So the question came up in a discussion earlier today with some of the GM's and after some talk we decided the best next step would be to pose the question to you the roster.

The question is this: Should we change the Warfare rules from 3 roleplays unlimited words to 2 roleplays unlimited words. With 1 roleplay being required each week.

This would mean that both Savage and Warfare would now be 2 roleplay shows, the difference being that Savage will still have a 3000 word cap per rp and Warfare's would remain unlimited.

The one roleplay option would remain an option of course.

Please vote in the poll above and unlike the OTM polls you DO NOT have to explain your vote.

I don't think so. I've always liked the diversity of options here and sometimes I personally like to write longer form. If we made it more like Savage it would cut down on the diversity of options. If people want to do do 2 RP's they have Savage already (granted its not unlimited). Plus we can opt for 1 RP anyway.

I voted no, but I guess I don't know. If I want to write less that cycle, I just opt into Savage - and as said, there's the 1 rp limit option.

I'd say the latest round of both Warfare and Savage were probably impacted by the Denzel show in terms of sign ups. Thinking of those on the prior Warfare, Corey, Thad, Flynn, and Vaughn (not to mention others whom I might not know are handling another character) were all on the Denzel show with its 7k rps so probably had to manage their workloads and maybe recover a bit. It's cool to see it being thought about though, knowing that the trend more broadly in efedding has been for less rps. Appreciate the ongoing consultation with the roster.

One thing Theo pointed out to me when we discussed this last night (in bed) is that obviously in an unlimited scenario, writing fewer RPs does not necessitate writing less overall. Though it DOES remove one of the opportunities to directly respond to your opponent's writing.

IMO sometimes less is more, which goes for word counts as well as number. I think I would rather read 3 RPs spread over two weeks than read 2 massive ones that all equal the same count. There's a sort of fatigue that sets in during a long-ass RP. like, okay, when does this thing wrap up, etc. Of course, there's also nothing stopping someone from reading half of an RP and picking it up later to finish.

I think some of the problem comes with peoples' natural tendency to wait until the last minute. We know this is never going to change, all of us do it. Look at the Denzel show. Almost every RP was the last day. When I put the soft deadline thing in place it was to ease some of that, and it works, but we still very often end up with 2 RPs from opponents on the last day. It sucks for everyone involved.

There is no perfect answer, but we need to have the right balance for what is good for writers as well as what's good for opponents and judges and show builders - because if ANY of those folks are rushed, EVERYONE ends up worse off for it.

(02-24-2022, 08:04 AM)"Loverboy" Vinnie Lane Said: There's a sort of fatigue that sets in during a long-ass RP. like, okay, when does this thing wrap up, etc.

(02-24-2022, 08:04 AM)"Loverboy" Vinnie Lane Said: One thing Theo pointed out to me when we discussed this last night (in bed)

Way to kiss and tell.

One of the things Lane mentioned to me after this poll went up was the prospect of changing the Warfare rules to what is proposed but keep the current standard for all Supercontinental matches which is an intriguing idea and a way for us to have our cake and eat it too so to speak. It would allow people to potentially write less(if they want) using the new standards but if they want to go balls to the wall then the way to do that is to challenge for the Supercontinental title. The drawback of course could be that if we change the standard but leave it in place for just SC matches that it could stop people from challenging for that title.

Definitely lots to consider and like Lane said, there is no real perfect answer to any of this. It's all about finding that balance.

For me, I am a fan of being able to write a beginning, a middle, and an end of a roleplay story. I think it allows for surprise twists, as well as (like Vinnie said) helps keep from too much fatigue from reading an extremely long roleplay. It just feels better for me to separate it out and make it three chapters, rather than two. As also mentioned, people can accept doing just 1 rp for Warfare instead (which I have done as well).

I know people posting at the last minute is an issue, but I think the only thing going to two rps will change is that we will just have one rp posted at 11:59pm at the deadline instead of two.

I voted yes because I think I would opt into warfare a lot more if there were only 2 rps. With my work schedule it's hard to find time to make 3 good ones and get them out reasonably spaced apart. Just me tho.

This might come as a shock, but I voted yes. Don't like word caps, but I don't mind number caps. Except 1. Screw 1. That's a lonely number.

After this cycle, I'm very much of the opinion that Savage and Warfare should swap rules, so that 3rps can have a Friday deadline as opposed to this ridiculous middle of the week nonsense.

Everyone has the option to opt in a certain way anyway don't they? Savage you can do 1 or 2 rps right? To change the rule is just silly to me.

(03-01-2022, 12:11 PM)Charlie Nickles Said: I voted yes because I think I would opt into warfare a lot more if there were only 2 rps. With my work schedule it's hard to find time to make 3 good ones and get them out reasonably spaced apart. Just me tho.

Ok but then like... you couldn't post your first one at 12:58 am and your second at 2:58 am... thats the world we live in...