Suggestion: Registration Guidelines for New Members and their Characters

[Ataraxis]

@ Chris:

The above categories interest me, but I'd like people's opinions on them. Is it getting too specific or will it help RoG and the players understand their characters and that of their fellow writers better? It simplifies things with clarity, but I'm also hoping it doesn't complicate things in an unforeseen way.

Basically, if we do go with these categories, I would want everyone to know which ones are purely flavor, which ones are summaries of the character, and which ones should be considered towards this new way of balancing (and I use the term loosely since it's more understanding what the player wants while preventing obvious cases of powergaming than actual balancing).

I see it this way: Attributes are summaries (so a giant with x3 strength would have an ability somewhere stating he has the strength of three men, I guess). Talents are flavor (eidetic memory, perfect pitch, uber taste-buds, etc.) and Skills and Special abilities will play in the overall 'balance'.

At least, that's just how I see it working, if we all did agree on having these categories.

If we do go for this, though, RoG mods would need a thread of their own in the mod forums with bullet points of what they need to consider whenever tackling a profile: overall concept, cohesion of skills and abilities, being careful of balancing the right categories while leaving the fluff alone, etc.

@ Shadai:

As I said in the Resume thread, I agree with you whole-heartedly. I'm actually glad you got here at that time and decided to post your explanation, as it literally jump-started everything (though I'm sorry you had such an awful first impression of Althanas). For one, I agree about the skill scales of average/above average/etc. That problem has been bouncing around for ages and we still have to see its ugly face daily. Christoph says he'd like to see people use actual examples to describe skill levels, such as: capable of fending off a trained soldier with a sword, or of fending off multiple unskilled attackers at once or something like that. I personally use the descriptor system (average, etc.) alongside the comparison one, just for good measure.

As for abolishing the average, I'm all for it once everyone agrees on using an alternate system like the comparison one, for example.

And the consistency is something that I think we're all gunning for as well. We've been taking about streamlining information for ages, but basically there's only been superficial reorganization of the forums (and kind of a sloppy one for the FQ forums) and new threads that are just condensed versions of older ones. I personally would like to see more summaries and bullet points around OOC informational threads.

And oh, edit! New idea to get info directly to new players. Someone would need to write out a very clear and straightforward automatic PM for all newly registered members. In it, they would be linked to every thread they need, including RoG ones (for example, this guideline if it becomes accepted) with all of the information they have to know to make a profile without going through that unnecessary back and forth.

[Godhand]

This is getting way too specific. I think Ataraxis' original draft, as posted, was simple and pure like the driven snow or a retarded Buddhist monk. I feel like profiles shouldn't have to outline EXACTLY what you can do and how good you do it. Ideally they'd provide some sort of general overlook: "This is the sort of character I'm playing, these are his exceptional abilities." Then maybe the guy wouldn't box himself into a corner.

I don't know. I'm tired; if I'm not making any sense I'll shut up. I don't actually hate the above/below average system, though, at least not the one the mods seem to think has always been implied. That is, that you're not average compared to your average internet goer but compared to a specialist in that area.

I will say though that Above Average/Below Average doesn't make a lick of fucking sense when describing magical abilities. It is extremely fucking stupid for a pyromancer to list his pyromancy as above average when he's already got three special abilities in that area. It should be obvious how good he is; whether or not he's "average" has no bearing on his abilities and therefore it needs to go. It doesn't make any sense.

[Ataraxis]

Yeah, I agree, but I don't remember actually seeing it used for abilities. That's mainly why I didn't mention it anywhere. As far as I know, it's used specifically for skills, since there's no way of comparing a fireball ability to an average pyromancer. That's as crackpot as epileptic trees.

And I actually do feel on the fence about adding these categories or keeping the guideline straightforward as it is, so I'll let that discussion go on to get a better feel of what people want.

[Alydia Ettermire]

Remembering my own initiation into Althanas, and how frustrating it was (even more so because I had no intention of overplaying what I had, but had to make the changes because the mod in charge said I had to), I think it would be good for there to be a little more leeway in creating characters than there currently is.

I liked Ataraxis's first example, but the second one seemed a bit much...and there wasn't an example of a combat-oriented character.

I also think it would be good for there to be clearly defined examples for new members just making characters of what is and isn't acceptable for them to look over before making their first (maybe three examples of the same character, and different styles of character? 'This is a solid example, this is unacceptable, this will probably need some tweaking' etc).

Althanas has always seemed to have a problem with new member retention, and I do think that a lot of it boils down to "people don't know what they can and can't get away with, and it's frustrating to see the character you put so much time and effort into getting whittled down to nothing."

Come to think of it...with the experience I got when first making my first character, I probably wouldn't have lasted the week out if I hadn't felt so welcomed on an OOC basis. But many of the members I remember greeting me are either mucho busy or no longer around.

[Taskmienster]

I’ve never understood the issue with “average”. This is how I’ve always thought of it, a comparison if you will ::

Skill; General Soldier Knowledge

Adept : Never seen it, but I have a vague knowledge of what a soldier does.

Beginner: I watched an informative video on the subject, and as such have a much clearer idea of the general concept.

Below Average: I had the general knowledge of what it means to be a soldier from watching a video, but a soldier that is already in the military has also explained any questions I may have. Also, a rough technique on how to apply my knowledge has been understood.

Average: I’m in bootcamp, I am being trained on what is what, and can apply the techniques it takes to being a soldier in a real life situation… if nothing more than hopefully applying them correctly. I.E. I know how to shoot a gun, put on camo, hide, and aim… but in a real combat situation I may not be as hidden as I had previously hoped, or I may not be able to aim as perfectly as I have been trained due to combat stress.

Above Average: Graduated bootcamp, have been practicing my skills at the range. In a real life situation I at least can quickly identify a threat, and as such be able to use the skills that I have. However, real life skill usage doesn’t always correlate with what I have practiced, as a situation can be different. I’m confident, at least, that when I pull the trigger on my weapon that I know where it will be aimed downrange and confident in my own ability.

Skilled: I’ve got real life experience, and can mentor those that are beginner or adept level people in general soldier knowledge. It is something I’m fully aware of, can exhibit without question, and so forth.

Expert: I’m now the one training the below-average/average people, because I’m so good with what I can do as a soldier that it comes nearly second nature. I’m not perfect, but by god I’m closer.

Master: Got it, done, everything there is to know about being a soldier… I know it.



That’s not hard. I wasn’t comparing my average ability with only other people of my same skill knowledge, but against those that have no will to train in said skill as well. I’m not sure, but that seems to make a lot of sense to me.

On that note, the skill scale in terms of average really doesn’t work with anything outside of skills, obviously.


@ General proposal : I like the idea. It opens up creativity, but I’ve always been on the fence about unrestricted stuff. Though, as has always been brought up to me when I argue against it “Oh, but the judge will dock if they go overboard.” Yeah, but that never meant to me that we should allow it to get to the point where an entire thread has been written (most likely with another person) where the use of an ability is overpowered and have to dock for it. Not fun for the judge, and most likely annoying for the other person… a problem that could have been fixed from the beginning. Right?

[Ulysses]

I'm just wondering what effect this would have on current level 0s? Would we be expected to re-do our profiles, or have the option to, or not have to re-do them at all?

I personally would be happy to add some more stuff to mine, why not? Before I registered I actually removed a number of skills (just from looking at other level 0 profiles and gauging what sort of skill level would be expected) and I of course wouldn't be averse to adding them, ha.

Or actually, under Ataraxis' plan, would everyone have to go in and change their profile--at least at the next character update?

[Zook Murnig]

I really love this outline as-is, which is why when Ataraxis showed me his draft for it I posted a link to it on the mod forum. It covers pretty much everything while maintaining the level of ability that a new character should be at.

As for that list, Task, I have to say that your use of the term "adept" has always confused me, as the word is synonymous with "highly skilled." Maybe you meant "inept?"

Nonetheless, we may be better served by a system that steers clear of the word "average," going for descriptions instead. I do not believe that any kind of numerical system is the solution, as we're already having problems with clarity of meaning. Assigned numbers are by their nature arbitrary, and will need explanations at every turn. That will do naught but confuse new players more, and more consistently.

Further, I agree that any scale we use would be ineffective for magical abilities and their like, as we have to know what a given spell can and can't do. One person's above average fireball is inert until it reaches a certain destination, then explodes in a large range. Another's above average fireball streaks into their opponent and hits them with flame and concussive force. Another's is just a gout of fire. The list goes on, and that's just for a single, commonly used, spell.

As for restrictions in general, I don't think we need to worry so much about "preventing powergaming" as we need to worry about "preventing slogging." What I mean to say is that making the new players feel as if they are inept, whether they are or not, makes them write as if they are inept. And what you get from that is mostly threads where the characters are bumbling along, trying not to find themselves on the ends of their own swords, because this is what they find to be "safe" from the dreaded label of "powergamer."

This creates drag on judges, who hate reading slow and mindless quests wherein the hero valiantly defends the cellar against ten dire rats. We would much rather dock for one in ten threads for powergaming, than have two of these "safe" threads each on a regular basis.

The only player I've ever seen any tendency to powergame continually was Omegastar, who used his flash step ability frequently (read: every post) and subesquently was not only docked in his judgments, but was shunned by the other players. This is out of three years on this site. I think that's damned convincing, don't you?

[Christoph]

I’ve never understood the issue with “average”. This is how I’ve always thought of it, a comparison if you will ::

Skill; General Soldier Knowledge

Adept : Never seen it, but I have a vague knowledge of what a soldier does.

Beginner: I watched an informative video on the subject, and as such have a much clearer idea of the general concept.

Below Average: I had the general knowledge of what it means to be a soldier from watching a video, but a soldier that is already in the military has also explained any questions I may have. Also, a rough technique on how to apply my knowledge has been understood.

Average: I’m in bootcamp, I am being trained on what is what, and can apply the techniques it takes to being a soldier in a real life situation… if nothing more than hopefully applying them correctly. I.E. I know how to shoot a gun, put on camo, hide, and aim… but in a real combat situation I may not be as hidden as I had previously hoped, or I may not be able to aim as perfectly as I have been trained due to combat stress.

Above Average: Graduated bootcamp, have been practicing my skills at the range. In a real life situation I at least can quickly identify a threat, and as such be able to use the skills that I have. However, real life skill usage doesn’t always correlate with what I have practiced, as a situation can be different. I’m confident, at least, that when I pull the trigger on my weapon that I know where it will be aimed downrange and confident in my own ability.

Skilled: I’ve got real life experience, and can mentor those that are beginner or adept level people in general soldier knowledge. It is something I’m fully aware of, can exhibit without question, and so forth.

Expert: I’m now the one training the below-average/average people, because I’m so good with what I can do as a soldier that it comes nearly second nature. I’m not perfect, but by god I’m closer.

Master: Got it, done, everything there is to know about being a soldier… I know it.



That’s not hard. I wasn’t comparing my average ability with only other people of my same skill knowledge, but against those that have no will to train in said skill as well. I’m not sure, but that seems to make a lot of sense to me.

On that note, the skill scale in terms of average really doesn’t work with anything outside of skills, obviously.

First, many members won't make that connection unless it's explained to them. Second, even after explained that it means "average for a soldier" or whatever, it still remains more ambiguous than it should be. What's an average soldier? An average American soldier is going to be much different than an average Ethiopian soldier. An average soldier in a Salvar lord's army (drawn from the citizens and trained a little) is going to be much different than an average Raiaeran soldier. That's why the system should encourage players to speak in terms of levels of training, and then give examples and comparisons. THEN the word 'average' could appear as needed. For example: "Swordsmanship: Advanced Proficiency; Character X is knows dozens of techniques and combat maneuvers and can hold his own against a newly inducted Raiaeran Bladesinger." Maybe give a little more information on what the character can do, but even that gives a far clearer idea than "Character X is an an above average swordsman."

@ General proposal : I like the idea. It opens up creativity, but I’ve always been on the fence about unrestricted stuff. Though, as has always been brought up to me when I argue against it “Oh, but the judge will dock if they go overboard.” Yeah, but that never meant to me that we should allow it to get to the point where an entire thread has been written (most likely with another person) where the use of an ability is overpowered and have to dock for it. Not fun for the judge, and most likely annoying for the other person… a problem that could have been fixed from the beginning. Right?

The default should be letting the players do mostly what they want. Give friendly warnings, but then trust them to use common sense. If they don't, most others won't want to play with them, anyway. The system polices itself better than you might think.

[Max Dirks]

Personally, I think we shouldn't moderate "skills" at all. Anything that requires an adjective to describe it should be up to the player's discretion (and abuse enforced subject to the moderator's discretion). Being a master swordsman means nothing if you're up against another master swordsman with a) a better weapon, b) greater "abilities" (2x strength, etc.), and c) who is played by a better writer. All three of these things tend to come the longer you play at Althanas anyway, so why not let someone claim their character is anything?

I've always felt this way, but never won out on any discussions.

[Shadai]

I’ve never understood the issue with “average”. This is how I’ve always thought of it, a comparison if you will ::

Skill; General Soldier Knowledge

Adept : Never seen it, but I have a vague knowledge of what a soldier does.

Beginner: I watched an informative video on the subject, and as such have a much clearer idea of the general concept.

Below Average: I had the general knowledge of what it means to be a soldier from watching a video, but a soldier that is already in the military has also explained any questions I may have. Also, a rough technique on how to apply my knowledge has been understood.

Average: I’m in bootcamp, I am being trained on what is what, and can apply the techniques it takes to being a soldier in a real life situation… if nothing more than hopefully applying them correctly. I.E. I know how to shoot a gun, put on camo, hide, and aim… but in a real combat situation I may not be as hidden as I had previously hoped, or I may not be able to aim as perfectly as I have been trained due to combat stress.

Above Average: Graduated bootcamp, have been practicing my skills at the range. In a real life situation I at least can quickly identify a threat, and as such be able to use the skills that I have. However, real life skill usage doesn’t always correlate with what I have practiced, as a situation can be different. I’m confident, at least, that when I pull the trigger on my weapon that I know where it will be aimed downrange and confident in my own ability.

Skilled: I’ve got real life experience, and can mentor those that are beginner or adept level people in general soldier knowledge. It is something I’m fully aware of, can exhibit without question, and so forth.

Expert: I’m now the one training the below-average/average people, because I’m so good with what I can do as a soldier that it comes nearly second nature. I’m not perfect, but by god I’m closer.

Master: Got it, done, everything there is to know about being a soldier… I know it.



That’s not hard. I wasn’t comparing my average ability with only other people of my same skill knowledge, but against those that have no will to train in said skill as well. I’m not sure, but that seems to make a lot of sense to me.

On that note, the skill scale in terms of average really doesn’t work with anything outside of skills, obviously.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. First, this table is not listed anywhere in the "guides" to creating your character. This is what I was referring to as mysterious rules and made up regulation. Second, this table is great for soldier knowledge. How does this compare to a wizard's magical knowledge, a barbarian's ability to survive in nature, or a thief's ability to break in someplace? What, do we need to make tables for every possible skill?

Oddly enough, this is a different tone then you used when I asked you to define average or to at least explain it. You said (and I quote):

The difference in abilities and why I asked them to be put the way I asked is because that's how the RoG process is done. I'm not going to argue about what makes average to one person not average to another... because it's the same thing to me. Nor will I argue about percentages of the site that battle compared to quest, because that doesn't matter to me. What I'm working with is that I treat all these profiles the same, and ask for limits put on all skills and abilities...

Funny, that former bit looks like you know the difference...

I'm not here to start problems, nor to cast barbs. It is not my place nor my intentions. I'm an (as far as most of you all know) untested, unknowing, unfamiliar nub (stop laughing Max). However, I do have insight that most of you lack. That being, the ability to look at the sight without prior knowledge of how things work and point out the glaring irregularities.

If you tell me as mods and players that you can see this place with fresh eyes you are wrong. Especially those of you who subscribe to this awfully horrid one above, one average, one below method it NEVER was. (Whoever came up with that should be taken out back, beaten and quartered, imho) That would be on par with you and me standing at a door. I turn to you and tell you that 50 people are on the other side, and they are here to jump out at you and yell "surprise!" because it is your birthday. I told you this on the car ride over. You are very clear what's going to happen. You open they door, they jump out and yell "surprise!".... really at that point are you really surprised? Oh sure, you feign surprise, but with the prior knowledge it is not really a surprise anymore. This is what I mean by not being able to see the site as a new person sees it. New people see the FAQ's on character creation and think they got a handle on it, then get bushwacked in RoG with rules that were never explained to them. And you wonder why people leave.

You are never to define a word and use it in the definition. Doing that makes you the head asshole at the Department of Redundancy Department. The system as you so love to hold onto tooth, claw and nail needs to be abolished. You can't stop beginner players from thinking "below average" means they suck at something. How hard would it be to put numbers to that scale? How hard would comparison be afterward for all players? And furthermore, if I'm playing a 40 year old career soldier, I better damn well be a master at it, cause I've done it all. When you knock me down to above average (cause lord forbid, you can't be a master at 0 level), how much sense does that character make? Furthermore, how much would you want to continue playing? Your character no longer makes any sense at all!

You want rules? Make rules. Just clearly define them and apply them to all. You don't want rules? Fine, do that instead. Just don't slam the new guys into a shoe-horn, shit-eating-grin "well these are the rules you guys don't know about but have to follow" AFTER they have gone through all the trouble to come up with a compelling character idea.

Look though my eyes. I offer them to you.