[War] Fwd: RE: WAR's situation (was: Re: NHSAC: Waiting on GameReports - December 2006)

[Vampi Digitalwytch]

I have been in sims where they did do a turn based system and it
always devolved into the GM spending far too much time to make sure
all posts were accounted for before we could move on.

For those more familiar with the highly structured environ of the PnP
games, the freeform of simming does throw them off, but in our case,
especially with as many veterans of the style we've got along with
some very practical headed GMs, we're well policed on that front.
While someone 'can' post about having battlemechs and harems of movie
starlets, it's going to get the kibosh slammed on it quick once the
few moments of 'wtf?!' pass upon reading.

I know my problem's been being too cautious with plausible pace making
me rely heavily upon the WAR reports or a potential GM email
questioning something.  While with my personal writing, keeping things
plausible as possible is part of my stylehook, in a sim, it makes me
the pokey poster because the feedback be it side email or report is
guiding me.  I'd hate to for once have John tell Buckley to punch me
in the arm for something.


> I've never really been a big fan of a 'pen and paper' game. WAR has
> always been more about writing than numbers and statistics.
>

> >
> > A proper website is a good start, but if you ask me, what the game really
> > needs is structure. Letting people write as many or as few posts as they
> > want, taking just about any action that they want, and without any concrete
> > method of playing, is a recipe for a disaster. It's no wonder writing game
> > reports is so difficult - there's no accepted 'standard' means of posting
> > and the adminstrators are left with having to finagle a game and a 'turn'
> > out of what is - let's face it - creative writing.
> >
> > I've taken part in a few succesful global politics sims in the past, and
> > what's made those games succesful has been two things:
> >
> > 1. A standard format for actions or 'turns' - players are free to write
> > little creative-writing bits all they like, but the actual actions their
> > nations take are regulated: You have this amount of cash, this size of
> > army, how are you going to use it within this turn (whether a month or a
> > year or however long it is, game-time)? That kind of thing. (One game I
> > played in, for example, had a standard template on an MS Word document that
> > the admin sent out once a week for the players to fill in and send back. In
> > between times, the players interacted on a forum.) Otherwise proceedings
> > just become "well, I think it would be cool if my country does
> > such-and-such, so...I'll write a little email bit about the decision making
> > process and that will be that. And then tomorrow I'll think of something
> > else, and..."
> >
> > 2. An administrator or games master willing to commit to writing a
> > game-report style round up within the time frames established - be it every
> > week, two weeks, month, or whatever.
> >
> > If you have those two things, it makes life much easier for the
> > administrators and the players.
> >
> > Just my thoughts...

-- 
--I know there are no lifeguards in the gene pool, but damn, there
ought to be at least a few sharks in the water.