Subject:
|
Re: Starship Bible
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming.starship
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 May 2003 15:36:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1666 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.gaming.starship, Richard Parsons writes:
> Its also a chunk of work even for existing SMs and I would be surprised if
> all would want to sign on.
I agree that offering material for an SS Bible should be a voluntary thing
on the part of any SM or player. It is not a requirement to participate in
the game. If an SM doesn't have time or energy to devote to giving such a
detailed background, that is fine. They should still be welcome to host an
adventure.
Still, with the group we have so far, I am willing to bet there is a lot of
creative energy begging for an outlet. That starts with building. But then
the building inspires backstories. And the backstories inspire more
building. And with the really creative members of the group, these energies
grow and grow and they never seem to all get out. Thus, I suspect that
about 80% of us will actually relish in having yet another creative outlet
in the form of an SS Bible.
> I guess I would argue for a few more adventure and trade/social sectors
> running, and some feedback from players as to what works for them (in the SM
> departments). I have a suspicion that this will tell us that players do not
> favour 'freeform play'. I could be wrong...
Ah, back on your issues with what Freeform is. I agree that true Freeform
Play is so chaotic that it has many inherent problems. I personally would
not want to run my own sector(s) that openly. But the Galaxy is set up to
allow each SM to run their sector(s) however they want.
I think when it comes down to it, we have two basic catagories of sectors:
Those that offer just a setting without a plot or mission, and those that
offer both a setting *and* a plot or mission. The former is what I have
been calling Trade and Social, and the latter is what I have been calling
Adventure. Freeform is what I have been calling sectors that don't seem to
fit into either catagory.
Should we redefine these catagories? Or should I rename them on the Sector
Registry?
-GMH
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Starship Bible
|
| (...) Hmmmmm. I'd be a little hesitant about this. It presents quite a barrier to new SMs to have to flesh all this sort of detail out in advance if the SMs have to do it themselves, and it seems to me if a player was up for doing this sort of (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.gaming.starship)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
