Ok, so from discussion it sounds like a lot of you want us to lift the One RP per character rule, so I'm having a poll and little discussion about it. I know the other thread already has some opinions in it but if you wish, you can re post them here!
I think having multiple RPs per character would be fine so long as we keep the same rule of one quest per character.
Oh, hell, we're talking alternate dungeons and arena battles aren't we? Perfect... Well, in that case, I'm cool with lifting that rule, so long as we maintain one main RP plot line per character, because, well, that is logical.
...if we can't already be in multiple dungeons/arenas per character at one time as things are, then I have a big problem. Autumn's in like three dungeons and Laurel in two. I'm voting for removing the one main RP per character at one time for reasons Tsu, UD and I have highlighted before. I don't care if the second and up don't give out rewards, but since some people apparently look down on Classic Dungeon Threads, an additional 'real' RP would be a great help in character development. Especially since a lot of us have few characters, which can't be used if they're in one slow RP and their owner happens to be one of those looking down on CDs. Chronology shouldn't be a problem- for those who insist on keeping track of that, they could be listed in chronological order in the profile. But in my past experiences not many people really care THAT much and most RPs are chronological even in the order in which they are written.
Several people seem to have suggested that in the main forum, we keep 1 quest per character, and infinite non-quests per character. While that's a step up, there's still a few odds and ends about that. Let's put aside the fact that it still favors multiple characters over single characters, in terms of rewards, to let me ask the following question: At what point does it become acceptable to make a second quest? What if the characters Guy and Dante make a quest thread, and it seemingly dies halfway out because Guy goes inactive, and Dante continues with a new quest thread... then Guy comes back and posts in the first quest thread? What is Dante's player to do? Furthermore, as everyone should know (but probably doesn't), you can make any role-play in the main forum into a quest at any time--even after it's effectively completed--so long as it meets the prerequisites of the quest and you receive an appropriate reward for it. If Dante and Guy are questing, Dante could be role-playing on the side in three separate non-quest scenarios, and finish them all before the "quest." After that quest, Dante's player could just make Quest Bureau threads for the three separate role-plays, turning them into quests. As it is, "one quest per character but limitless RPs per character" only has an effective limit on anyone who has yet to figure out that loophole. That said, I would happily cast my vote for infinite quests and infinite side-RPs, so long as it didn't get as ridiculous as having a dozen going at once with the same character. This would also vastly help future events, if they happen again, as they often require characters to meet at specific locations--even though more often than not, any active player will already have his/her hands tied. If that happened, though, Classic Dungeons should probably have their rewards knocked up closer (if not equal to) quest rewards. Needless to say, their limited rupee amount is only so people who wanted to grind would only use them and never the actual main forum--and because, unlike quests, you could do an infinite amount simultaneously. Tl;dr - I want infinite quests and infinite role-plays per character, so long as it doesn't get out of hand.
I agree with Guy. To be honest, multiple quests at the same time shouldn't hurt anything, and in fact could help up the activity by a lot. Think of it this way, as Guy said, if it gets stagnant, someone can keep their quest with the person whos maybe gone for a few weeks and then start one with someone else. Or maybe even a really active person could help get a few people involved by having a quest with each of them, I just think it adds to the activity. I also agree with him that having one quest per character is still a problem causer in the same respect as one RP per character is. And if anyone were to take it out of hand and have like... 12 quests with one character, as mods we could always just say "hey... why don't you finish a couple of your other ones first?"
Quests have to be approved anyway. And I'm sure there's a way to check on the number of Quests going on with one character at once- I know I at least keep a list of ongoing threads in my sig. Ensuring it's not abused should not be impossible really.
Basically what I'm getting is "You can have a limitless* number of quests" * Does not actually mean limitless but is up to the staff's opinion to decide at some point in the future whether you can make more. It seems like it would be more prudent to simply create a solid cap in advance rather than deny someone a quest down the line when the mod 'feels like' there's too many.
Well, the more I think of it, the more I come to think that we wouldn't need a hard cap. The more quests someone has going at the same time, the longer its going to take to finish all of them, and the harder it will be to finish all of them. It may just keep itself in check if you know what I'm saying.
While for the most part I can agree with you, Bitoko, I believe things would be better off with a rule in place just so we could justify being annoyed when someone makes 30 quest threads. ...And Rib Streak is right, we should pose a quantifiable limit as opposed to whatever a mod feels like. For that, I suggest 10 quest threads (although should that be per character, or per player?). It's easy to remember, and rarely I imagine will one person make more than 6 simultaneous quests and actually be pursuing them all.
It needs to be per character, some people have over ten characters and while they may not use them all, I'd say it would be best to "allow" them, if they wanted, to have a few on each character. I don't think it'd ever happen, but thats my opinion.
Well, as a slight point I have 19 characters and like 25 RPs. I keep up with all of them pretty well, so I think it should defs be per character.
I can agree with that train of thought. Besides, it would be better to limit it per-character, if we're basing things off the current rules of only having a per-character limit. Forget I mentioned "or per player" in my last post, then. Well, considering the vote count and the replies to this thread, I think this is ready to be put into motion... Wouldn't you agree, Bitoko?
