Ranger-Based or Grader-Based

We have two main proposals on how to implement the Dungeon Master position in this new section.

I know we've all discussed this in significant detail before, but a lot of it was cluttered in the general thread. So this thread will be for working out the details.


Method 1: Ranger-Based

This method involves the Dungeon Master being a profession that must be tested for. Or in simpler terms, to become a Dungeon Master, you must pass a test. Once you pass, you are certified to run Pokemon missions for anyone.

Although this can be decided later, the test will likely be similar to the test given to Rangers in the National Park (perhaps even the same test). Only those certified will be allowed to "host" missions for members.

Dungeon Masters would be paid a salary like every other URPG profession.


Method 2: Story-Based

To become a Grader, you must also pass a test, but the implementation of the position is different. Members don't need Graders to write a story. However, they do need Graders to determine if their stories "pass" or not. Graders essentially conduct most of their work after it is finished, unlike Rangers who conduct most of their work during the creation phase.

In the same way, this method has people become "Dungeon Graders" or rather qualified members who judge a mission after it has been completed. Like a Grader, a Dungeon Grader looks at a mission after it has been completed, reads the entire thing over, and rewards the members based on a variety of components such as creativity, quality of writing, and length of post. Members can then claim their rewards after the Dungeon Grader posts them.

In this method, Dungeon Masters are not test-certified members, but anyone with an idea and willing to carry it out. They may have to pitch the idea to an RP Official, but other than that, it's a relatively simple process. Almost anyone could be a Dungeon Master in this case.

Dungeon Masters will be rewarded, rather than paid, based on how they ran the mission and the quality of their DMing ability.



Ultimately, this is a critical decision and will greatly affect how this section operates. So we should discuss this thoroughly before settling on one or the other.

 

Personally, I think that Method 1 will work out better. It would be certain that the DM would have skill at running campaigns and such. On a side note, should we have a specific section for sign-ups?

 

I like the 2nd way of running it better but i realise that the easiest way to make this work would be by using style 1. This being said I still quite like the 2nd option as it gives each person their own time and so they dont have to rely on someone else until the last phase of the mission were as with the 1st style you must work together and will make the process very long. the 1st style could also feel a bit odd mainly as, the ranger person would have to do the mission with you without them being all narrative and their posts being very short.

 

Method 1 will work out way better in my opinion.

 

I would say Method One is better - it's safer and there aren't any real downsides to it other than the lack of public creativity input, and that's a small price to pay for stability.

Perhaps start off with the first option, and when these runs have been honed down to a fine art in a few months time the leaders look at implementing a campaign submission system where members of the public can apply to host their own mini-campaigns without having to become full time DMs.

 

Method one seems like it would work better in my opinion. ​

​

 

I would agree the first method would be the easiest to implement; it would give us a fairly solid scale to judge/grade against, rather than just subjective opinion. And while the second one seems very nice, I think that it'd rely on everyone involved being significantly active the whole time, which as we've seen the RP section has trouble with; plenty of initial activity that fades when there's nothing pressing to react to.

 

I think method 1 seems easiest to implement.