I will say that I have been around forums for a while, seven years, so I am a bit cynical of modern-day "forum culture". Bulbagarden is unique in that it's a mature community, as I've heard people say many times and as appears to be true from all that I've seen. So there's less of... well... less trainer cards, graphical signature banners, custom avatars or "avs", and all the other indications that a forum's culture is governed by an immature forum population.
However, one thing that I've noticed about Bulbagarden which doesn't seem to be much different from the other forums... the idea of an RPG. When I joined Pokecommunity in summer of 2004 I was very surprised to discover this concept, which within a few months I realized was widespread through the online community.
A Pokemon "RPG" is like the RPGs that I know in that it's a multi-person story, but the ones I've seen are closer to "make-believe" and have a very egocentric twist.
- Good RPGs of the kind I know use character definition to help advance the plot, however there's not a focus on characters, but rather the plot as a whole; focus on individual characters leads to division, and the RPG should exist for its own sake, as a work of literature created between many people, not for the sake of the realization of the fantasies of people who control characters.
- There's also this idea of describing character attributes in a post introducing your character, which in my experience is irregular; sometimes you maintain another topic in which you maintain information on the world and on individual characters, for writer's reference, but usually you don't have a kind of "application" associated with RPGs.
- The person who created the RPG should not have full control over all major aspects of the RPG, but rather, once the RPG is started, the people who participate in it decide where they want it to go, by consensus, and similarly decide if they want to let new people in by consensus. Obviously when a person decides to organize an RPG the people who join it should agree with that person's idea of how that RPG will be founded, but from then on, major decisions about previously undefined things should be decided by the group; one person does not own the RPG.
- Also, I haven't looked very closely but I suspect many people have difficulty knowing to what extent a character is controlled by which people. I'm not sure if the standards that I am familiar with, as far as character control, apply here, either.
I just read Damian Silverblade's post, and I think I see the root of where my definition of an RPG and you peoples' differs: "an RPG ... it's a game where people assume the roles of characters". Key phrase assume the role of. In many other RPGs, people don't assume the roles of characters, but rather they design a major character, maybe one or two, along with occasional minor characters, and they control significant events with respect to those characters, while respecting other people's characters. The writer doesn't "assume the role of" characters because the writer doesn't identify themselves with the characters, the writer just puts their effort into designing and using their character to further the RPG. Also, there is often a separate topic for OOC chat/discussion, and the story is written in such a way that if you were to put it all together, without any special formatting or separation between chapters other than just signifying the end of a chapter followed by the start of another chapter, it would read flawlessly, by which I mean you wouldn't say "Oh, this is a multi-person story".
Is anyone else familiar with what I'm talking about?
However, one thing that I've noticed about Bulbagarden which doesn't seem to be much different from the other forums... the idea of an RPG. When I joined Pokecommunity in summer of 2004 I was very surprised to discover this concept, which within a few months I realized was widespread through the online community.
A Pokemon "RPG" is like the RPGs that I know in that it's a multi-person story, but the ones I've seen are closer to "make-believe" and have a very egocentric twist.
- Good RPGs of the kind I know use character definition to help advance the plot, however there's not a focus on characters, but rather the plot as a whole; focus on individual characters leads to division, and the RPG should exist for its own sake, as a work of literature created between many people, not for the sake of the realization of the fantasies of people who control characters.
- There's also this idea of describing character attributes in a post introducing your character, which in my experience is irregular; sometimes you maintain another topic in which you maintain information on the world and on individual characters, for writer's reference, but usually you don't have a kind of "application" associated with RPGs.
- The person who created the RPG should not have full control over all major aspects of the RPG, but rather, once the RPG is started, the people who participate in it decide where they want it to go, by consensus, and similarly decide if they want to let new people in by consensus. Obviously when a person decides to organize an RPG the people who join it should agree with that person's idea of how that RPG will be founded, but from then on, major decisions about previously undefined things should be decided by the group; one person does not own the RPG.
- Also, I haven't looked very closely but I suspect many people have difficulty knowing to what extent a character is controlled by which people. I'm not sure if the standards that I am familiar with, as far as character control, apply here, either.
I just read Damian Silverblade's post, and I think I see the root of where my definition of an RPG and you peoples' differs: "an RPG ... it's a game where people assume the roles of characters". Key phrase assume the role of. In many other RPGs, people don't assume the roles of characters, but rather they design a major character, maybe one or two, along with occasional minor characters, and they control significant events with respect to those characters, while respecting other people's characters. The writer doesn't "assume the role of" characters because the writer doesn't identify themselves with the characters, the writer just puts their effort into designing and using their character to further the RPG. Also, there is often a separate topic for OOC chat/discussion, and the story is written in such a way that if you were to put it all together, without any special formatting or separation between chapters other than just signifying the end of a chapter followed by the start of another chapter, it would read flawlessly, by which I mean you wouldn't say "Oh, this is a multi-person story".
Is anyone else familiar with what I'm talking about?