Suggestions for KMan's

[VemuKhaham]

Though I'm not sure what the difference is between a newsletter and a newspaper, I think we have ourselves a name anyway: Kman's Kronicle it is.

[TheUdjat]

Typically a newspaper refers to a for-profit venture with an actual, tangible newspaper, reporting on local/national/global news and events. This could be a big, widely distributed paper like the Washington Post or the New York Times, or a local newspaper that focuses on community events and high school sports. The idea is generally the same, though--it's commercial.

A newsletter usually refers to the kind of thing a group of like-minded people produce for the interests of those specific people. A community theatre might have a newsletter is sends to its members, or an author or website might have a newsletter it sends out. The focus of the newsletter is far more narrow than that of a genuine newspaper. These were once widely in paper form as well, but they tend to be electronic nowadays. Email is a popular medium.

That make it a little clearer? Not trying to be chiding or anything, but I know English isn't your first language and I thought you might not know the difference in usage.

[VemuKhaham]

No it's not chiding, I didn't know the difference, so thanks for the explanation. In Dutch there are similar words to distinct the two, I just didn't know that that was the distinction. I'll try to post up guidelines tomorrow, which is a nice date, being the first of june, to start with such a thing that should be regular every three months.

[VemuKhaham]

I couldn't get it up 1st of june due to the forum outage, but there they are: the Kman's Kronicle Guidelines. You can find them here: kmansadventures.proboards2.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=highlights&thread=6398

Also, remember: DISCUSS, WRITE, NOMINATE, PARTICIPATE, VOTE AND WIN!!

Starting now: let me know here what you think. Suggestions? Comments?

[TheUdjat]

I dig it, Vemu, but I have a couple of questions:

1. Why a nomination for 'Best Summary'? It's a nice way to get people to put in summaries, but a summary doesn't seem like quite the creative venture of the Highlights. Or at least, I think the summaries shouldn't be held in the same caliber as the Highlights. Perhaps for the yearly vote they shouldn't be considered?

2. The 'Best Game Summary' reward kind of alludes to a game touting itself as 'Best Game', rather than just one with the best summary. This seems a little dangerous and misleading. If we'd like to let people vote on 'Most Entertaining Game' or something similar, that's cool, but we probably shouldn't do it through the summaries, eh?

I think that's it. I like it, and I plan to get to work on summaries for my games. Just a couple of concerns, as listed above.

[VemuKhaham]

Yeah, I thought about those things. In fact, for several times I considered changing the Best Game Summary Election into simply the Best Game Election (or your: Most Entertaining Game Election, if preferred, cause Best Game may indeed be a little misleading). Both however would be based on the summaries and an election. That way, every game may at some point be considered best, because of recent developments in that game as written in the summary. Later, other games may win, because at that time, those games were thought to be most interesting.

It seems like we need to decide on a name of the elections and with it whether we want the summaries to be elected between (which I prefer for the reasons above) or something else, of which I think it is hard to think. We don't want everyone to have to read through the entire games to be able to vote.

Suggestions for alternative names for "Best Game Summary Award" are so far: "Best Game Award", "Most Entertaining Game Award", or perhaps something like: "Best Game Development Award".

But I think that the Most Entertaining Game Winners should also be considered for the yearly vote. DM's and entire games deserve a chance to be up there just like single quotes or events should. And I dislike the idea of having two parallel Ultimate Top 5's. That's quite the anticlimax, in my opinion.

What do you think?

[TheUdjat]

Hmm. I still dislike an entire game being judged on the game summaries, which aren't really reflective of the game itself. My perception of the game summaries is that they're purely informational--something to keep new people apprised of what games are up to what. I feel judging them would kind of obscure the point.

That said, some kind of Game award seems necessary. I would rather do this as a yearly vote--because at that point, you're either reading a game or you're not, but everyone will have a pool of a few games that they read and enjoy to nominate/vote from. I can't think of any games that have lasted longer than 2 years, so this would also limit the number of times a game could win--making its inclusion in the 'top five' list unnecessary.

I personally think that'd work better, to have an annual 'Best Game' or 'Most Entertaining Game'. You'll never get everyone reading every game, true, but I still think it's a worthwhile endeavor. And I still think mixing 'best game' with 'best roleplayer' is a generally bad idea. They're just not quite the same. You don't need parallel 'top five' lists, either (I never meant to be suggesting that, actually).

[VemuKhaham]

You don't need parallel 'top five' lists, either (I never meant to be suggesting that, actually).

I never meant to suggest you suggested it, sorry. It was just what I considered the only alternative which I could think up, which I didn't like.

But I don't think I agree with your suggestions, sadly. I think it is better to have more potential voters by limiting what people have to read in order to vote (and having people vote based on reading only some of all the games isn't something I prefer either). Summaries are the best thing representing a campaign's recent developments, short of having to read all the boards' content, actually. I don't see why they can't be used to base elections upon.

But if we're not getting any closer, perhaps other people can make the call.

[TheUdjat]

I guess I just really believe summaries are a poor way to judge an entire campaign. I mean, the amount of work put into something like, say, Rinascimento. I think it would be a crime to judge it based solely on what you write about it in 200 pages.

And what if, say, there's a fairly mediocre campaign but the DM produces a stunning summary? Then you have a major discrepency between the two.

Just my opinion, I guess. I'm probably less worried about that, though, than I am about comparing a summary to actual roleplaying highlights, which would seem like a big injustice to the roleplaying. Interaction is just in a totally different class from writing summaries, to me. I don't think we even need a 'top five summaries'. It just seems like a silly thing to reward.

These boards are about roleplaying--either running games or participating in them. I think judging/rewarding summaries is really counterproductive to what KMans is about. But, again--that's my opinion.

Perhaps we need a third person to weigh in on this.

I can understand your desire for more voices/votes by giving them less to judge. But I guess I feel that anyone who enjoys reading a game will read it, and if they don't, they won't. So the only people reading a game are either A. Those involved in it, and B. Those who would be inclined to vote for it anyway. I don't think you lose any potential votes for a game by having people not judge summaries.