I will answer replies in the chronological order I was given them with my retorts and input towards the suggestions and/or changes.
I don't necessarily believe the "subtypes" would necessarily need a chapter to themselves. I see it more as
Chapter One: What is Roleplaying?
- Definition
1.1 - Different types like LARPing
1.2 - Different types like Text Based
Etc, etc
It coul just branch off chapter one instead of giving EACH little thing a chapter of its own. And the Units I pictured more like:
Unit One: Fundamentals of Roleplaying (what it is)
Unit Two: Maybe something like Character Sheets and such
And so forth and so forth
A Unit is a set of chapters. In the system you describe, all you do is alter the structure that information is being divided up into. Stating Chapter 1.2: Subtypes of Text-Based, Chapter 1.3: Sub-types of System in terms of actual mechanics just change the distribution. Let me reiterate the structure I had in mind:
Index (including redirection to the Quick Start Guide)- Preface
Unit 1 Roleplaying Foundation
- Chapter 1: What is Roleplay?
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
Unit 2 Text-Based Roleplay
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
Unit 3 System-based Roleplay
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- chapter 9
Unit 4 ???
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Glossary
- Changelog
Your method overhauls the entire information distribution process I had in mind, Aki, and here's how. Using the method I had set forth, I intended to address all major forms of roleplay (not at once, mind you) using a core. The core would be set early and we would use it to create a strong sense of logic and consistency throughout the Guide. Now, I do understand the desire to consolidate chapters, but what you just described turns a Chapter into a Unit and Chapters into sub-Chapters, then alters the method by which they are categorized. Your Chapter One asks what is Roleplay then later in 1.2 states the different forms or LARP'ing and dose the same for text-based. In mine, those are entirely different Units, basically. I'm not for sure why you would organize it like that. If you think about it, putting every piece of information under one header like that defeats the purpose of categorizing it to begin with. That is the dated method of chronologically organizing information. Now, what we could do is label them 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 based on Unit and Chapter. That would save out on numbering and naming chapers, but I believe the overhaul you had in mind would devastate how the Guide was structure to a degree that it would require a whole new revamp. Now, I wouldn't mind that, but if we're revamping the Guide, I need far more input as to how.
Jig, I have a reply to this preloaded, actually. It's something I considered a long time ago, and the answer it to is fairly straightforward. By using the terms and definitions we design, we can set forth a model that is so all-encompassing in its base form (ie, in the most universal form of it) that as a single roleplayer from any genre, they are in all technicality performing the defined action in some easily-interpreted way. In the fact of the very first definition, yours wouldn't apply to Tabletops or LARP'ing, but mine would. In general, mine can in some way be applied to nearly every form of roleplay or RPG. That is the distinct goal I had, and that is so that all information across the board will be consistent.
f I approach submitting content, which will inevitably be based on what I perceive RPing to be in my own specific way, and try to apply models to a definition that I don't necessarily feel is the most relevant or specific to that model, the application is going to feel laboured at best and potentially incomprehensible at worst
This is a great point, and it's the reason I said there would be several definitions for the same word. I'm actually going to bring this up at a later point in my reply to Brovo, but in short, we might have to adjust the definition for roleplay in a way that a) doesn't break the original definition and b) better describes what is actually happening in that type of roleplay. As for your Ivory Towers answer, I'm going to wait and address that as it will be best answered while I later address Brovo. It is actually in your over-lap statement that I want to continue on. If we change the definition of roleplay and what it is, we are doing so because it is defining something with more conditions. That's all it is.
From your recent post, you might think that RPs come in a small variety of neat, discrete types and each one can be nicely bottled-up and labelled. I'd be surprised if you agree
Actually, yes, that is what I believe. The lines might blur at times. So, what do we do? We look down at the objective nature of these types of roleplay and determine what makes them different, then
BOLD that fuckin' line and run with it. Why? Because if we do that for all the different types of roleplay, we gain two advantages. One, even if roleplay is only different because of a set of standards (the different between Casual and Advanced), then we're making it our mission at that time to state those difference so that people understand what they are. Secondly, if we do that, we can make a community effort to allow experts in those specific subtypes to come in and be like our Guest Writer for them, thus pushing the collaborative effort of this. I would even note that his is an advantage Aki should note and take into consideration as to why I set up the structure as I did.
So, Jig, I will present my half-vague, all-encompassing definitions once we get past the preface. I will say, however, that this is a guidebook. And, on your topic of Individualism and Ownership, we will explain and define what those concepts are. How they should and if they should be used. What their literary and resource value consist of. I do understand where you're coming from, but here's a thought that I want to purpose to you. Every single textbook you've ever read has literally and technically been nothing but the consolidated opinions and several facts of its author(s), yet they don't feel like a TV Trope too often. We need to strive for that. We need to set definitions and we need to objectively look at all these concepts. We might look at them as wrong, but maybe we need to define them as a tool and teach them how to be used instead of just locking them away as some taboo, or maybe we should label them a taboo or something to be used sensitively, and explain why. At times, we will have probably spam the phase "the general consensus" or write the detriments of using them incorrectly as cause-and-effect in such a black and white way that how they can be hurtful and why they're not conducted is an understood rule posted in almost every original thread.
Edit: In case I actually didn't answer your question about the different definitions during different parts of the roleplay in my address to Brovo, I will now. If there is a core definition, there is no reason not to edit it to better suit each particular subtype of roleplay as long as it doesn't contradict itself or conflict with the original definition. That said, you're quite right in saying that most people aren't going to go through the arbitrary setup of understanding a bunch of complex definition and jargon if it does not apply to them... so we make it apply to them. Simple as that. If they realize they should go back and read Chapter One after reading chapter Six because they want more information about Nation-based roleplay, then that's fine. They obviously are looking for more detailed information. The benefit is also that if they have to read Chapter One and all the newbies read Chapter One, a lot of roleplayers will eventually have common grounds in terms of information. Could be a useful, healthy aspect to have implemented. I would even go as far as creating a Requests forum after we finish the Guide for people who might eventually want 'more' to it or a few changes that may be beneficial and/or don't merit a giant overhaul.
I'm going to skip replying to the next few as to reply to Brovo as I believe I will answer several questions. I have read all of your points and I deem them valid, but I also don't deem them so valid that they merit a complete restructure of the Guide, which is why prior to this I didn't quite immediately concede. I have a brilliant idea here. The approach I had was academic, sure, but there is no reason we can't take that and plot in your more practical applications here. I intended to have an index, so my suggestion here is actually a remodel of the first Unit. After asking What is Roleplay?, one can move on to another Unit, but the rest of the Unit could and probably should be dedicated to two things: the application of Roleplay and its models. Guess what the very first one should be? How it's done right here on our very own Guild. Every single concept you just described could be placed into a chapter and probably even organized with sub-chapters, much like the system Aki had set in place. Additionally, if we make these the very first few chapters, we can describe them or "tag" them as a Quick Start Guide. Here, I believe we can make Chapter One and Chapter Two, possible even Chapter Three or whatever else is part of the Quick Start Guide apply to all five of your rules without forfeiting any of the benefits of the system I had in mind and since my system already had in place a method of learning about a single topic, using an index, etc., then all we have to do is further streamline that with conventional chronology that ties in with the organization system, and there's not a single conflict.
This is where I want it to differ, though.
Divide And Conquer. People are going to read the guide for a spray of different purposes: To learn about the basics of role playing, to learn about GMing, to learn about Players, and so on. Each "section" should be its own distinct entity, that being said...
That being said, if we create this Quick Start Guide following all your rules that also ties into the definitions we set forth in Chapter One and uses the same model we design, then there is no reason we can't go on as planned with more lengthy, in-depth chapters to the Guide. I have explained how to make each section its own entity and that this is a community effort. This isn't a one-man project anymore nor is it just some Guide to string together a couple others and share credit. We are a group. We are a single, working body with a single goal here and that is how we should address this. I understand you have an outlook here and I firmly believe that with some editing and a little compromise, we could easily have something far better than either alone. Essentially, if we have your Guide designed to be condensed and easily read/understood that is consistent with my academic Guide all in the same setup, we are reaching out to the entire community who would make use of or enjoy reading either style.
That said, I would also like to keep a consistent aesthetic once we get the Guide going. Consistency will play a huge factor here. The Nations Roelplay Chapter should look similar to and share traits with the Quick Start Guide. Same for 1x1's. Same for the part of the Guide where I might go off into other models. I would like to note that I intended for this to be a Guide for roleplay itself, not a How To Use The Site, but I suppose if you fit it into the same chapter it won't be hurtful. I would personally like to see a bit more content there, but I also have very little idea how the rest of the Guide will look in a semi-finished state, so that is really a null point presently.
tl:dr There is no reason we can't fit all of these ideas into the same Guide. I have put an immense amount of thought into this Guide as originally I had considered making one alone just like Brovo, but I feel that the community effort will be vastly more powerful. The Guide should be leagues more than a quick how-to, but in fact, it should also be a quick how-to. I understand this and I believe the foundation set forth could easily fit a vast array of information and uses. We can also edit it as we add more as the project goes on. The five rules you set forth, Brovo, don't necessarily need to apply to the entire Guide, but definitely would benefit the important ones.
On a more personal note, there is no reason whatsoever for rule #5 to be 'avoid elitism'. You know personally I have went off on huge tangents explaining that my opinion on the topic greatly differs. There is no reason a proper "elite" could not be "humble and inviting, uplifting, and constructive." For such reasons, I'm going to request you omit those two words (and period) from that rule. They're unneeded, a distraction for me and overall add nothing to it that you didn't effectively explain in detail afterwards. If omitted, the rule will relay the same message.
I do hope I addressed everyone here as there was a lot of content to post.
I woke up in the middle of the night and read this, then felt the odd need to reply... to all of it. There is no reason a universal Guide could not be a basic and advanced one, as long as we work to make it such.
Sidenote: Forgive spelling and grammar errors, pl0x. I woke up at 2:15 AM to write this because I felt the odd and urgent need to. I'm sure there are a couple and I hope they don't inhibit the clarity of what I mean.
