Subject:
|
Re: .castle's problem
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming.starship
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Sep 2003 02:46:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8374 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.gaming.starship, Richard Parsons wrote:
> In lugnet.gaming.starship, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
> > .castle has a problem, that goes without being said.
>
> Hmmmm. Careful
> Mmmmmm. Again, Careful. I don't know that we are all that veteran.
Late night post == Incoherent
> To offer advice, we'd need to be very
> well versed in what actually was the underlying issue (which would mean reading
> everything, post by post...
Again, I couldn't make the words represent my real thoughts. A quick two-mile
jog and now I'm sorted out again.
What I wanted to convey was that I don't see why there should be a problem. We
discussed this, I think, waaaayyy back; should there be an all-powerful GM (so
named at a later date), or a group of people? We weighed the facts and came up
with a GM as the best solution.
Then the same issue arose as with CW: who administers the website? Who hosts
it? We just volunteered to do what we could. Nobody is expected to do
anything, but here we are with a web of sites (pun intended) about ships,
sectors, rules, and comms. Perhaps .castle is entering the Dark Ages...
I'm seeing a superb idea sit and rot while people argue about
I-can't-figure-out-what. That frustrates me. I want to build castle MOCs and
post them, but somehow I don't feel comfortable doing that in the main .castle
group. If there was a castle game, however, I would feel comfortable building,
posting, and receiving (constructive) criticism from a smaller group of friends.
> I think that this is one of our strengths. No high expectations about websites
> (we update them when volunteers feel like it, and if someone feels that they can
> assist by taking on parts of it themselves, fine), and no councils, just one
> almighty all-powerful galactic mediator
Exactly. See above.
[...]
> But even with that, I would not rush to assume it works for other folks.
I see your point. But why can't it be given a try? We all agreed that if
something didn't work out, it could be changed at a later date. I'm not trying
to impose my ideas on CW, but I sure wish they'd consider some of them.
>
> I'd just make your own game, like the original Sector 62 and Spraw, and if there
> is interest in developing a consistent backdrop for future games, worry about
> that then...
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
Yeah, I think that's what we'll have to do. I'd be perfectly willing to help
start off a castle version of Starship, but I'd need help. For one thing,
certain procedures might not work as well with castle as with space settings.
Another--it would be hard to keep track of all the towns and stations a player
might choose to build. How would such things be managed?
Well, these are questions for the daylight hours. Again I say, comments and
ideas! Let me know if you are interested in a castle game, because I AM!!!!
Andrew
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: .castle's problem
|
| (...) Well, they both wrote a lot in the past three posts. Let's see if I can't sort out some of my thoughts on the subject... First, I apologize for this being off-topic, but we are a close-knit group here, so I think we can handle it. Second, I (...) (23 years ago, 7-Sep-03, to lugnet.gaming.starship, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: .castle's problem
|
| (...) Hmmmm. Careful, .castle dudes read outside .castle too. AND even non .gaming.starship dudes have a right to their own special blend of the Obsession :-) (...) Mmmmmm. Again, Careful. I don't know that we are all that veteran. My sense is that (...) (23 years ago, 7-Sep-03, to lugnet.gaming.starship)
|
4 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
|
|
|
|
