ATTENTION EVERYONE!: Big Changes Coming to WoDD in 2015

[Damon]

I wanted to wait for Errin's response before I commented again, but I think we're starting to lose forest for the trees. It'd be great to discuss how we can rejuvenate the site in detail later -- and for the record, I'm not going to try to force any of the (admittedly drastic) measures I proposed if people aren't on board -- but for now, I think it's important that we stick to the main issue of the changes proposed by Errin's opening posts.

This is what matters most to me right now, and what I think needs to be discussed and revamped:

1) The proposed 12 month terms means potential upheaval every 12 months. No matter how smooth you try to make a transition, it's a transition and things are in flux. NPCs change, rules change, settings may even change. I don't think that's a recipe for a stable, healthy system -- particularly when it sounds like incomplete games might end up as "Pocket Games" that fragment the player base more and more.

2) More on Pocket Games: I think it's a bad idea. It'll only lead to increased fragmentation of our already small player base. There are only a dozen of us or so on site, and there are only so many characters we can devote time to. How many scenes can you actually multitask before your attention is spread too thin? How many characters before none of them are well-developed?

3) As Liz pointed out: Giving admins notice of term limits 3 weeks before that limit runs up is tantamount to firing them without good cause. That's frankly something I don't find acceptable on a personal level. It sounds like Sam might have resigned anyway -- but it also sounds like it would've been nice if he'd had the choice of saying yes or no.

4) I just wanted to say this again: a game is only interesting if the character interactions are interesting. That doesn't come from the admins or massive sweeping changes to the system; it comes from the players. In trying to revitalize the game, implementing a bunch of administrative changes is, and has historically been, one of the worst ways to go about it.

[UKrose]

Why not keep the rules as they are then? Have them static so the system stays the same and the rules become just a part of how things work here? That way, the ST that takes over can easily just start running stories from the word go. Lets face it, we've all been parts of TT games, I know that in my old group in the 90's and early 2000's we would once a week run a game and as each story ended a new ST would jump into the hot seat, but the characters would remain the same and the rules were just the rules. It made for fresh ideas, it also prevented the ST from beginning to feel the effects of the burn.

It's difficult some times when RL suddenly kicks you in the bum and you have to spend time away from the game to deal with family, friends, or even jobs or education. The fact the ST can jump in a year later if they want also means they can when they feel like it put their name down to pick up the mantle and work from their notes a year ago, resuming the storyline with a fresh head. A year is a long time in reality, but in the game, it's kind of tipsy when you can time jump back to a scene that needed to happen as I've taken part in two things like that in the Mage game alone.

Pocket games can work. On the D&D site I'm a part of we have player DMs, they don't have sheet access but they run things then submit the points and gold rewards or new items that they've found to admins to have the sheets updated. That said, pocket games are more for cross genre sites aren't they? Unless you can have a continuation from a side ST run thing? Actions have consequences in the online world just like RL.

I wouldn't say giving admins notice is like firing someone, we are all volunteers, it just means you have three weeks to tie up loose ends, now that can be done in forums if need be can't it? I know there are other things, but what if the outgoing ST passed the notes onto the incoming ST? That way it can make things smoother and plots could be passed on for an elaboration? It keeps things fresh. Or just have the situation kind of go dormant for a while, then perhaps pick it up later?

As for Character Interactions; Do the STs could get background information? Can we post character goals or dreams to the ST? A set of notes or something? Not just finding Alyssa's old man, but other goals or dreams or past enemies even! Actions have consequences, we could use them, it could be a great way to get a series of one shots or shorts? STs some times find great fun from having players contact them out of the blue and go "Hey, I would like my character to...." some times that's the spark in the imagination that the next plot comes from?

I guess I'm saying, this is our site, we are part of it, we make it what we are and characters really blossom over time. It's the experiences they get that change them into something else. I love watching PCs twist and shift as they meta morph into something else, sometimes at the surprise of the Player.

I think that's how we keep it fresh, more open social scenes, keeping the rooms as they are because that means there is more range and scope for scenes. Sure, we all do the coffee thing in mage. Or bar thing, but there's Christmas coming up too. It's going to snow soon as well and that opens things up for other possibilities.

[jamie]

This is a game and it's supposed to be fun and all of this debating is making me sad.

[kai]

Up until now I haven't said anything about this, and that may have seemed odd since it has a direct impact on me. I have a lot of thoughts on this, but I want to try and keep things simple here. To that end, I am not going to try and respond much to other posts in this thread, just share my thoughts about what's being implemented.

I disagree with these changes. I would have said so, had these changes been suggested and discussed before we were informed of them, but they were not. Like Sam, I got an email on Monday telling me about Errin's changes, including my removal from the position. This was a decision that was already made. I did not think my input was being invited when I got the email, and I do not think the discussion that has sprung up in this thread was invited, either -- but it is an necessary discussion for us to have. While I don't think that every single change on a site needs to be voted on, something like this should have been talked about with the entire player base, because it requires a buy-in from everyone who plays here. It affects everyone who plays here. It is also in direct contradiction to Errin's original Mission Statement for the site:

Quote:You may have noticed that no one on Denver is titled a Storyteller. This is because their roles are going to be so much more than that. Admins will set the tone and create the backdrop of the stories that the players will tell, facilitating and enriching those tales with the occasional storyline. They will also set the rules and the structures within their systems, making judgment calls and clarifying rules at their discretion.

I feel I will best help out the system admins by setting up their areas, and then getting the hell out of their way. How creative can they be if there's someone standing over their shoulder saying, "No, you can't do that because I don't like it?" The fact that I created the site is a non-issue. My role as Site Admin is that of support.

[source]

I don't think this is a good direction to take the site. It's not simply about changing the title or rotating Storytellers. It's not simply about whether something is a Pocket Game or not, and it's not simply about burnout or system activity, even though those are all things are worth talking about as a group. This is primarily about what the site's stated goals and tone have been, and what they may become. I might think differently if this had been a decision we all made together, but this was one person's decision. We play here in part because of what that Mission Statement says, and now it's fundamentally changing without our input. To put it simply: I don't think that's okay.

--

Regarding the imposition of term limits: I am not burnt out. It's clear that Sam was feeling it, but his experience is not my experience. Keeping up with character approvals and journals has not become a chore. I am still inspired to run the occasional storyline, I enjoy playing with and storytelling for the Werewolf game and enjoy hearing about what others are doing even more. Most importantly, I have never felt pressure to treat the Admin role as a second (and unpaid) job. I don't feel pressured to try and shoehorn activity into the system, in part because I know that people will play what they want to play, when they want to play it; you can't force interest. On every site I've played on and been an Admin on, different systems have different periods of activity and inactivity, and sometimes those periods seem long. It's not something that's made me nervous. In fact, I've felt that the vast majority of Werewolf players on Denver have been quite happy that they didn't have to run at a breakneck pace to try and keep up with the system.

To be very blunt: I am being removed from a position I enjoy and do well with three weeks' notice. The only reason I've been given is that it is somehow for my own good, and 'for the good of the site'. This is the reason I have not said anything about these changes until now: I'm angry. If I was informed of complaints or problems that the player base or other Admins had with me, I would address them as best I could. If I felt burnt out I would say something. If I needed a break, I would take one. But there have been no complaints, I am not burnt out, and I do not need a break. I'm just being removed, whether it's necessary or not, and whether I like it or not.

--

Regarding storylines: my first storyline for Denver WtA took 6 months. It was vast, system-wide, involved just about every character whose player was interested in being involved, and caused permanent changes to the system, which was the point. Afterward, I let vast system-wide storylines go fallow for a time to prevent Admin -- and just as importantly, player -- burnout. I was, as of the announcement of 'upcoming role changes', planning a new system-wide storyline. I believe that periods of more and less structure to the game is a more effective way of managing a system than rotating leadership out every 12 months and pushing for more system storylines.

In between that first storyline and now, there have been other storylines, some lasting just a scene or two, some lasting a few months. They've all been enjoyable. As far as I am aware, every storyline in my system has been finished, whether by me or by the player-ST who stepped up to the plate and contributed to the system. I do not understand how removing and replacing me will motivate more storylines, or more concise, clear-end-point storylines.

Regarding the current setting and NPCS: in her email to me and in the posts above, Errin says that systems and NPCs are not to be razed to the ground: the new 'Storyteller' will need to work with what is in place. I agree with that much; with any transition of system leadership, it's important to keep continuity of RP. People should be able to keep the characters they've established, and new STs should not have to build a setting from the ground up, and players should not have to learn a new setting (and new rules) on a regular basis.

However, also in her email to me but not in the posts above, Errin said that while the system could go as-is to my replacement, her recommendation was to start over with a clean slate. Her reasoning is that because the current Denver WtA setting is unique and includes some unsolved mysteries (DIA, the Pit beneath Cold Crescent, and so on), and because the majority of the cast is new characters, it would be more convenient to scrap what is already in place: either move the current Denver WtA game to a Pocket Game (run by me) or close it altogether.

Granted, Errin told me it is my choice how the transition is handled, but the truth is: my choice is to continue working as the Admin of Denver WtA. Same characters, same setting, same game, changing and evolving over time as characters come and go and as new storylines occur. That would be my choice, but that's not one of the options being offered.

--

A few final notes before I wrap this up:

Other than the title change from 'Admin' to 'Storyteller' and the creation of term limits, Errin mentions some other restrictions, but does not describe what they are. I think what those restrictions will be should be laid out so that new volunteers know what strictures they'll need to work within.

As has been brought up by Damon and Liz and Sam, it was pretty harsh to receive notice that my term limit was up less than a month before the fact. It came as a complete shock to me. In a way, it felt like being told that I was being fired, but that I would need to keep doing the job for another few weeks. I bring this up only to reiterate: this isn't okay.

I think it's pretty clear that I don't think these changes need to be made. Obviously Sam needs a break, or to step aside entirely, because he's admittedly burnt out. Obviously we need someone to work with Vampire or decide what to do with it. But what was wrong with the site that we need sweeping top-down changes? I think we were doing pretty well at our stated goals and having a good time.

I would like to continue running Denver WtA. I like this site, I like the players, I like the setting, and I like being on a site where Admins have creative/administrative control over their systems (and where I have never seen a system Admin abusing that power in the last year and a half). That has been working -- so why is it changing?

[Jacqui]

I haven't weighed in on the discussion going on here for a few reasons, the main being, I respect both Errin's right as site administrator to do what she feels is in the best interests of the site and I also respect the thoughts of the people who have weighed in. To put it another way -- I agree and understand where both sides are coming from and why they feel the way they do.

I'm a pretty easy going RPer myself. I will accommodate and roll with whatever the changes are, if they happen, how they happen. My happiness is more or less dependant on whether or not I can fit RP into my week and how and what shape that RP will take. I love the people here I play with, I think everyone is a rockstar. I think it's a site that works primarily because we're all (give or take) veterans of RP in some guise or another and that means we come to the table bearing our own respective battle scars and stories of ye old times. It also means for not a small few of us, we've had experience being admins of systems and we understand only too well the reasoning behind and the motivation of Errin wanting to impose a limit on how long someone runs a system.

Burn out isn't fun and nobody ever wants to feel like (to take you to a weird metaphorical place) they're stuck in the worst part of a horror movie with the killer on their heels and nowhere to go but to fling themselves out a window.

There's primarily two things that I care about in relation to these proposed changes:

1. That my friends and the people who've worked ridiculously hard to bring about the site and their systems are happy and taken care of (in a non mobster, bricks tied to feet and dropped in the lake sort of way)

and 2. That flexibility and compromise is a possibility if something isn't working or the group consensus seems to be that it might not be as thought, in the best interests of the site as a whole

In relation to those concerns, I wonder and politely put forward if it's not possible to have a sort of loophole or clause in the proposed new structure for an ST (or in this case, as with Kai, an admin) to stay on in their post if there's no interest in stepping down, no sign of burnout and perhaps, no other bites of interest. A 12 month performance appraisal, to make it a tad more academic. That way while still adhering to the changes in rules and set outs, there's also a degree of compromise and flexibility for situations where, as Kai talked about a little above -- there's no desire to step aside and I dare say, enthusiasm to continue on and forge the system into new and exciting things.

As Damon and Liz and also Jamie mentioned too -- we're all here because this is a game and it's fun and we, collectively, as the players, make it that. So I think that regardless of what changes do happen, we can (we should) be the ones who continue to make it so and push the site in cool directions.

[FadedNoel]

As far as activity on the site slowing down, we had a similar slowdown last year around this time. It's a busy time of year for some people. I don't think that's cause for much alarm. Anecdotal evidence collected from me talking with people because I want to RP has led me to believe this. Everybody that I talk to even with extreme irregularity is being smacked hard by life right now for whatever reason. Work, family, school, it's all coming together to sap our free time. When our lives clear up again, we will want to RP still, I mean come on. I don't think there's a person here who really thinks they can quit, am I right?

So, it doesn't make sense to me to try to shake up all of the systems when dire problems with people's activity aren't really evident.

Also, the way this was done bugs the hell out of me. For Sam, it makes a lot of sense to step down as Admin, if he's getting burned out. In TT we rotate GMs all the time because of this. But it has to come from the GM saying they've had enough. If someone is having a good time, continuing to do the job, and they're not burned out, it makes zero sense to replace them.

We've had one Admin drop out, and had another Admin burn out, so I can understand why Errin thought that something needed to be done. Do we need to do something about Admin burnout? Yes. Absolutely. Even if it's just a matter of having a talk with the Admins on occasion to see how they're going and ask if they'd like to step down. But let's not do it like this. People (multiple, not naming any names ever) are already telling me they might be looking for another site to hang their RP hat on because of this. That's not cool, man.

[Also, because I just saw Jacqui's post, read hers, it's like what I would have said were I more better at this. I like the idea of allowing people the option to step down gracefully, on a schedule. We could do it more often than a year even. There is no forcing necessary, is there?]

[errin]

Well. I was going to wait a little longer to ensure that everyone was able to have their say about the impending changes, but since a select few have decided to tear apart this decision without giving it any consideration, I guess it's time that I step in. And ultimately step down.

But first.

Damon and Liz didn't say anything that I hadn't already considered. I know their suggestions were intended well, and were them coming to the defense of Kai as Werewolf Admin, but I also know that they're not seeing the bigger picture as I've seen it.

This was not a decision that I came to lightly, or that I made just to throw my weight around as site owner. This decision was made after receiving numerous complaints about all of the systems, and seeing for myself that not only did all of the systems go dark when their Admins stopped having time for them. I've also been told by people that don't even play on WoDD that they'd heard complaints about the systems here, namely that the Admins weren't available. Individual progress was stymied, overall storylines were bottlenecked or cut off altogether. The pulse that I have gotten from the site for this entire year (not just for the holidays, which are always a time of natural slow down on any site) was there were more players and Admins feeling frustrated than there were having fun. The burden of running systems got to be too much for some, and that burden trickled down through the playerbase.

That is why I made this decision. It was so that the people who needed breaks could take breaks, and those who didn't need them could take one before it was too late. It's been my experience that by the time someone finally says, "That's it, I've had enough, I'm done," it's already way past time. That's how three year hiatuses from gaming happen.

As for Kai being relieved. Yes, I told her in my email announcement that my recommendation for Werewolf would be to shut it down, with the current setting going into a pocket game until she could take it to a conclusion. That's because there are three people playing, with a small handful of others jumping in when they have time or a place to jump into. I had hoped that this was something she and I could discuss privately in emails, but it's clear to me now that she had no intention of working this out with me. It's better to lambast me publicly, right?

Well. That's it. I'm done. It's just not worth it for me to do put any more effort into a site where I'm clearly not wanted.

I'm not going to close the site, but I'm not going to renew it, either. The registered domain expires in March, with the hosting overall expiring in October. If anyone is interested in taking over these payments, let me know and I'll get all of the Dreamhost stuff transferred over to your name.

And with that I give my goodbye to World of Darkness: Denver. It was fun while it lasted, which wasn't half so long as it was active.

[Pip]

I haven't played here long and not often, I find it hard to get play (bad timing I guess), so I'm not even sure I should weigh in on this. Don't feel I have much of a right to, really. I see there's a lot of hurt out there on all sides and that really blows. I'm not going to touch on the whole discussion about where that hurt springs from and why, etc.

But I will go against the grain and say that I think the idea is good. I like it. I think I get where Errin is coming from with this and it's a unique opportunity. I also think this goes with the core vision of the site.

There's plenty of talented writers and role-players on Denver that often work together to create something pretty darn cool. There's the storyteller rotation that seems to work well, and has consistently across many sites I've played at. So I question why it couldn't work on a system basis. It's not all that different.

We're creative people. We bounce off each others posts, we interact in stories dreamed up by our peers, add on to them if we feel inclined and come back for more. Is it any different when it comes down to a whole system setting?

You have a setting in place already, the next admin shift can work on that, build and adapt it through story-lines. This adds some diversity, it shakes things up a bit, and allows players to try a different style, a variant slant on a vision. Life changes, sometimes gradually and other times with a sudden and immediate impact.

That way all players are working together not just in a scene by scene basis but across the entire site, able to inject a little of their own world into the systems that they play in, should they volunteer to take the next shift.

Work together. Isn't that what this site is about?

I'd suggest keeping the rules and character creations, however, the same throughout any admin 'shifts'. If any changes were to occur on that level then it should be put to the players and agreed across the board.

[FadedNoel]

I don't think that anyone was saying they didn't want you around anymore, Errin. We might be upset about the decision, but that does not mean that we hate you. Not even a little bit. If you wanted to stay, we'd all be happy with that, I'm pretty sure. If you wanted to take a break for a while and come back, I think everybody would welcome you with open arms. That's what I think.

Just because we disagree with one whole decision does not mean that we think you suck personally.

And this does not come from an "Oh please, don't shut down the site" mentality. Hell, I could take the site's care and feeding on if it came to that. I have the will to and the experience building sites, so that's not even an issue.

Nobody look at this and think it's the end, okay? We're not going down just yet. Chill.

[Jacqui]

Errin, absolutely nobody wants you to quit. If that's what you feel is best for you and for the site, then of course that's your prerogative but I think, if you read through the responses to the changes, there isn't a single one that's pointing any fingers and saying that you're in any way an unwanted member of the site.

You're a rocking writer, you're a great ST and I think you've had the very best interests of the site at heart throughout everything -- at least as far as I've seen personally since I've discovered it. I think, at the heart of the discussion and hurt is the sense that people weren't a part of the discussion. That's really all it is. Not that they don't respect you or your wonderful presence on the site or what you've given us along with the admins and STs.

It's purely that people feel like there's a community here, there's a collective desire to make and evolve what you and the others imagined with Denver upon starting it up and from that sense of community, I think, stems the feeling that changes should be something everyone can feel included in. Obviously, not every change should be something a site owner or the admins need to run by players but my sense from what is collectively presented here is not - this is a terrible idea because you made it and therefore we don't like you at all, it's this idea has merit in places and we understand the premise but the implementation of it might need a bit of tweaking.

Believe me, I know it sucks to feel as if people are tearing apart something you clearly invested a ton of thought and heart into but I think the real take away isn't that you need to step down (again, unless you feel like it's time to or something you need) but just that there's some points that might have merit worth looking into. Or conversely, that you might not agree with but could be mulled over or broken down and talked through with folks.

Running systems, running sites - it's a tough gig, it really is. It can be thankless and it can feel, like it might right here, that's its way too much stress for what it gives back, but I think the key reason people are trying to open discussion is because you helped build something they care about. People love Denver, they think there's a lot here that's worth evolving and you know, personally, I think the site works better for you being part of it.

Step down or not, I just hope you know that as a person, nobody questions if you rock or not, we know you do. Being the top of the pyramid has its high points and its low points and nobody is going to throw mud because ideas didn't work or stick. You do what is best for you but speaking on my own behalf - you dropping the ball and walking away was never the intent of voicing my thoughts.