Subject:
|
Game Project?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:58:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4645 times
|
| |
|
|
> Fair enough. Get those involved (and those who might be affected) and have
> a vote. I assume these are the choices:
Voting is not an accurate way of deciding much of anything, especially when
fairness is the goal. Being that we are on Lugnet, a site owned by the
'tyranny' of Todd Lehman and Suzanne Rich, we are subject to their rules.
please see below.
> Where should development of the rules of a CastleQuest RPG be discussed:
>
> 1. lugnet.castle
> 2. lugnet.fun.gaming
> 3. a new group just for CQ, such as lugnet.castle.cq
> 4. another message board establish off of lugnet just for CQ
> 5. email only
> 6. in person
> 7. some other forum not mentioned here
> 8. not at all
" lugnet.fun.gaming– LEGO-centered gaming: puzzles, building challenges,
role-playing games, strategy games, treasure hunts, etc. "
" lugnet.castle– LEGO SYSTEM Castle™: products (information, opinions, reviews,
etc.); building (settings, contexts, characters, projects, models, layouts,
plans, tools, tips, etc.); inspiration (ideas, movies, books, literature,
magazines, music, historical events, etc., as they relate to Castle); etc. "
in other words .castle = products, buildings, and inspiration.
lugnet.fun.gaming = RPGs.
MM was *developed* in emails between the respective designers. Development of
the game should go somewhere similiar. If it should stay in castle discussion,
I think it should at least be aware of those who'd rather it not be here:
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=15759
Of course, fairness is in the eye of the beholder, but I think it would be only
fair. Nitpicking about stats and rules, and generally un-defined brainstorming
isn't particularly interesting for whoever isn't directly interested in the
game. Especially when brainstorms devolves into arguments about D&D vs. other
games.
But since I brought it up, I think a strict following of the rules would
dictate the postings be in both .castle and .fun.gaming .
What I would like is that subject line clearly designate what the focus of the
conversation is. Recently in .castle certain discussions have evolved into
sub-discussions that really should start their own chain. the result is the
horribly long and complicated string like this one:
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=15610
Personally, I VOTE for 2, 4, or 5.
_lenny
> If these were the choices, I would vote for #2, and suggest just advertising
> CQ on occasion in .castle during announcements. Actually, I would agree
> that, if the game can prove a following, then #3 would be good too, but
> establishing a new group doesn't seem to be easy to do and could take a while.
>
> For the record, the gang involved in SS used option #4.
>
> Sorry if I upset anyone, but I thought I was pleasing others...
ps. you were doing good.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brainstorming ideas for Game Project....
|
| (...) I am just stirring up trouble left in right lately. Maybe my thoughts are not in line with some of the other posters in .castle or this thread. Should I just stop and not contribute? (I mean these comments with a touch of humor, though if (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.castle)
|
70 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
