 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> Alright ... It seems like this issue needs to be addressed sooner or later,
> and I guess now is as good of a time as any to do it:
Yes, there's no time like the present... :-)
>
> Q. Will war happen is Castle World?
>
> A. Yes, but under very controlled conditions. War in CW will always be
> mutually beneficial for both participants, and hence will have to be decided
> before hand.
Good! If someone doesn't want to participate in war, they don't have to...
This way we aren't enforcing anything on anyone.
> Here
> are some examples of a mutually beneficial war situation:
>
> Member A wants to attack Member B. He e-mails him or her and declares his
> intent about it, as well as the reasons for it.
I like it so far. How about mentioning the exact areas planned to be attacked?
> Member B has a character
> that is in the area that Member A wants to attack. He or she plans for
> everyone to get
> either killed or captured so that he or she can then go back in a follow-up
> and rescue his
> or her people or other characters.
I lost you here. Who plans for everybody to get killed? Who are
these "everybody", the characters?
> Even though whatever structures might
> have been destroyed, they are still listed in the history under "War between
> ... " or "The Scimage of ... " The bricks, no longer being needed for futher
> storyline pictures of that area, can then be used to rebuild.
I like this, but if buildings are to be destroyed this MUST be a decision of
the attacked member, not the attacker!
>
> If Member B is not ready to plan a story, then there is no war - or the war
> is simply delayed.
Or, if member B doesn't WANT a war at all, right?
>
> So ... while there might be a loser of a battle, there will be equilibrium
> in the long term for everyone (to the extent that they wish it).
>
> Q. Why no dice?
>
> A. Too complicated (for us Math majors) and I don't want grudges to
> develop. Also - how would we determine who has a big army? And although
> someone might
> now have a big army, if they have a fortress that is pretty hard to get to,
> how does one counter for that? Storylines allow us to get as close to what
> we want as possible.
> Fair?
Yep!
>
> Q. How do I record what happens in a war?
>
> A. Well, this has the opportunity to be one of the most creative aspects of
> CW. For example, if Verneer and his men choose to attack and pillage Eric
> K's village house
> (or maybe David E's village) looking for food to supply the Gryphon's Nest
> for winter, I could send all those figures to Eric or Dave, let him take
> those pictures, and
> have him send the figs back.
>
> Also - most of us have some spare parts, and in most cases, I don't even
> have to send a figure to someone, just replicate it at home (well - this
> won't work for a few of
> us like Craig). Then Eric and I would discuss what will happen, him or I
> would make the characters and take the pictures.
>
> You could get as creative or as simple with this as you would like. Simply
> a story with a structure that has a few lego flames attached to it would do.
> The storeis
> themselves would be fun to read later on once everything is really on it's
> feet.
Yeah! I like this! (Pawel, send me Verneer... :-)
>
> I hope this clears one of the questions up.
It does, but I still have another question:
Q. Who determines who wins? Or maybe *how* do we determine who wins?
Thanks for the Q&A, these helped a lot!
-Shiri
http://www.geocities.com/shiri_lego/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Shiri wrote:
> In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> > Here
> > are some examples of a mutually beneficial war situation:
> >
> > Member A wants to attack Member B. He e-mails him or her and declares his
> > intent about it, as well as the reasons for it.
>
> I like it so far. How about mentioning the exact areas planned to be attacked?
Definitely. I envision this sort of thing as going like this:
Me: "Hey Shiri...remember how my area borders on yours? There's this group
of bandits that's been plaguing my villages, and I thought it would be neat
if they framed your country for the attacks. Here's the general area...here's
what my King would be likely to do...what do you think?
You: "Sounds neat. Maybe your forces could burn a village...and one of the
villagers would go to the King and request help, or find a nearby encampment
of Ocean Cubs."
Me: "Great! Then the Cubs could trap the expeditionary force in the remains of
the village...maybe a seige...yadda yadda blah blah."
> > Member B has a character
> > that is in the area that Member A wants to attack. He or she plans for
> > everyone to get
> > either killed or captured so that he or she can then go back in a follow-up
> > and rescue his
> > or her people or other characters.
>
> I lost you here. Who plans for everybody to get killed? Who are
> these "everybody", the characters?
This was just an example of deciding 'what happens'. In this case, the
defender has no problem with his area being sacked and the people there
destroyed or captured, because it makes for an interesting story.
> > Even though whatever structures might
> > have been destroyed, they are still listed in the history under "War between
> > ... " or "The Scimage of ... " The bricks, no longer being needed for futher
> > storyline pictures of that area, can then be used to rebuild.
>
> I like this, but if buildings are to be destroyed this MUST be a decision of
> the attacked member, not the attacker!
Definitely...all outcomes would be negotiated between the two
participants!
> >
> > If Member B is not ready to plan a story, then there is no war - or the war
> > is simply delayed.
>
> Or, if member B doesn't WANT a war at all, right?
Right. Like any kind of shared-world writing project, all the
interaction between the characters or areas of two different people
needs to be negotiated out between all involved parties.
> > I hope this clears one of the questions up.
>
> It does, but I still have another question:
>
> Q. Who determines who wins? Or maybe *how* do we determine who wins?
In war, nobody really wins. Except maybe the vultures. 8)
OK, now that I've spouted a bit of philosophy, I'll give you a serious
answer - who determines who wins? The people involved. How? Discussion
and negotiation. I'd just like everyone to remember that sometimes, "losing"
can be as much fun - or even more fun - than winning. Remember, this is a
story-writing group, not a game, so *you* aren't losing just because your
characters do.
J
--
sakura@mediaone.net is Jeff Johnston http://www.io.com/~jeffj
My LEGO Web page has moved! Go to: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/sakura
Check out my Trade List and Want List - * - Last Updated 12/19/1999
LEGO Geek Code: SP+ CA +++ (375/6075) PI +++ #++ S--/++ LS++ Hal M+ A++ YB73m
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Jeff Johnston writes:
> Shiri wrote:
> > In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
>
> > > Here
> > > are some examples of a mutually beneficial war situation:
> > >
> > > Member A wants to attack Member B. He e-mails him or her and declares his
> > > intent about it, as well as the reasons for it.
> >
> > I like it so far. How about mentioning the exact areas planned to be • attacked?
>
> Definitely. I envision this sort of thing as going like this:
>
> Me: "Hey Shiri...remember how my area borders on yours? There's this group
> of bandits that's been plaguing my villages, and I thought it would be neat
> if they framed your country for the attacks. Here's the general area...here's
> what my King would be likely to do...what do you think?
>
> You: "Sounds neat. Maybe your forces could burn a village...and one of the
> villagers would go to the King and request help, or find a nearby encampment
> of Ocean Cubs."
>
> Me: "Great! Then the Cubs could trap the expeditionary force in the remains of
> the village...maybe a seige...yadda yadda blah blah."
Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant - only better...
btw, It's nice to know people are reading my page ;-) or at least my other
posts ;-)
>
> > > Member B has a character
> > > that is in the area that Member A wants to attack. He or she plans for
> > > everyone to get
> > > either killed or captured so that he or she can then go back in a follow-up
> > > and rescue his
> > > or her people or other characters.
> >
> > I lost you here. Who plans for everybody to get killed? Who are
> > these "everybody", the characters?
>
> This was just an example of deciding 'what happens'. In this case, the
> defender has no problem with his area being sacked and the people there
> destroyed or captured, because it makes for an interesting story.
Yeah, and anyway, If the building is "destroyed", the pictures are still there
and you can use pieces to build something else...
>
> > > Even though whatever structures might
> > > have been destroyed, they are still listed in the history under "War
> > > between
> > > ... " or "The Scimage of ... " The bricks, no longer being needed for
> > > futher
> > > storyline pictures of that area, can then be used to rebuild.
> >
> > I like this, but if buildings are to be destroyed this MUST be a decision of
> > the attacked member, not the attacker!
>
> Definitely...all outcomes would be negotiated between the two
> participants!
Yep, I was just making sure, because I wouldn't want someone destroying my
stuff without my consent ;-)
>
> > >
> > > If Member B is not ready to plan a story, then there is no war - or the war
> > > is simply delayed.
> >
> > Or, if member B doesn't WANT a war at all, right?
>
> Right. Like any kind of shared-world writing project, all the
> interaction between the characters or areas of two different people
> needs to be negotiated out between all involved parties.
Good. I was hoping this was how it would turn out.
>
> > > I hope this clears one of the questions up.
> >
> > It does, but I still have another question:
> >
> > Q. Who determines who wins? Or maybe *how* do we determine who wins?
>
> In war, nobody really wins. Except maybe the vultures. 8)
That's true, but I meant who loses more guys, who gets the territory, etc.
>
> OK, now that I've spouted a bit of philosophy, I'll give you a serious
> answer - who determines who wins? The people involved. How? Discussion
> and negotiation. I'd just like everyone to remember that sometimes, "losing"
> can be as much fun - or even more fun - than winning. Remember, this is a
> story-writing group, not a game, so *you* aren't losing just because your
> characters do.
Yeah, it is (IMO) even more fun because you get to build new things without
worrying whether you might want the building for other stories or something...
and building new things is fun, even a story by itself!
I know, I'm doing it right now, and I'm enjoying every minute!
-Shiri
btw, see my Lion's Cove in progress - I'm gonna update it today!
http://www.geocities.com/shiri_lego/lions_cove.html
| | | | | | |
