we use the 200 words to help determine who has earned it from their threads. Without it, we only have the total number of posts in a thread. This means somebody writing one liners gets the same LP as somebody writing much longer posts. The only thing that this really impacts is the fight system, which is directly tied to LP, so if we do end up eliminating the word count completely, we'll likely change the fight system as well to account for it.
The options I've seen proposed for this are:
- Keep the 200 word minimum
- Reduce the word count to 100 words
- Remove the word count completely
- Require relative post-matching to your RP partner
If there are others that I've missed, let me know so I can add them to the poll.
Removing the restriction on puppies not being able to survive on their own before 8 months of age
- As noted by a few people, removing this restriction also means logically allowing characters 8+ months to join RoW instead of waiting for a year. We haven't entirely decided how we want to approach this, so if anybody has any thoughts on this, let us know.
- I'd like to propose updating the rules of adoption to put it entirely on the hands of the participants rather than staff getting involved. This would apply for all adoptable characters, and helps avoid those awkward situations where a player goes inactive after 6 months of having the character (provided the original creator addresses that). So, for example, if I was putting a character up for adoption, I could stipulate that if the character doesn't get posted with for 30 days, I have the right to take it back.
Removing the rule that a pack must have two leaders of the opposite gender
- Follow-up question to this would be should we allow all ranks to hold characters of more than one gender?
- We'd also have to update our pack inactivity rules (and possibly our creation rules) to require a new pack to only have 4 adult members, rather than 2 leaders + 2 followers.
- More thoughts in the "Pack flexibility" section below.
Level of Knowledge about Relic Lore
I think we're in agreement that it doesn't make sense for outside characters to have in-depth knowledge of RoW without having some kind of IC connection. We'll update our policy in the library on this to make it totally clear.
Gray area with powerplaying rules
Most people don't seem to think this is too much of an issue, so I think we'll leave it in our rules as is and add in a note that individual players may approach it differently and allow others to PP their characters in certain situations. Puppy said it really well in her post as to why we're bringing this up at all, "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." As long as we can make it clear for new people, I support it.
Rachel mentioned having a section in your profiles for this, and I actually think that your signature is a good place for it. So I would encourage people to make use of your signature/other places in your profile to make clear what is and isn't okay to be assumed. If you have specific things for your packs, post them in the common rooms.
Thread Completeness
- "For LP, I generally don't even apply for mine until the thread is completely archived." Somebody mentioned this, and I want to point out that this is the rule - you're not supposed to request LP until a thread is archived. We're bringing this up precisely because people don't do this and will try to claim LP for threads that haven't been archived or were deaded. Alternatively, the players have agreed that the thread is done, but don't indicate it in anyway which makes it hard for staff to know when we're checking for LP if there isn't a clear ending.
- I think the easiest thing to do here would be to ask that everybody just add a note at the end of the thread just saying "Thread Complete". A lot of people write "Fade" or "Character exits" to indicate it, but others don't, which is where the confusion comes from. Alternatively, somebody proposed just having each character make at least 3 posts per thread to get their points and that's it. What do people prefer?
PG 13 Rules
Most people think we're doing okay on this, we just need to collectively be more consistent at marking threads as mature and individual posts when they contain mature themes/content. I'll see what I can do about adding some kind of indicator to mark threads as mature to make it easier.
Wolf Subspecies
General agreement seems to be for subspecies that could reasonably survive in Relic Lore and make sense to be here (so no maned or Eurasian wolves). We'll update the guide to reflect this.
Characters based on fictional works
I'm not really a fan of allowing total Hodor wolves, but ultimately, the staff shouldn't (nor want to) be responsible for knowing if a character is based off a character in fiction. I think the only fair way to proceed is to let it go, and if somebody makes a Hodor wolf then more power to them.
Remove Negative LP Docks
General agreement seems to be to get rid of these, so we'll move ahead with this.
Remove free pass system
We'll be removing this.
Removing unnecessary fields from character profiles
I'm actually pleasantly surprised by how many people were opposed to this for the physique fields <3 I think the best compromise would be to keep these fields, but make them optional for people to fill out. However, I like the idea that several people suggestion about expanding on the physique field with some kind of descriptor. We have two options for this, having an open-ended field where people could fill it out or provide a dropdown of adjectives like (bulky, lean, lanky, etc.). If we go the dropdown route, I'd like some suggestions for options. The den field will be removed.
Library Updates
These will be happening as the above changes are implemented. We're also going to be putting some events on the calendar to encourage other people to update their parts of the library, but we're not going to enforce any kind of mandatory profile updating schedule for profiles or the library.
Pack Flexibility
Standardization between packs is there to make it easier for people to switch between packs. If we get rid of that when it comes to roles, staff can't help if somebody leaves a pack, joins another, and loses their role (a situation we've been asked to moderate several times in the past). As long as everybody is fine with that, I'm happy to support loosening up the restrictions and letting packs set their own standards. As Sarah said, I would also support getting rid of the LP for a pack role, or possibly reducing how much it is worth. It really doesn't bother me one way or the other what people call them, so I'm happy if packs want to have their own terms, so long as the leaders are willing to put up a "translation" guide in their pack article in the library so others know.
For total freedom in ranks, I'll have to spend some time reworking on how the rank system works from a technical perspective to allow this kind of thing. What I'm thinking is allowing 2 characters per rank, for a maximum of 16 adult wolves in the pack and gender wouldn't matter.
LP Updates
Noted on the LP simplification. I think based on how some of these other changes go, we'll look into simplifying LP quite a bit. I'm on board for making everything tied to 10 posts rather than the different numbers we have now.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Lacey - Sep 17, 2017
Sorry to butt in again! Perhaps to quell the unease about people writing one-liners (either because they simply aren't roleplayer material or to try to amass LP quickly and cheat the system), simply add a condition that threads consisting of nothimg but posts with only one or two sentences just won't count? That way you don't need a hard rule on word count but could still crack down on people making absolutely no effort at all.
You can easily have a rule that says "one-liners are considered disrespectful and frequent use of them will result in consequence _____" without imposing a word limit on everyone else who plays fair, after all. Punish the sinner, as it were? If someone is constantly posting one-liners to get ahead, it only takes one complaint to a staff member for that player to get their wrist slapped for it, and if it continues, they can be asked to leave like any other player who doesn't meet the game's standards. It obviously isn't the right forum for them. A one-liner here and there for effect or to end a thread is one thing and should imo be allowed, but I would argue that it would be better handled case by case than with a boardwide word count requirement.
As Rachel said, other games with no word limit rarely ever suffer from one liners because roleplayers typically enjoy writing. I personally just don't like writing filler for no reason and prefer no word count for that reason, as with many others. The only thing that would make RL different is LP and the potential to earn it fast with really short posts, and it is as simple as saying you can't earn LP with threads full of half-baked posts comprised of only 1-2 sentences, and leaving that to staff discretion, or else altering the system a bit so it doesn't matter as much.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Reyes - Sep 17, 2017
So that's an interesting point, but I think we're in the boat of trying to make one rule to fit the situations, and not handle case-by-case basis. If staff is going to have to read through threads to make sure the posts aren't half-baked and no one is cheating the system, than that's no different than it is now. I read the threads (not in great detail, but I still open them up and look them over) to make sure everything is as it is, and if that's not going to change, why change the rule at all? If you want to write one-liners or short posts, nothing is stopping you now, actually -- you just can't claim LP for it. And if that's how people want to write, by all means, go for it! LP isn't important for some people, but for others, it is!
I am one of those people. I like the feeling of achievement and motivation -- it's definitely one of the reasons I write at RoW as opposed to other sites. I am not opposed to changed the rules to some degree, or even a tiered system (though I suspect it would not make anything easier for staff), but I am firmly opposed to totally removing WC. It gives me a goal, and more often than not, I think my posts result in something better, and give my partners more to respond to in their own posts. If writing 200 words once every 15 days is a limiting factor, than it's probably something to consider not having so many characters.
As far as I see it, post-matching is good in theory, but life happens -- and this could also require a lot of staff intervention. I'm not in favor of a system that requires members to reach out to staff if they are unhappy. I also think this might be biased against new members in that they might be inclined to write a lot feeling that they need to impress, or seasoned members might not RP because they are uncertain of what sort of matching they might get into with an unknown factor. Ultimately, I think we should keep the WC (be it where it is or slightly lowered) or tier a system to reward effort with LP.
The only alternative I can think for this for fights -- because that's where LP really matters -- is to set up a 'judging system' instead. IE, two members write out their fight, and upon completion, submit it to staff to decide a winner. BUT this is biased because we are human, and I'm not sure how much favor this would win? But it's the only way I can think of to eliminate the need for LP (as I imagine if we alter how packs are formed/constructed, perhaps we can just go in and change requirements to become an alpha, as well).
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Lila - Sep 19, 2017
I really didn't have a differing opinion, but after reading over some things, I do have some input.
Removing the rule that a pack must have two leaders of the opposite gender
I like the idea packs could be in control of their ranks and adaption. But I feel like the library article would still be good to keep about as a reference. I'm okay with leaders being the same gender. But, I really like the idea a pack could only have 1 leader, as there have been plenty of times this has happened to our active packs. So having it just be 4 active adult members for a pack yes please!
Thread Completeness
I guess 3 seems plausible, but I'm leaning toward 4 threads per character for LP points. Usually it's the 5th one that can be redundant. But no matter what is decided as long as it's the same length for claiming LP points for each category I'm good.
Word Count
If we think about LP and why we have it as Ace has pointed, I feel like we should keep a word count required for claiming LP at least. As we have to have a certain number of posts for points, a certain length of words only makes sense to follow. I don't know if indicating when a post is beneath a certain amount would help staff? At least in times someone wants to collect LP.
Fights/Life Points
I was on a site where the fights were judged, and really didn't care for it. So keeping LP purposeful seems like best idea. I guess another than fighting it does play part in pack creation. Maybe, there should be more purpose to it in general? But, maybe it goes back to the pack and ranks. The only other things I can think of is, a certain number of pack and skill points could be the decider if a wolf is worthy of a role. Or what rank of the hierarchy your character is in. It'd hard to think of something that isn't just another thing to police or not work great in the instances someone doesn't really collect LP.
However there is something that bothers me about our current fight system. Maybe it's just me, but any way....
While doing rank challenges, it seems that HP is the physical well being of a wolf. Which I've liked.
But supposedly a pack member isn't going to hurt another pack member. So sometimes the rolls/HP are looked at only as dominance.
Yet if it gets in the negative we still count it as death.
I think rank challenges should be different. How, I'm just throwing ideas around.
The other issue is, the wolf who just won a rank challenge seems able to go onto the next without their HP/health effected.
Which could be realistic if the first challenge was swift, but if it went on it seems there should be some time for the wolf to recover and challenge again. I'd say enforcing a health bar change, and a limit when it can be raised might help the issue. It would make others who were just in a fight more vulnerable. But again, I want what makes sense and isn't a huge pain in the butt for others. It could be hard to do that considering when a fight is actually over with it etc.
I had other ideas for rank challenges. Possibility they only consist of so many rolls and whoever has highest HP by then is the victor.
If the challenger rolls a miss on first roll they lose and have to wait a week to challenge again.
If the challenger gets a hit, and the challenged gets a miss the challenger gets the rank.
If neither misses, rolls would continue till the outcome is decided.
HP in my mind should still reflect the state of the character. But, I think it needs to be made clear though a rank challenge is about dominance it is still physical draining, and even if pack members aren't out for blood, pain is still just as part of the process. So if you challenge one wolf, dropping HP down, your character's health should reflect that till they are actually healed based on the damage your character took.
That's all I got for now while we are all batting things around.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Sahalie - Sep 19, 2017
So, just as a quick response based off of Switch's thoughts/suggestions
It might be in our best interests to create a different stat called "prestige" which could be the primary target in rank challenges rather than HP. That way, if a rank challenge were to get physical in a bad way someone could actually opt to do physical damage. I don't know if people would find that more confusing though. It would basically be the same stat as HP (possibly) but instead would be affected by posturing/muzzle grabs whatever.
I do like the idea though of "whoever has the most HP after a certain amount of rolls is the victor" though, since often a lot of people just want to go until the other person is 0, and then the person at 0 always tempts going negative.
I think in the future we will be having a discussion about the fighting system, (and LP) but we wanted to keep this discussion to general site rules because both LP and Fighting are much more complex beasts. But I wanted to get my thoughts out before I forgot them.
RE: Site Discussion: Rules & Changes - Vere - Sep 20, 2017
Shadow, can you elaborate on "allowing 2 characters per rank"? I'm not sure I understand what this means.