Subject:
|
Re: 2005 Starship Election/Discussion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming.starship
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Jan 2005 03:04:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5884 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.gaming.starship, Dan Mattia wrote:
> Hendo '05.
>
> -{Dan}
Ditto.
Some of the members of the Port Block Yards Marines have a cadence, which puts
the local deity in New Pacific (Reen) in context with their larger abiding
respect for Hendo, that goes:
When we know where we have been
We know we must thank our Reen
But when we're told and we just go
We know its up to Hendo
Hendo sees and Hendo cares
Hendo covers derrières
When evil comes and breaks the rule
Hendo keeps everything cool
When danger lurks and things get tight
Hendo keeps everything bright
Some say he's not really there
That there's naught there but empty air
But they've ne'er had to take command
When all around has turned to sand
So when we know where we have been
We know we must thank our Reen
But when we have to fight our way
We let Hendo rule the day
Even partial Hendo has proved to be entirely adequate to the purpose. We're not
lacking in this.
We are possibly lacking in SMs with the enthusiasm to run worthy adventures and
players with the enthusiasm to participate. I think our little exploration of
our Starship Galaxy has demonstrated that there were some ineffable qualities of
Spraw and Sector 62 that have proved hard to duplicate, and that we may have
burdened potential players with SM issues that overwhelmed their enthusiasm.
I guess I feel this myself, that I'd happily play in a game or two at a time,
but the maintenance on New Pacific seems to be high input for low output and a
threshold responsibility to meet before I ought to be signing up for playing in
other people's sectors. At the same time I like New Pacific and don't want to
close it off from the galaxy.
So I propose that we add another type of sector in addition to the types of
sectors currently contemplated in the rules.
We currently have:
Adventure
(Spraw and Sector 62 types of multi player,
metered pbe mission oriented games)
Various
(a wider and less structured approach to
mission oriented game play)
Trade and Social
(IC chatting and ship movements)
Closed
(Dormant)
I suggest we add a new type, being:
Open
(Historical and background material
provided, ships welcome to enter and
leave subject to rules provided, but
no gameplay)
In this way we can still keep our place marker sectors, even if they are not
active. Vessels may come and go through these sectors subject to the published
guidelines from the SM, but without any need for interaction.
This lets us keep the colour and texture of some of the sectors already out
there, without forcing potential players to do chunks of work associated with
the current Trade and Social type, and without having to formally Close their
sector.
This lets these folks (me included) simply play games. It occurs to me that
this might get us enough people to actually play a multiplayer Spraw/Sector 62
type affair, and I think we have a couple of people up to the challenge of SMing
this sort of thing.
Its a bit of a back to the core approach, and if we find then that we have more
people who want to play than we can handle, then we can look to parallel games
or more active SMs then...
Just a thought.
If this was a goer I would be happy to move New Pacific to this status, freeing
the ships in the sector to go about their business unfettered by my demonstrated
lack of time to deal with them all appropriately, and it would allow me to
immediately sign up to the next Spraw/Sector 62 thingie that came along.
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: 2005 Starship Election/Discussion
|
| (...) -SNIP- Awesome, awesome cadence Richard. Very funny, as well (...) This is something I definitely agree with you on. While not something I want to do (yet, anyway), it no-doubt provides ease for some SMs. And the sector can always change its (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jan-05, to lugnet.gaming.starship, FTX)
| | | Re: 2005 Starship Election/Discussion
|
| (...) It is nice to have such a job of distinction. :) (...) <snip worth reading; if you haven't go back and see> I feel this is a fine idea. I cannot think of a down-side to it, although I always encourage everyone here to post any so we can work (...) (19 years ago, 6-Jan-05, to lugnet.gaming.starship)
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 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
|
|
|
|
