Having a point-based system necessarily involves deciding what is worth the points. Some forum-based RPGs assign values to number of words; others, to number of posts or threads, with more or less influence of the content. Our current system places considerable value on quality versus quantity, which in my opinion is neat. However, what exactly does ‘quality’ consist of? I am a firm believer in transparency in grading. I made a little list of what accomplishments could likely be rewarded (many which already are). Some, I think, are currently misunderstood and might be improved.
1.Character development – The majority of stories (not short) that one will encounter involve the character changing in some way. It may be a villain growing into an anti-hero, or a hero turning to the dark side; it may be stuff like learning techniques or overcoming fear of a new food etc. A character changing in some way often keeps the story interesting. It’s not vital, however, as there are genres that can function virtually without any character development (think detective fiction). However, in this case, either the storytelling (see below) is good enough to make up for it, or the writer creates an illusion of change by gradually revealing facets of a complex character (the character doesn’t develop, but the reader’s perception of it does). I think character development is an element that could be especially useful in open-ended systems such as roleplaying.
2.Challenges – It is said that a story consists of a character, its environment, and challenges. Having a character face something that is challenging to them can keep us on the edge of our seats. This ties in to character development, but given that our site is based on a shonen anime, I’m focusing particularly on physical threats here. But what we have to understand is that ‘challenge’ is relative. A single bandit may endanger a D-rank character more than an entire samurai army threatens an S-rank. I do not think that we should grade by ‘absolute’, but rather by ‘relative’ danger’, as it is the ‘relative’ danger that gives us readers our kicks. Think about it: having Naruto and Sasuke struggle to face Haku in the first episodes was much more entertaining than if they had Bannin powers and could 1HKO the guy.
3.Impact on the world – Reading the previous paragraph, some may be disappointed that I make no distinction between weak characters facing equally weak opponents, and legendary characters facing legendary opponents. Surely having extra flashy attacks should get more points, right? Well…no, in my opinion. But I think that there is something important that writers may pull off more easily as their characters grow stronger, and this is impact on the world. I think people should be rewarded for trying to change the world that their characters live in, as long as it makes sense (no 1-hit destruction of Konoha, for example…). This could include fighting strong opponents, but it could equally involve things like diplomacy or reclaiming a fragment of the desert as farmland via ninja magic.
4.Storytelling – While enjoyment of writing is subjective, a story can be approximately graded in terms of grammar, flow of writing, originality, connections to other threads etc.
I feel that our current system of ‘*insert rank here* plotboards’ is a compromise between logic and the (worse) previous system of missions. One reason it is not fully logical is because it limits the progression of low-level characters. While this may have a superficial appeal to some (‘it feels illogical for weaklings to get strong that fast’), it can also do considerable damage. If two people write just as much and just as good, with the same level of ‘relative’ danger and impact on the world, but one of them is a D-rank and the other is an S-rank, the D-rank person may end up with fewer points (because of the stat point reward cap). This is essentially telling that person: ‘your writing is worth less because your character is weaker’ or ‘your writing is worth less because there was not enough stabbing and explosions in your plotboard’. Yes, they might end up with the same points by splitting the plotboard – but again, this implies that their character/PB is worth less because they have to go through additional hoops to acquire the same reward for the same work. Discouraging people from writing well is something that a roleplaying site should never do. And if you think that weaklings getting stronger fast is unnatural – first of all, they’d have to work for it. Same amount of work for the same reward. Secondly, isn’t it more unnatural to accelerate ease of gaining stats as one gets more power? To keep people entertained, many games do it the other way round.
As such, I think we should keep the ‘rank of’ plotboards only for guidance, not grading, and do away with the stat limits, or at the very least, set a uniform stat cap limit among all ranks. Instead, we should ask ourselves these questions: Is this writing good? Does this character show depth and/or evolution? Does it change the world around it in the slightest?
Additional thoughts on relative difficulty and plotboard length estimations
As previously mentioned, our current system is a hybrid that evolved from a previous (worse) system of ‘missions’. Because of this, it has grandfathered a few assumptions.
One of them is that plot (absolute) difficulty should be correlated with plot length. Well, simple missions should take less than more complex ones, right?
It’s not quite that straightforward.
Facing D-rank enemies is about as dangerous for a D-rank character as facing A-rank enemies would be for an A-rank. This is the important part: the relative difficulty. Over a low enough number of threads, the grading makes no distinction between them. Perhaps, for example, three threads of facing A-rank enemies would not be enough for an A-rank character to get an A-rank PB – but they’d still get their stat points. Alternatively, they could add more threads and get an A-rank PB.
The D-rank character doesn’t have the option to ‘add more threads’ to their story. Well, they do, but it’s meaningless when the cap is 15 points for a D-rank PB, and 20 points for a C-rank. Instead, they’re forced to split plotboards, or be penalized for keeping them together. This, I believe, comes from an ingrained assumption that low-level characters lack the capacity to be involved in complex plotboards. That they are, by virtue of being weak, boring. And it’s wrong.
Think of your favorite stories and how you cherished your character facing their initial challenges, even if later they’d grow so strong that they could solve it with their eyes closed. It’s the relative difficulty which matters. Assuming that weak characters cannot make complex, interesting stories, is a bias. It has no base in fiction/literature. And having illogical biases ingrained in a RP forum’s mechanics system is something that should not be done.
Plotboards are not missions. It does not matter whether the missions usually given to Genin might be ‘rescue this cat for an overpriced reward’ sort of stuff. What matters is that the character itself has a goal, how challenging it is for them, and how much they are willing to fight for it.
Another issue relating to ‘we shouldn’t penalize people for wanting to write good stories’. If we look at the suggested topics number, and then the stat max, we see that it encourages people not to write their best. A D-rank plotboard is listed as ‘typically 1 to 3 topics in length’, but if one wrote three threads, and they were all amazing, then they’d be losing out quite a lot (3 * 7 = 21; D-rank stat cap: 15). That’s…about a third of their work. Yes, they’d still receive the character points, but those feel almost ‘free’ compared to the more elusive/potentially more useful SP. And it’s not only low-ranked PBs that suffer from this – indeed, it gets worse at higher PB ranks. The worst offenders are A and B ranks. If one wrote the maximum suggested of threads and got the maximum of points, they’d be losing out on half. One doesn’t even have to be perfect – an average of four is enough to lose out with the maximum suggested topic number. At this point it might be easier to split the PB, but one shouldn’t have to go through additional hoops just because they happen to write a lot, and write it well. I do believe that making it a bit more challenging to get stronger as one’s character grows more powerful might make for an entertaining progression; however, what we should not do is tell people ‘You wrote so much and honestly, it’s brilliant! Here’s the same number of points as you would’ve gotten if you put in half the effort.’
Summary!
I believe there are two main points here that, depending on what Director comes back with from mods, may or may not be relevant.
First
people should be rewarded for their writing. This speaks to the stat caps. As it stands, the cap only serves to affect those who write above average, or, in the case of B and A rank plot boards, even those who write average. This, I believe, is the main issue I wanted to address here. It should not be, ‘You wrote so much and honestly, it’s brilliant! Here’s the same number of points as you would’ve gotten if you put in half the effort.’
There was talk in the C-box about this unstated potential of simply moving the plotboard up but, I do not believe this would entirely void this problem. People should simply be rewarded for what they write.
Second
(this may be a point that rose from misunderstandings) plotboards should be graded on the complexity and a relative danger more so than their absolute danger. That is to say that a D-rank versing a D-rank is similar to an A-rank versing an A-rank. Now, I have been told in C-box that the ranking is actually based on length of the PB and complexity, but the rules on PBs seem to contradict this.