Subject:
|
Re: Craigo on board! (the benefits of overdoing it)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle.org.cw
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:37:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
696 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle.org.cw, Richard Marchetti writes:
> The Duchess writes:
> > TT being...?
>
> Hey, it's your damn LEGO Acronym FAQ, Shiri! =oP
>
> TT being Time Twisters, a Town play theme.
>
> hehehe...
Gee! <blush> Well look, I made it and forgot about it, can you blame me? ;-)
> Well, I think these may be topics for discussions -- but one thing is for
> certain, each realm has it's own map.
OK, good - that's a good point for baladeer autonomy (as you mentioned
below). The less restrictions, the much-much-better.
> 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.
Sounds good (I've been using that term fairly often lately!).
> 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.
Makes sense. So things can change. Yep, makes sense.
> 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!).
Yes, agreed. This would probably be quite a task for whoever is in charge of
the map-page (be it Nathan, or Richard, or anyone else who is willing to
take up that responsibility).
> 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).
I like this idea... Yeah. A few different realms could work really well for
some people... I can already think of a few ideas for storylines involving
two far-apart realms...
> 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.
<grin> Yep, RDPs (Revolving Door Portals) are still definitely around. And
majick, yep-yep.
> 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.
<nod>
That makes a *lot* of sense. Let's all be reasonable about what exactly we
need - and remember that if need arises, we can always get more space.
> 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.
This one is always the wisest, and also the hardest to follow... but if
everyone at least makes an effort to stay focused, we could probably do
fairly well.
> 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.
Totally, totally agreed. Again - the less restrictions on people's
creativity, the better.
> 3) We should probably set up a final decision maker or resolution process.
> Reason being, we could discuss/argue stuff forever probably.
<nod nod>
That's hard to do, too, though. Who would "call the shots"? Even though this
is just a "last resort" resolution, I think. I'd be OK with having Richard
or Pawel or Nathan do it, or I could volunteer myself. But I hope we don't
get people upset or mad with such decisions.
> 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.)
Yes, to all of this... definitely.
> Okay, someone else take over for a bit. I can't write this all day!
I'm trying, I'm trying! ;-) But it's so hard to take over when there are
only three people in the discussion. ;-)
-Shiri
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Craigo on board! (the benefits of overdoing it)
|
| (...) Hey, it's your damn LEGO Acronym FAQ, Shiri! =oP TT being Time Twisters, a Town play theme. hehehe... (...) Well, I think these may be topics for discussions -- but one thing is for certain, each realm has it's own map. Adjacent civilizations (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-01, to lugnet.castle.org.cw)
|
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
|
|
|
|
