captain backfire (pullofgravity) wrote in modcooperative, @ 2010-04-27 17:02:00 |
|
|||
Entry tags: | advice |
A personal overview of played-by roleplaying communities on InsaneJournal
There is a lot of tacit knowledge acquired through modding that hasn't or can't really be put down to paper, but one of the things I've noticed lately is just how much hostility goes on between roleplayers on this server. Having managed to avoid that nearly completely in the games I've been a part of, I believe there are some points that need to be outlined for anyone running or considering running a game in this time and age.
One thing people don't realize is that a lot of OOC drama derives from unfulfilled expectations and that those happen because players don’t realize that not all types of played-by (PB) communities are the same anymore (and, because moderators often don't either, they fail to make known what exactly they are looking for in a game or players – or worse, they don’t even know what that is!).
One huge tip for anyone considering opening a game is: know what you are looking for. You need to know why you are opening a game, what type of play you are looking to implement and what kind of players would better suit the universe you are looking to create with your game. Having limited experience with fandom games, I’ll focus on PB roleplaying for the following considerations.
Currently, in PB, there are two main types of communities: social networking communities and character development communities.
Social networking communities are the ones that are based mostly on first-person interaction, through journal comments, entries or random/lyrics/etc. communities. Although third-person interaction can be a part of these types of communities, players will find it much harder to find other people interested in third-person interaction (threads or logs) and the actual writing/scening aspect of roleplaying. The focus is on first-person interaction and social networking, rather than the third-person writing of face-to-face encounters.
Character development communities are the ones that are based mostly on third-person interaction, through threads, AIM logs or solo narratives. Players in these communities focus a lot more on the actual writing process of their characters and less on the instant first-person interaction offered by journal networks and random communities. Face-to-face interaction is preferred and you will have an easier time finding players who are interested in random scenes, threads and actually carrying plot out through writing.
Some (but very few) communities manage to have a healthy mix of both. As a moderator, I think the most important thing is to know what you want for your community. Personally, asking players what they want and letting it be the main drive for even opening a community is a bad strategy. The burden of making communities get off the ground is on the moderators, not the players - and, this means that, in case the players flake or die off, the moderators do need to have a back-up plan for community survival. In my understanding, while the success of a community does depend on the joint efforts of players and moderators alike, the burden of it is on moderators alone.
I mod my games from the POV that players are like costumers and running a game is like running a small company. If players flake, that means they aren't buying your product. And, I think a lot of moderators aren't prepared for this, because if costumers aren't buying your product, sitting around in a meeting room and cussing them out isn't going to keep your company from going bankrupt. Likewise, you also can’t yell in their face to buy it or else – i.e. moderators can’t tell players to become active, they need to come up with a new strategy to offer a product that is appealing and self-sustainable - which means, you need to know what kind of community you are setting up, so you can know which kind of players you want there. This is a very important bit of information that I think a lot of people ignore.
Not every player is suitable for every community. And, this is in no detriment to any player or community or their level of skill. It's easy to understand, however, when you take into consideration that there are different types of roleplaying; not better or worse, just different. So, if you have a player who is interested in social networking communities, it is unlikely that they will thrive in a community that is mostly thread-based, with little to no AIM or random journal interaction. That player will, more likely than not, grow bored and be dissatisfied with the community as a whole, no matter how great an experience others are having with it. Likewise, a player who is interested in character development communities will most likely grow bored with the lack of third-person interaction that goes on in social networking comms.
As a moderator, you have to know what type of community you are building, what type of players you want to attract and be fair, but selective during the application process. Being critical on what kind of player you allow into the community is essential for it to thrive. You want to allow likeminded people to join, because that alone lowers the chance of any OOC drama resulting from unfulfilled expectations.
On that note, it is also very important to let players know what to expect from the community prior to their joining. You can have whatever kind of community you want, as long as you let players know what style of playing and moderating will be taking place there before they apply. It is usually useful, as well, to have a code of conduct, even if unofficial. I’ve found great success in following four basic ethical principles, so that all decisions are guided by: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. Generally speaking:Beneficence: will your decision be beneficial to any or the majority of your members;Another good parameter to contrast your decisions against in order to assess their ethical value is the simple test of transparency: can your decision be explained rationally in an open forum and do you have arguments to rationally (and politely) back it up against opposing opinions? If so, then your decision passes the test and you will rarely have problems with players. Dialogue is key in running a successful game - after all, you are doing it for the group, not for yourself.
Non-maleficence: on the other side, will your decision directly or indirectly bring any harm to any or the majority of your members?
Autonomy: will your decision affect players’ autonomy over their characters, plots, etc.?
Justice: is the decision applicable to all of the members, regardless of personal relationships with the moderators?
I believe these are some of the main things to consider if you start a game. There are hundreds of other issues that come up with it, but a moderator has got to know what they are looking for, so they can be fair to the players and deliver a game that is within their expectation.