unforum

[Phaedra]

[rose]

GuyP wrote:

[MageSteff]

[Rogi Ocnorb]

I'd like to add to that idea by suggesting we add "What does this mean?" links to the agreement for each checkbox. linking them to existing content-specific er.... content.
This, at a minimum, gives a new registrant a better idea of what this whole immersive gaming thing is all about and ideally, negates the "I didn't know what I was agreeing to" argument.

[PatRol]

If I may throw my humble opinion into this discussion, I would like to point out that players and PMs are humans, humans like you and me. The problem with us humans is that most of us are really curious (especially with new things) and we always want to have new things without spending much time on thinking about it's needs, organisational aspects or what else belongs to it.

Let's take the EULAs for example. How often do you read those EULAs word by word, sentence by sentence? Have you ever accepted the EULA without reading the whole, part or parts of it?
Nobody really likes to read those book-filling agreements that sometimes take ages to read. And that is why some of those PMs "have forgotten" about UF's terms of service. Even the really great and very informative PM subforum (the guide in development) is too much for them to read through. Maybe they only skimmed the rules. They have their ideas (or sometimes just a partly idea) and they want to get live into them.

That's why I think, those checkboxes or new rules aren't of any real help. Only a few people will read those linked guidelines, the "main stream " will just check the box to get in without even noticing, what great tips and information can be found behind those links.

Patrol

[Mikeyj]

Why are imploding games bad?

Surely they're a necessary part of the learning process of PMing. You can't really dummy run an ARG and the skills of what to do when something goes in an unexpected direction can only be learnt by having that something go in an unexpected direction. It's nicely Darwinian...lot's of crap games = more great games.

Getting back to what I see as the spirit of Rose's first post, it is unfortunate that a game goes tit's up, but from that point on is where the important but (perhaps) less fun stuff happens. Players should be mature enough to appreciate the good stuff (an intriguing puzzle, a well-formed character) and be able to offer constructive criticism. Something a PM learns from post implosion player interactions (or PIPI as I have decided to think of it) could lead them to create a gusset-dampeningly fantastic game that occupies the rest of your existence as your legs become vestigial, breathing optional, and you finally merge into a parasitic relationship with your laptop. Crapping on them from on high might lead them to take that job with the accountancy firm that's steady money, but slowly exsanguinates the creative juices.

It was your choice to play in the first place and the investment is only time and emotion. (Although if Mind Candy go bust and can't print another card I'll be roaming the streets of Battersea with a hammer).

The question seems more to be one of house-keeping...do the PMs come to us here or do we go to them?

[krystyn]

I never really held the opinion before now that imploding games were 'bad,' as I often have trouble with absolutes, preferring instead to deal with individual situations, but ...

Look around you. There are a heck of a lot of squeaky wheels around here, with little grease in sight. A good game might eventually pass Unfiction by, because the squeaking's grown so loud and relentless that it might be difficult for a new player (or heck, even a seasoned veteran) to make heads or tails of something that could just be Pure Quality.

I worry about micro-management. I worry about having to e-mail puppetmasters and create more fussy work for a community of a genre that, to me, has always contained the essences of Adventure and Wonder. I am with the people who call for consistent and diplomatic locks on implosions and the like -- in fact, with very little exception, there's been tangible evidence of that happening all along. It's not only the friendliness and the helpfulness of many people here that make this community what it is, but also the people who do the sometimes very difficult task of laying down the law and doing it with a sense of grace, efficiency, and all-around love for the games themselves. (and sometimes huge wiffle bats of snark)

I worry that if there's an increase in the amount of implementation and notification towards puppetmasters, that we're going to see one of a few things happen:

- games will become less fluid and more apt to stagnancy in concept and execution, because of a perceived ritual surrounding each ARG. There's already a few firmly in place, like: players here tend to expect and demand a PM chat at the conclusion of a game's run. Several players recently had a new experience of NOT getting a PM chat from the VaporLofts team. If there's e-mails being sent out, and various 'checks and balances' put in place, the games will have to, by necessity, conform to them in order to be received here with any success. That ... bothers me. It seems to me to be the opposite of dynamic and creative.

- Puppetmasters will simply ply their wares elsewhere. It happens on occasion already, where a game's audience will move to another forum for discussion and play. But seeing as how Unfiction truly is a strong hub for information and buzz about new games in a burgeoning genre, the split may have a net negative effect. I wouldn't be opposed at ALL to seeing more ARG-centric communities form, myself, but it'd be a shame for it to happen because of a perceived boundary set here.

- A growing sense of entitlement towards each game, by one specific forum. I dunno. I feel badly even typing that out, because it implies an insular nastiness to some suggestions that I think really do have their heart in the right place, but while I will be among the first to cheer on Unfiction for being such an amazing resource and community and purveyor of tasty treats in IRC (!chocolate !nachos !bar), ARGs themselves really do have the ability to go above and beyond this particular data set of great minds and raconteurs. These e-mails and notifications seem ... a bit presumptuous. Does that make sense?

Hmm.

[johnny5]

If I may.

I'm going to start with a premise that may be accurate historically and currently, yet may not necessarily remain so in the future. You've seen this mentioned before, a few pages back even.

UF is for the players.

There will be games which will implode, collapse, fester and die, or what have you. There will probably always be bad PMs attempting to launch bad games.
So what?
I say let them launch. If they break the existing rules, respond accordingly. Otherwise, leave them be.
What does that mean to the player?
Many veteran players will recognize the warning signs of a poorly PMed game and stay away leaving the optimistic, the adventurous, and the newbie to play. The first two should know the pitfalls, and be prepared to accept them, but not the new folks.

I propose the opposite of what's been discussed so far. Instead of attempting to prevent a bad game from launching, we should think about how to prevent the damage incurred when a bad game fails. Attempt to identify the effects of a bad game and protect against them.

We have enough expertise amongst the "veterans" to be able to help someone decide if they are up to the unique challenge of playing a risky game. Culling the majority of players from a game has the added bonus of limiting the load on the game and minimizing risk of failure.


(For the sarcastically challenged, this is the tongue in cheek section of my post)

How about an unFiction Review Board (UFRB) rating.

uFRB rating: IP-10 (implosion potential 10)
Warning: Contents of game are highly volatile and may implode at any time. Play at your own risk. Not recommended for new players or the patience deficient!
.
.
.
uFRB rating: SAPPY (Safe for All Players, Potentially Yumyum)
This game is being run by an established organization with big $$$ funding.
Implosion potential near 0 (though lovable characters may die).


And now for the obligatory catch phrase: Don't regulate, educate.

-5-

[rose]

Ok, thanks for all the input. It is quite clear that the forum as a whole doesn't support the official email idea.

But, I am willing to take FlMutant at his word that he would have found something along those lines helpful to him. Much of the other concerns seem to be conjecture based on what someone assumes might happen, which for some reason seems to be pretty uniformly negative. I don't subscribe to this view.

I think an informal email to the PM of a game from a community member, not claiming to speak for the tribe, welcoming them and pointing out a few things could be helpful.

As a test of this idea, I intend to ask around and perhaps in the IGDA ARG SIG and see what the PMs think. I would love to hear from some of the PMs of grassroots games. ( I realize that the PMs of Mu and Orbital Colony have posted, but I think that was in their role as players, which is who the community is for, as opposed to PMs, which is who the community is not for) Paticularly, I am curious about those grassroots games that, successfully or unsucessfully, have been played on this board. Although perhaps these wise PMs, realizing that this is a community for players of their games and not for them, won't want to risk posting. A personal message to me on the board here would be appreciated.

Edit to add (this is the first time I have ever threadjacked my own thread, at least intentionally, sorry for that but I didn't feel like starting another META thread of doom.)

As I have been pretty liberal in claiming that people are strongly biased toward the negative view, to be fair, I will share my own negativity.
Krystyn wrote:

[Katsurame]

I think that implosions will always happen, and that's that. My only problem with such a thing is if you spend a few weeks focusing on a game, and then all of a sudden the PM team comes out and says "woops, we messed up". That's a week of yours or my time.

I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that UF (combined with ARGN) controls the given publicity of a game. All of (or most of) the information flows directly through both UF and ARGN, and they can filter accordingly. Sure, there's Immersion Unlimited, but frankly, there's barely anyone there that isn't here, and it's dead compared to UF.

Krystyn was right in thinking that the dynamic and creative atmosphere that players and PMs hope for is cut short by the information control. Now, I'm not attacking UF, and I think that UF is doing a fine job, but that's just how I see it right now.

[krystyn]

FWIW, I was speaking as a PM, too.

Ozy likes to kid with me about being a "Method" Puppetmaster, in that I tend to be pretty devoted to mission statements and concepts that give some luster and shine to TINAG, but the fact is, I am not sure how I'd react to an informational e-mail sent on behalf of this community. Sure, I've been around, but if I've kept my curtain tight, the Unforums won't necessarily know who they're sending the e-mail to. There's a presumption in that e-mail, y'know? That I need to be told what's up, that I have the support of the Unforums, etc.

I've worked on two successful grassroots games. I feel fairly confident that if I were to create a project that was not quite the usual format, did not employ some sort of typical "shwag gets sent to site owner"/Google ad rabbithole, did not really fit any sort of general ARG mold as the denizens here are used to, such an e-mail would be ... moot?

I keep thinking about Scrappy's post, about wanting to be a player, first. As a puppetmaster, I want nothing more than for players to feel that they can do that. That they don't have to constantly step outside the experience in order to maintain some set of standards, when our current TOS (which I agree should be more specific about intent and consequences) really does cover the lion's share of ARG etiquette.

[rowan]

[MageSteff]

[Phaedra]

[Varin]

I was going to reply to this, but I'd just be quoting what krystyn and j5 said above.

minor threadjack