[Discussion] Community RPG Anyone?

[Articorse]

Even if it's just the four of us, it can still be pretty fun. That way the GM won't have to think up too many things to make everyone feel important to the plot and the players can focus more heavily on the main storyline with no one being left out. One GM + 3 players sounds good to me.

Though considering we'll probably need to work out some more stuff, mainly who the GM will be, I agree that we should keep our doors open for more.

Oh, and now that we have Rep to give - have some, mr.Peasant, for the awesome idea.

[Arkalis]

If I remember, mr.Peasant was one of the firsts who came with the idea long ago. Good that he didn't gave up.

EDIT: By the way, as a suggestion I think a renowned member or staff should be GM. Sarov or mr.preasant himslef could be. Just an idea.

[Sarov]

Essentially, the problems here are that the SC universe is so wide that characters may never meet and that characters may be vastly different in power. The solution to this is simple in that the GM should simply determine a setting, fixed in time and place in which the game is run in. For instance, the game could be set on a Terran colony besieged by the new Zerg invasion, in which a small group of Protoss have arrived for unknown reasons. This limits the play feld, allowing greater opportunity for players to meet and interact, and limits what kind of characters can logically appear in such a setting.

The problem isn't so much that it's so vast but that most people don't realize that by limiting the playing field people really mean keeping it to one area as you have suggested. The next step would be to figure out ways that other people can be a part of this. For instance, in your example it seems that players would be Terran. For those that wish to play Protoss we could have it arranged that they were injured and captured by the Terrans for interrogation. This may allow the Terran players to RP with them and, should they convince the authorities, the Protoss could be forced into working alongside them. Or perhaps the Protoss is like Tassadar in the sense that they don't like the idea of slaughtering the Terrans.

Obviously there are things that need to be work out and other things that seem unlikely to happen but I was just brainstorming. Still, in that example, we would have to limit the amount of Protoss so as to not make the idea of Protoss prisoners common.

The solution to this is somewhat straightforward, on the condition that you do not feel the need to completely micromanage every event that happens to your character. As the game does not take place in real time, such a stance makes interaction with said character diffcult.

A possible solution I'd like to put forward is to create a list of notes at the end of each post as to the conditions required to interact with your character/scenario. It can vary in the level of detail, from '<insert PC name> is in a bad mood' to 'don't harm <insert NPC name>'. Of course, these notes can be put in a spoiler tag so as not to spoil the surprise for those not directly involved.

I've always done that and there are several different types of RP posts - too many to list to be honest. My problem stems when people do it anyways even when I have asked them not to. That and anyone who has RPed before will know how important that rule is. The problem is when the reply as your character which is bad for several reasons: One, it's bad manners. Two, they don't know your character and cannot accurately represent them. Three, it's usually done without permission. And so on and so forth.

As for "game time", I do that anyways. If there is nothing of importance, I post the general activities of my character(s).

I agree with mr.Peasant's suggestion to limit the playing field. Basicly the GM should make a good setting to begin with. I think we should also follow the following restrictions:

Actually, to tell you the truth…

You're not supposed to play canon characters, especially in a vast setting that spans even a few planets. There is also the reason of the fact that cannon characters are pretty much high-level players. In D&D terms, which is what I'm referring to, this is the equivalent of allowing people to play level 10+ characters when everyone else is level 1 - 5.

- Canon characters should be restricted to cameo appearances only.

- Zerg characters are out of the question. Zerg are my favorite race both lore-wise and gameplay-wise, but the only sentient zerg are those in control, so...

- We should stick to either an all-terran line-up or an all-protoss one. Having a plausible mixed group would be nigh-impossible in my view. Not to mention the huge differences in strength, as Sarov said. If one character is a Zealot and another is a Marine... well, that's not exactly fair. Then again, if someone can make it work, why not?

- I realize this is a bit dickish of me, but I think we shouldn't allow anyone, who can post less than once every three days(or so), in. Or if they do participate, they should play characters that are not integral to the plot and only appear every once in a while.

- We should gather a relatively small group of people. 5-6 would be ideal, 10 at the absolute maximum. Considering this is probably all going to take place in one thread, having 15 people posting will be anarchy. But if we can get a sub-forum or something, then this restriction, as well as the previous one, aren't necessary.

Excluding these, if we have a creative GM, I think we can make a small group to RP with.

1. Canon characters should not be played but can be interacted with within reason. It makes no sense to have a canon character show up at [x] planet just to RP with them. Heh.

2. Zerg characters should never be allowed to be played in the first place for two reasons:

- lack of free will

- not suitable for playing (much in the way that many/most monsters in D&D are unsuitable period)

3. That's not being mean at all. What would be mean is allowing a ton of people who couldn't post frequently join. Then you run the risk of other people leaving because that person isn't around to RP with and their character is still mid-conversation with them. Etc.

4. Ten can be ridiculous considering that most groups are 4 -5 people in D&D and even my group wouldn't do it (I've been part of a D&D/nWoD/Mutants & Masterminds/d20 Modern/etc group for nine years and counting). About 7 or 8 should be maximum. We should only add people beyond the ideal number if the group can handle it and the newcomers can keep up with the posting requirements.

If I remember, mr.Peasant was one of the firsts who came with the idea long ago. Good that he didn't gave up.

EDIT: By the way, as a suggestion I think a renowned member or staff should be GM. Sarov or mr.preasant himslef could be. Just an idea.

Actually, the person who came up with the RPG idea was Namesareuseless (he hasn't been around lately though). I didn't because I was already in several online RPs as well as my weekly Pen-and-Paper RPG group, plus I run my own games. Running your own is more work than people realize. It's like building a planet/solar system, being a writer, being a plot maker… I think you get the point. :P

Also, I'm currently running a P&P game so I'd rather not take up the mantle of GM. I can however be a co-GM/enforcer. As for other rules, perhaps we can include that there should only be one character per person. No exceptions.

[ooZer0]

Why not have both Protoss and Terran events?

Rotate the GM. GM chooses a world and a mission, or chain of missions as well as what race the participants play as. There could be a limited set of classes for each race, such as Scv, Marine, Medic, Ghost, Hellion, Marauder. And for the Toss it could be something like: Zealot, High Templar, Dark Templar, Stalker and Immortal.

Such a format could be run in two ways. One, we could randomize characters every session and just choose a class and have fun with it. Or we could each make two characters, (a Terran and a Protoss one) and then rotate them in and out depending on which mission is being done this time around. Both have their pros and cons. Random would allow those playing to meet before hand and build up a team strategy for the mission, making each very unique. The cons for that, would mean there would be little character progression. Characters would have to be "full" strength right off the bat in order to handle the mission. On the flip side, if everybody has their own characters there is a lot of room to make each character their own. However, they might find themselves with a tough team combo for the mission. 5 High Templar raiding an Orbital Platform trying to kill of a swarm of Broodlords? Ouch...

Either system would also allow for DnD style profession abilities. Like Dark Templar get to cloak and become invisible for a full round. Marines can Stim and throw a limited number of Shredder Grenades. ScV's can build Flame/Auto Turrets, repair structures and refill ammo and power cells for the team. Zealots can Charge and do a multi-hit Sweep Strike that hits multiple enemies. If there is a list of moves and special abilities for each class that would make them unique and interesting to add to the group, team dynamics become very interesting.

Just my 2c...

[Articorse]

@ooZer0

I think you're misunderstanding the idea of the RPG. I don't think we have the means to have such an expansive combat system. To be honest, I don't think we have the means to have ANY kind of combat system, that would require way too much GM involvement and things would get bogged down.

I think freeform is the way to go, with the GM only settling any disputes between players.

[Sarov]

@ooZer0

I think you're misunderstanding the idea of the RPG. I don't think we have the means to have such an expansive combat system. To be honest, I don't think we have the means to have ANY kind of combat system, that would require way too much GM involvement and things would get bogged down.

I think freeform is the way to go, with the GM only settling any disputes between players.

I think he's referring to a system similar Dungeons and Dragons because that's what it sounds like to me. However, I don't like having 'classes' and 'hit points', etc, like Dungeons and Dragons in a text-based RP. If people's characters are hurt, it should reflect in their movements - and posts. No need to have a system when words - and descriptions - can solve it.

As for the concept of 'abilities', those should be relative to the race and the occupation. Unless of course your character has managed to learn it from someone and this is both within lore and within reason (no Ghost would learn how to use Protoss techniques, etc).

[Articorse]

That's pretty much what I said, Sarov - freeform instead of a set system.

[Twilice]

Sounds like to much thoughts and reason behind this.

Something like this would probably continue to need to much thinking and resulting in another "cooldown".

What about just go more goofier?

*Twilice the hydralisk shot Sarov in the arm fearcily making her fall backwards landning on a.....

Then someone can comment this, and ofcourse you can die and revive and all those stuff... But the "players" themself lay up things. So reviving the same character in every post isn't really funny. (unless it's a pun)

[Arkalis]

Unless said character never died, nor he will die (Tassadar)

[Sarov]

Unless said character never died, nor he will die (Tassadar)

More like: Tassadar, Ghost of the Khala™.

Also, the problem with the character selection is that it's hard to make it fair without making something unbalanced. Like, allowing people to play Ghosts or High Templar or even just having several powerful characters - a Ghost, High Templar, Dark Templar (as in the warrior not a member of this classification), etc. I don't want to worry about the potential for a one shot from more than one character because, let's face it, a Ghost or High Templar could easily kill a normal Terran.