Another "stating the obvious just in case it goes unnoticed" thought-post.
I think a big set-backs for the model you propose are going to be:
[hider=Agreeing Definitions]RPing means different things to different people. When I tried to explain RPing to Jig's Very Patient Partner, I sort of fudged together the phrase "Community storytelling in traditional prose format" with the qualifier that each player is typically tied to their own character's/characters' actions. This looks very different to
You said
Roleplay - (verb) the act of simulating the thoughts, behavior and actions of a character to interact with other characters and a setting*
and while a typical RP fulfils both of these criteria, having core definitions as you suggest (not a bad idea in principle by any means) to work off relies on those core definitions being foolproof. If 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 isn't an impossible challenge, but it is a challenge nonetheless. At the same time, editorial rights are surely going to have to be restricted to those people that understand and accept the given definitions, to avoid the above problem, potentially reducing the overall community input through vetting people.
* obviously this example isn't perfect, because you're defining a verb and I, a noun, but hopefully you take my point.[/hider]
There is also the risk of over-complicating things. Bombarding a newbie with terminology and complex and precise examples and (literally) textbook jargon runs the risk of alienating them; I remember jamming with some people on the bass, and I asked for the chord structure and when they said words to the effect of "It's twelve-bar blues in A minor" or "It's just playing the root, the fifth and the seventh" I was dumbfounded and just wanted them to tell me what the bloody root notes of the chords were so I could work out where it corresponded on my strings.
Tl; dr - Being too academic runs the risk of making the guide an academic project rather than a useful one.
I've already touched on this, but people are different, and they will perceive different concepts in different ways and have different approaches. At what point is a given approach considered too radically different to be 'noteworthy' (to use Wiki's phrase)? To what point is an opinion that godmoding and power-playing are totally fine and should be encouraged given space in the guide? After all, it's simply (almost universal) opinion that says those practises are wrong in the first place.
At the same time, in those 'opinion-and-theory' sections (as opposed to the factual ones where we can hopefully reach a sterilised agreement - see above), I'm not sure at what point 'creative rights' kick in. Suppose (and this is an example that may be relevant), I propose a theory on a way of producing a collaborative post with reasons for and examples of and basically I work my bollocks off on it. I can easily imagine offence being caused to somebody embarking on a sort of 'pet specialism submission' if the team working behind the guide either makes editorial changes (either to content or presentation) for better or worse, or if that particular submission is swallowed into the Guide and the original author of that material goes uncredited. Can that material then be taken down if the original author wants to throw a hissy fit and be spiteful? There is an element of pride in producing work, whether it be academic or artistic, and nobody wants to feel like they've been plagiarised or have their work compromised.
Again, not an insurmountable obstacle, but it might be worth forming something almost like a contract clearly laying out what happens to submissions and editorial changes once they've been submitted. That way, there can't be any arguments later if there's a dispute over content.
"If you submit work to this project, you agree that it may be used without your permission and Jig gets the kidney of your first-born."
I'm reminded of a fault with TV Tropes, where each page is supposed to feel as though it's written by one almighty Tropelord, which makes sense for convention of presentation and readability, but comes with the downfall that 'opinion' is typically crushed. If written by 'one' community, what space is there for different interpretations of application of Tropes, or, in the context of this guide, the application of models and ideas.
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.
While things like built game engines, PbP and LARPs might all be easily distinct, the concept of a system typically runs through each of them. While not necessarily detailed or even stated, PbP RPs do have conventions that you might consider a 'system' for the effective and enjoyable running of the game:
- Prose convention - typically written in 3rd person past historic so it reads fluidly
- Courtesy rules - no godmoding or powerplaying
- Write in a communal language - usually English
- GM authority
In specific PbP's, the system might be more or less obvious and might be more or less obvious through reading a page of IC. In a given conflict between two players, how has it been decided who wins? The most effective story-telling and meta-gaming wits of the player? The natural conclusion of a given circumstance with each character played perfectly appropriately to their personality, skillset and situation (as if!)? Has the GM swept in and decided? Flipping a coin?
Similarly, when I create a collaborative post (usually for the purposes of a well-integrated dialogue within a post without godmoding), this is typically done over an IM or Google Drive, so both players can discuss simultaneously and sort of Pre-LARP the scene before it is written up as a 'formal' post.
Any and all of these things can constitute a system, but none of them are strictly speaking necessary. My point here is that basically it might be easy to blur lines within the guide and outside it - hence the next challenge.
Already I've come across several terms whose definitions I've challenged or asked for. Just as the guide and the audience need to be on the same page, so does the team behind this from almost the word go.
(Incidentally, this post will assume 'subtype' refers to different structures RPs can take, be they MMO, PbP, LARP, etc - a definition to subtype would be helpful for the purpose of this discussion. Also, if I don't otherwise specify, assume I'm talking about PbP RPs since I don't really have much concept of others)
