| |
It sounds like a lot of people are really confused by the whole 'realms'
and map sections thing. I've got a suggestion, and I think that it will
make stuff a lot easier - and I hope it will make people happy.
To do this I have to question a basic assumption or two that Pawel and
Craig seem to have made.
1) Do we really need a fixed size for realms?
2) Do we really need to limit people on the number of realms they have
based on how many stories they've done?
I guess what I'm asking is "what *purpose* do these 'rules' serve?" If
the rule has no purpose, I think it should be thrown out, because all it's
going to do is restrict needlessly.
Castle World is infinitely large, so we don't need to conserve space.
Why, then, is there a fixed realm size? What purpose does it serve? If
Jeff Stembel wants to have a continent-spanning kingdom, why not let him?
Similarly, if I want to have small structures dotted all over the map in
different places, why not? Why do I need a dozen realms (and four ballads
each) to do it? (That rule will make any kind of travelling character
difficult to do - Sain isn't often going to stay in one place long enough
for four ballads!)
All the people in CW seem to be able to communicate and cooperate quite
well, so here's my proposal:
Craig has (somewhere) a map of (part of) Castle World. When it gets
posted, why don't we just talk it out and say, "Hey, I'd like to have
stuff here and here" (maybe a latitude/longitude system would be a good
idea!) We all seem to be mature enough to deal with this sort of thing.
(And if someone takes the spot you wanted, we can always add another one
similar to it on the edge of the map!)
That way King Auld Dragon can have his continent-spanning empire without
worrying about someone coming along and taking parts of his continent away
from him because he hasn't had time to do all the ballads he 'needs' to
gather all that space. And he can focus on the current history - if
that's what he wants to do - rather than the past. If that's not what
interests him, why make him do it? It'll only discourage hima nd stifle
his creativity.
And if I want one of my structures (the Red Fox's tower, perhaps) to be
in Auld Dragon's lands, all I need to do is mail him and discuss it.
We don't need to worry about people 'hogging' all the space - because
there's an infinite amount of it! If someone else wants a
continent-spanning empire, heck, we'll just drop it in!
And, that would allow me to, say, do a writeup of, say, the Norgolian
Empire*, with notes on dress, society, architecture, etc - and then open
it up and say, 'anybody can play here - if you want to have stories set
here, you can, if you want to have buildings here, you can...it's free and
clear.'
(Personally, I wouldn't mind everyone working on their own map and then
putting it all together - that way everybody gets exactly what they want -
but I don't want to toss out all the work Craig has done so far, either.)
As for the map scale, I would make it in 'leagues' or some similar unit,
and say that a normal minifig can travel X leagues in a day of solid
walking. That will give us a scale that's large enough to represent
kingdoms but still let us have plenty of freedom in what we put into the
areas and not make us worry about how many 'studs' we have in our 'realm'.
(it also allows for use of different scales of selective compression if
needed! A house or a shop could be nearly 'full-size' while a castle
might not be able to be, unless you're Ed Boxer...)
J
* - a noprize (and my deepest sympathy) to anyone who actually gets that
reference.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Jeff Johnston writes:
> Castle World is infinitely large, so we don't need to conserve space.
> Why, then, is there a fixed realm size? What purpose does it serve? If
> Jeff Stembel wants to have a continent-spanning kingdom, why not let him?
>
> Similarly, if I want to have small structures dotted all over the map in
> different places, why not? Why do I need a dozen realms (and four ballads
> each) to do it? (That rule will make any kind of travelling character
> difficult to do - Sain isn't often going to stay in one place long enough
> for four ballads!)
>
> All the people in CW seem to be able to communicate and cooperate quite
> well, so here's my proposal:
>
> Craig has (somewhere) a map of (part of) Castle World. When it gets
> posted, why don't we just talk it out and say, "Hey, I'd like to have
> stuff here and here" (maybe a latitude/longitude system would be a good
> idea!) We all seem to be mature enough to deal with this sort of thing.
> (And if someone takes the spot you wanted, we can always add another one
> similar to it on the edge of the map!) • <snipped bits>
> We don't need to worry about people 'hogging' all the space - because
> there's an infinite amount of it! If someone else wants a
> continent-spanning empire, heck, we'll just drop it in! • <snipped more bits>
> As for the map scale, I would make it in 'leagues' or some similar unit,
> and say that a normal minifig can travel X leagues in a day of solid
> walking. That will give us a scale that's large enough to represent
> kingdoms but still let us have plenty of freedom in what we put into the
> areas and not make us worry about how many 'studs' we have in our 'realm'.
> (it also allows for use of different scales of selective compression if
> needed! A house or a shop could be nearly 'full-size' while a castle
> might not be able to be, unless you're Ed Boxer...)
An excellent suggestion.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Jeff Johnston writes:
> > Castle World is infinitely large, so we don't need to conserve space.
> > Why, then, is there a fixed realm size? What purpose does it serve? If
> > Jeff Stembel wants to have a continent-spanning kingdom, why not let him?
> >
> > Similarly, if I want to have small structures dotted all over the map in
> > different places, why not? Why do I need a dozen realms (and four ballads
> > each) to do it? (That rule will make any kind of travelling character
> > difficult to do - Sain isn't often going to stay in one place long enough
> > for four ballads!)
> >
> > All the people in CW seem to be able to communicate and cooperate quite
> > well, so here's my proposal:
> >
> > Craig has (somewhere) a map of (part of) Castle World. When it gets
> > posted, why don't we just talk it out and say, "Hey, I'd like to have
> > stuff here and here" (maybe a latitude/longitude system would be a good
> > idea!) We all seem to be mature enough to deal with this sort of thing.
> > (And if someone takes the spot you wanted, we can always add another one
> > similar to it on the edge of the map!) • <snipped bits>
> > We don't need to worry about people 'hogging' all the space - because
> > there's an infinite amount of it! If someone else wants a
> > continent-spanning empire, heck, we'll just drop it in! • <snipped more bits>
> > As for the map scale, I would make it in 'leagues' or some similar unit,
> > and say that a normal minifig can travel X leagues in a day of solid
> > walking. That will give us a scale that's large enough to represent
> > kingdoms but still let us have plenty of freedom in what we put into the
> > areas and not make us worry about how many 'studs' we have in our 'realm'.
> > (it also allows for use of different scales of selective compression if
> > needed! A house or a shop could be nearly 'full-size' while a castle
> > might not be able to be, unless you're Ed Boxer...)
>
> An excellent suggestion.
I agree, mostly. I think we should take this in mind.
Shiri
http://www.geocities.com/shiri_lego/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Jeff Johnston writes:
> It sounds like a lot of people are really confused by the whole 'realms'
> and map sections thing. I've got a suggestion, and I think that it will
> make stuff a lot easier - and I hope it will make people happy.
>
> To do this I have to question a basic assumption or two that Pawel and
> Craig seem to have made.
>
> 1) Do we really need a fixed size for realms?
> 2) Do we really need to limit people on the number of realms they have
> based on how many stories they've done?
>
> I guess what I'm asking is "what *purpose* do these 'rules' serve?" If
> the rule has no purpose, I think it should be thrown out, because all it's
> going to do is restrict needlessly.
Hear, hear!
>
> Castle World is infinitely large, so we don't need to conserve space.
> Why, then, is there a fixed realm size? What purpose does it serve? If
> Jeff Stembel wants to have a continent-spanning kingdom, why not let him?
Yes, Please! ;)
>
> All the people in CW seem to be able to communicate and cooperate quite
> well, so here's my proposal:
>
>
> Craig has (somewhere) a map of (part of) Castle World. When it gets
> posted, why don't we just talk it out and say, "Hey, I'd like to have
> stuff here and here" (maybe a latitude/longitude system would be a good
> idea!) We all seem to be mature enough to deal with this sort of thing.
> (And if someone takes the spot you wanted, we can always add another one
> similar to it on the edge of the map!)
>
> That way King Auld Dragon can have his continent-spanning empire without
> worrying about someone coming along and taking parts of his continent away
> from him because he hasn't had time to do all the ballads he 'needs' to
> gather all that space. And he can focus on the current history - if
> that's what he wants to do - rather than the past. If that's not what
> interests him, why make him do it? It'll only discourage hima nd stifle
> his creativity.
That it will, as the history is just that - history. It is just there to give
people the backstory of my realm. I'd have to completely rebuild my castle,
create all the major historical figures, and spend a lot of time doing nothing
(I do have a couple hundred year gap of piece in there...). I really do not
feel like starting my kingdom from the very beginning. :)
>
> And if I want one of my structures (the Red Fox's tower, perhaps) to be
> in Auld Dragon's lands, all I need to do is mail him and discuss it.
And, for the most part, I'd have no problems with that.
> We don't need to worry about people 'hogging' all the space - because
> there's an infinite amount of it! If someone else wants a
> continent-spanning empire, heck, we'll just drop it in!
And, if everyone has *some* access to the ocean, they'll never get boxed in,
because they can just go discover a new continent! :)
> And, that would allow me to, say, do a writeup of, say, the Norgolian
> Empire*, with notes on dress, society, architecture, etc - and then open
> it up and say, 'anybody can play here - if you want to have stories set
> here, you can, if you want to have buildings here, you can...it's free and
> clear.'
That'd be pretty cool, and useful for those who don't want to create their own
kingdoms.
>
> (Personally, I wouldn't mind everyone working on their own map and then
> putting it all together - that way everybody gets exactly what they want -
> but I don't want to toss out all the work Craig has done so far, either.)
Well, considering that we are creating our own kingdoms, it only makes sense
that we creat our own maps, too. Then they can just be melded together with
"no mans lands".
I think this is the best plan set forth so far!
Jeff
"You can't be a hero hiding underneath your bed"
http://members.xoom.com/aulddragon/
|
|
| |
Massive snippage
They may have a reason. The best one I can think of is "Play Balance".
They have obviously announced that armed conflict is a possibility in CW.
This will make it a whole lot easier for the Big Guys to pick on smaller folk,
IF they choose to do so. You can support a lot of troops with a huge Realm.
And our Realms may not be the Old Timers. They may have several Large Realms
running as NPC counterweights, or we may be the Intrepid explorers expanding
the boundaries.
Having been in a "Found Your Kingdom" game, there is a certain pleasure finding
out what's over that mountain range or up that uncharted river and growing your
town from next to nothing to a thriving metropolis.
I think they want us all to start small and "build" appropriately. And that's
half the fun of telling a story is seeing where it will take you.
Lance
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Lance Scott writes:
> Massive snippage
>
> They may have a reason. The best one I can think of is "Play Balance".
> They have obviously announced that armed conflict is a possibility in CW.
>
> This will make it a whole lot easier for the Big Guys to pick on smaller folk,
> IF they choose to do so. You can support a lot of troops with a huge Realm.
That doesn't matter. Combat and Wars are *completely* optional! For Example,
Let's say My Necromancer and his army of Undead soldiers decide to attack Dave
Eaton's Peaceful Village. I email Dave and ask him if we can have a battle.
If Dave's not in the mood or his storyline doesn't allow for an armed conflict,
he can decline and my Necromancer has to turn his sights elsewhere. If we *do*
decide to fight, then a storyline we can both agree on is developed to conclude
the battle. Only if we both want a wargame type battle will there be any
chance of a random outcome.
>
> And our Realms may not be the Old Timers. They may have several Large Realms
> running as NPC counterweights, or we may be the Intrepid explorers expanding
> the boundaries.
Actually, I think it should be up to the member as to how old their kingdom is.
It is their kingdom afterall.
> Having been in a "Found Your Kingdom" game, there is a certain pleasure
> finding out what's over that mountain range or up that uncharted river and
> growing your town from next to nothing to a thriving metropolis.
The point of Castle World isn't to play a game, it is to bind all our different
Castle storylines into one single world, where we can interact with each other
and enhance the stories with other people's participation. It is more like a
group novel or TV show than a roleplaying game (IMO).
>
> I think they want us all to start small and "build" appropriately. And that's
> half the fun of telling a story is seeing where it will take you.
You are correct, to a certain extent. However, many stories dump you in the
middle of things (in media res?), and take it from there. Many times, you are
at the beginning of a novel, and yet lots has happened before the opening of
the book. Take Tolkien's Lord of the Rings as an example. The main story
doesn't start at the very beginning of Middle-Earth's History. This is how
many fantasy novels work. And this is how I see Castle World working. Some of
us will start at the very beginning, others will start at the beginning of a
major event, and others will just dump you into the middle of the story.
Jeff
"You can't be a hero hiding underneath your bed"
http://members.xoom.com/aulddragon/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Lance Scott writes:
> Massive snippage
>
> They may have a reason. The best one I can think of is "Play Balance".
> They have obviously announced that armed conflict is a possibility in CW.
>
> This will make it a whole lot easier for the Big Guys to pick on smaller folk,
> IF they choose to do so. You can support a lot of troops with a huge Realm.
But Castle World is not a game. There's no need for Play Balance. Just
like an author doesn't need 'play balance' in his books. We're creating a
'shared world fantasy' here (like the _Wild Cards_ or _Thieves' World_
series), not running a roleplaying game.
So lets say that Big Bad Country wants to pick on Little Puny country. If
the owner of LPC doesn't want to get into a war, he just says, "No thanks,
not interested." If he doesn't want to lose a war, he negotiates with the
owner of BBC for a thrilling invasion, a desperate defense, guerilla
harassment of the invading army, and a daring counterstrike that causes
the invaders to pull out. Hopefully he can work something out with the
BBC. (If not, my suspicion is that one of the people involved is not
behaving in a mature and cooperative way...)
On a more personal level - I'm going to have 'bad guy' characters. I'm
going to freely offer their services for Nasty Evil plotlines for Your
Heros to foil and defeat. I don't mind setting up my characters to lose,
especially if it makes for a better story.
> Having been in a "Found Your Kingdom" game, there is a certain pleasure finding
> out what's over that mountain range or up that uncharted river and growing your
> town from next to nothing to a thriving metropolis.
Sure. But there's also a certain pleasure in telling the court intrigue
from an ancient, well-established kingdom. The question is: is CW a game
or is it a world to write stories in? My understanding is that the intent
is the latter - and I think it should be, because it's infinitely more
flexible. You could have your newly-started kingdom and Jeff Stembel can
have his ancient Empire, and both people are happy.
Some people might not be happy with such a setup, if they are (for
whatever reason) feeling fiercely competetive. But I think they're
missing the point of Castle World, and they ought to be looking for
something else.
> I think they want us all to start small and "build" appropriately. And that's
> half the fun of telling a story is seeing where it will take you.
But there are plenty of stories to be had in well-established kingdoms,
sprawling empires, and the like. Why should we limit or discourage those?
Especially when we can allow them *and* have the fledgeling new kingdoms
exploring and pushing out their boundaries at the same time?
It's not a game. There's no competition. It's all cooperation and
creativity and - one hopes - love of the brick and love of the story as
well.
J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Jeff Johnston writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Lance Scott writes:
> > Massive snippage
> >
> > They may have a reason. The best one I can think of is "Play Balance".
> > They have obviously announced that armed conflict is a possibility in CW.
> >
> > This will make it a whole lot easier for the Big Guys to pick on smaller • folk,
> > IF they choose to do so. You can support a lot of troops with a huge Realm.
>
> But Castle World is not a game. There's no need for Play Balance. Just
> like an author doesn't need 'play balance' in his books. We're creating a
> 'shared world fantasy' here (like the _Wild Cards_ or _Thieves' World_
> series), not running a roleplaying game.
>
> So lets say that Big Bad Country wants to pick on Little Puny country. If
> the owner of LPC doesn't want to get into a war, he just says, "No thanks,
> not interested." If he doesn't want to lose a war, he negotiates with the
> owner of BBC for a thrilling invasion, a desperate defense, guerilla
> harassment of the invading army, and a daring counterstrike that causes
> the invaders to pull out. Hopefully he can work something out with the
> BBC. (If not, my suspicion is that one of the people involved is not
> behaving in a mature and cooperative way...)
>
> On a more personal level - I'm going to have 'bad guy' characters. I'm
> going to freely offer their services for Nasty Evil plotlines for Your
> Heros to foil and defeat. I don't mind setting up my characters to lose,
> especially if it makes for a better story.
>
> > Having been in a "Found Your Kingdom" game, there is a certain pleasure • finding
> > out what's over that mountain range or up that uncharted river and growing • your
> > town from next to nothing to a thriving metropolis.
>
> Sure. But there's also a certain pleasure in telling the court intrigue
> from an ancient, well-established kingdom. The question is: is CW a game
> or is it a world to write stories in? My understanding is that the intent
> is the latter - and I think it should be, because it's infinitely more
> flexible. You could have your newly-started kingdom and Jeff Stembel can
> have his ancient Empire, and both people are happy.
>
> Some people might not be happy with such a setup, if they are (for
> whatever reason) feeling fiercely competetive. But I think they're
> missing the point of Castle World, and they ought to be looking for
> something else.
>
> > I think they want us all to start small and "build" appropriately. And that's
> > half the fun of telling a story is seeing where it will take you.
>
> But there are plenty of stories to be had in well-established kingdoms,
> sprawling empires, and the like. Why should we limit or discourage those?
> Especially when we can allow them *and* have the fledgeling new kingdoms
> exploring and pushing out their boundaries at the same time?
>
> It's not a game. There's no competition. It's all cooperation and
> creativity and - one hopes - love of the brick and love of the story as
> well.
>
> J
Ah Ha! At the most basic level, CW is a game. It's "Let's Pretend" which is
the simplest game there is. There are rules to follow, but very few of them.
This is not AD&D, GURPS, Hero System or any other "Let's Pretend" RPG, it is a
consensual game being made up by the players as we go along with guidance from
the UberGods.
Respect Others
Be Creative
Use Legos
The Bards are responsible for everything that happens in their Realms, you are
telling the story and essentially playing the roles of all the characters with
yourself as the GameMaster setting up your own scenario.
I do not mean to imply that there can't be large territories or Ancient
civilizations, whatever back-story the teller wants to tell is fine.
I think folks are thinking they have to have it all laid out at the beginning.
To tell a story you certainly don't need to have everything laid out, as oft
times the story will take you someplace you had no idea it would go.
Lance
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Lance Scott writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Jeff Johnston writes:
> >
> > But Castle World is not a game. There's no need for Play Balance. Just
> > like an author doesn't need 'play balance' in his books. We're creating a
> > 'shared world fantasy' here (like the _Wild Cards_ or _Thieves' World_
> > series), not running a roleplaying game.
>
> Ah Ha! At the most basic level, CW is a game. It's "Let's Pretend" which is
> the simplest game there is.
I disagree - unless you also want to count 'writing a novel' as a game of
Let's Pretend!
I think the two activities are very similar - perhaps even closely
related. After all, there are certainly 'shared world' settings that
evolved from roleplaying games. (The one I'm thinking of is _Wild Cards_,
which came from a game of Chaosium's _SuperWorld_ played by George R.R.
Martin and some others)
> There are rules to follow, but very few of them.
> This is not AD&D, GURPS, Hero System or any other "Let's Pretend" RPG, it is a
> consensual game being made up by the players as we go along with guidance from
> the UberGods.
I disagree. Although Pawel and Craig are certainly coordinating this
effort, I don't think they see themselves as the 'UberGods' or 'Game
Masters' of CastleWorld. In theory, we all have a say in what's going on.
So what are the differences between writing a novel and running a
role-playing game? Well, a role-playing game is internally focused. It's
purpose is to entertain the players. This is the same as you sitting at
home playing with your LEGOs. A lot of fun!
Writing a novel is externally focused - you're trying to entertain the
audience. The considerations are different in a lot of ways - having done
both game mastering and writing, I can say confidently that they are
*very* different. (And these differences are one of the reasons why
'gaming fiction' is often lousy compared to regular fiction)
Anyway, I see CW as 'writing a big novel witha bunchof co-authors'. And
so play balance doesn't need to enter into it - 'interesting story' does.
J
|
|
|
