Subject:
|
Re: Craigo on board! (the benefits of overdoing it)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle.org.cw
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Mar 2001 18:38:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
457 times
|
| |
|
|
The Duchess writes:
> TT being...?
Hey, it's your damn LEGO Acronym FAQ, Shiri! =oP
TT being Time Twisters, a Town play theme.
hehehe...
> A question that was raised to me in some friendly discussion was, what
> happens if two adjacent realms suddenly don't want to be adjancent, or two
> faraway realms suddenly want to be adjacant. Or, does every realm have its
> own map? Just curious, and these questions can wait till we see the map, but
> if you can answer them, by all means, go ahead.
Well, I think these may be topics for discussions -- but one thing is for
certain, each realm has it's own map.
Adjacent civilizations may just have to *deal* at a certain level -- it's
not the case that we choose our family members or even our neighbors in the
real world, so too with the maps. At the same time you do not have to
interact with a realm that doesn't fit into your narrative scheme of things
-- duet-style narratives are entirely up to the two participants in such a
narrative scheme. Try to choose neighbors and realms wisely from the
outset. I think the size of each realm will address most individual needs
for space.
My own suggestion as to realms close and distant and changing things up as
we go would be to try and have realms operate as they do (or have?) in the
real world. People and civilizations do indeed move, and even disappear.
Sometimes a civilization is ravaged, and leaves only ruins in it's passing.
Sometimes it seems only the people disappear, their cities left wholly
intact. Sometimes a people discover an apparently abandoned place and
choose to live there and stop being nomads. Etc.
I would recommend that each balladeer develop a story as to how these things
might happen. At the same time, we don't want total chaos so moving a realm
isn't something one does every few weeks (unless there is some really
brilliant narrative rational justifying it!). Balladeers should plan
carefully and try to work within the restrictions they have placed upon
themselves at the outset of the maps. I would think people could have
multiple different realms too (I myself have ideas that are not easy to
apply to a single group -- I have different groups I want to tell stories
about). And last I heard we had portals of some kind or other to move
people about, and there is always magic. I dunno, maybe this isn't so much
map related as story related.
It would be nice to have some sense of the number of realms each CW
participant may need. There are practical reasons for this so do please
think about it. And don't claim the need for a hundred realms when you only
have plans for four realms. The map is infinitely expandable and realms
required later for new CW participants, or even an existing participant, can
always be added on. The point is to get some sense of everyone's immediate
needs -- and it will almost certainly have everything to do with writing the
map web pages themselves.
BTW, on the topic of the map discussions, I am by no means pulling any kind
of rank (having none), but I would like to suggest a few things:
1) That once we have the maps available for viewing by all, that we try to
keep the discussions highly focused. Let's see if we can fairly quickly come
to the right questions and issues that we must resolve, and then try to
resolve them in a focused and fair manner.
2) That we try to always err on the side of balladeer autonomy and to always
allow narrative resolutions rather than restrictions from on high -- be it
administrative, or even somehow suggested by the map itself. The point is
to tell stories, however individualistic those narratives may be.
3) We should probably set up a final decision maker or resolution process.
Reason being, we could discuss/argue stuff forever probably.
4) We should have a sense of minority rights, keeping in mind that some may
ultimately choose to place their stories in the proposed Terra Brickus
Incognita (hereafter TBI). If the majority decide one way, but someone has
a hardline need for something that cannot be accomodated within agreed upon
map restrictions, then I think we should agree to disagree and allow that
balladeer complete autonomy in TBI. I would also recommend that a TBI link
be VERY prominently displayed on a map page. People with extravagant needs
should NOT be seen as having been "relegated" to TBI, rather it should be
seen as a grant of autonomy not *quite* available on the regular CW map.
(BTW, and this is a personal note, I have reason to believe that Castle
Blacktron may end up in TBI, at least to begin with -- I have other ideas
that will likely fit on the regular maps quite nicely.)
Okay, someone else take over for a bit. I can't write this all day!
<3
Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Craigo on board! (the benefits of overdoing it)
|
| (...) Gee! <blush> Well look, I made it and forgot about it, can you blame me? ;-) (...) OK, good - that's a good point for baladeer autonomy (as you mentioned below). The less restrictions, the much-much-better. (...) Sounds good (I've been using (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-01, to lugnet.castle.org.cw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
