[War_ooc] Okay, so...

[lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca]

I'm down as well. However, I'd like to see some *HARD* rules in place  
-- it seemed a little loosey-goosey last time.

-- Lee

Quoting John Penta <john.penta at gmail.com>:

> About this whole resurrection of WAR thingy.
>
> I have confirmed:
>
> Me
> Buckley
> Chris
> Dylan
> Iain
>
> With Mike Downey as a maybe, it sounds like?
>
> 5. 6 if we count Mike.
>
> Awfully small, but hopefully people can advertise? I know from last time
> that I suck at that.
>
> So, I'm going to lay out some stuff here.
>
> First off, there are OOC tasks we need to know someone is doing. Not think
> someone else is doing, but *absolutely know* that someone is doing them.
> They're vital to the success of any resurrection. My neurotic
> attempting-to-be-Atlas nature means I'd try to do all of these myself,
> except that I suck at these tasks, said after having attempted to do them
> all (except art, you don't want to see me doing art...ever...) for WAR last
> time. I'm *interested* in about half of these, but the very reason I'm
> putting these up here is because I suck and therefore should really not do
> them.
>
> What are they? Well, I'll set them out, each as a task area someone can
> volunteer for, along with any potential issues/problems/whatnot that I see.
> ---
> Web stuff - WAR's historic bane, along with advertising. Buckley suggested a
> Wiki as our website - an excellent idea, but vandals and spam would be a
> problem. A second question would be hosting - unless someone can rustle up
> free hosting for such a Wiki (or a website), it'll take *real money*.:(
> --
> Advertising: Finding places to advertise is only part of the problem.
> Writing a good ad is demonically hard - we're a niche thing no matter what
> kind of setting we go for, but we still need new people. I mentioned last
> night that I saw 6-8 people as a minimum size. Even if we have that now, we
> still need to advertise - just so that we have enough people for when people
> inevitably take a break/quit/get hit by a bus.
>
> I will, for the record, continue my role as newbie-handler once they reach
> us. I actually *like* doing that work, even as I see how others dislike it.
>
> It might be a good thing if, somehow, we advertise off-web, maybe by means
> of fliers and stuff?
> --
> Graphics and Art: Sort of in conjunction with the first two issues, we need
> someone artsy who can do stuff like banner ads.
> ---
>
> Next up:
>
> Stuff we need to decide on by consensus. Not, dear God, by vote...by
> consensus, because they're the building blocks. If we can't come to a
> consensus on these, we'll never get anywhere with implementation.
> ***
> First off, Setting.
>
> If we're looking at everything, we may as well look at setting.
>
> Personally, I've heard a bunch of ideas, from Napoleoonic-era WAR to Space
> WAR. They all strike me as potentially fun in different ways.
>
> Even for Modern or Near-future WAR, we run into the questions of work
> required and just how much we can expect out of any playerbase in terms of
> compelling, IC writing and decisionmaking.
>
> I'm going to throw out my opinions as far as the general categories.
> ---
> Historical WAR: Could be set in the Napoleonic era, the Renaissance, the
> Medieval age, whenever. Specific work required really depends on the
> specific era chosen, but in any event requires a *lot* of front-end
> historical research. May, in truth, require some knowledge of languages
> other than English in order to accomplish that research.
>
> Quality of writing and immersion is my biggest question, though: In my
> not-really-humble opinion, WAR was at its best when it was *immersive*. This
> sometimes meant being tightly-researched, but just as often happened when we
> managed to latch onto something and breathe in the atmosphere, even if not
> all the details worked. Often it was a mix of the two: I remember really
> being immersed in my character(s) when me and Chris were writing the
> US-China summit. Tightly-researched, yes, but also hugely because of
> atmosphere. Chris played his character to the hilt, and I honestly felt like
> Williams throughout that whole situation.
>
> Historical writing, in that sense, is *hard*. It's devilishly hard not to
> play someone with modern attitudes and knowledge, just dressed up in funny
> clothes. And yet if we don't pull it off, if we don't pull off all writing
> characters with period attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, etc, it all risks
> falling flat, leaving WAR coming off as a giant game of Risk.
> ---
> Modern WAR: One variant of what I will call "WAR Classic", this is the older
> version. Setting is Now, not the near-future. Saves us from thinking about
> times, dates, and all that stuff, but risks are what Buckley usefully called
> having too much information, and the problem of diverging so much from
> reality, either immediately or over time, as to be inaccessible to newbies,
> prompting restarts.
>
> Near-future WAR: The other variant, this is what I tried to do with the 2013
> scenario. Setting is roughly close to the present, but advanced ahead a few
> years - 2013 was initially picked semi-arbitrarily, because it conveniently
> meant a new US Presidential term and it advanced us 6ish years. The
> information problem remains to an extent, as does the divergence issue...In
> the case of the original 2013 scenario, I think we got lapped by reality
> from behind - I certainly, when writing in 2007, never expected an Obama
> Presidency. Or the recession.
>
> Work required? Mostly data-gathering and brainstorming, like what we're
> familiar with. It's still significant, but perhaps not as much as the
> historical or sci-fi variants. Quality of writing and decisionmaking: Well,
> WAR has had its bright and shining moments up til now, but it's also had
> its...Well, it's also had moments better left unmentioned because they were
> nothing resembling quality, agreed? We can almost all pull out examples from
> nearly 10 years of play, let's not get started. That said, there seems to be
> a lower "barrier to entry" with WAR Classic (in either version) than I would
> expect in Historical or Sci-fi versions. There isn't the issue of "attitude
> gap", at least not to the same extent.
> ---
> Sci-fi versions of WAR:
>
> WAR in Spaaaaaaaace! (There, got it out of my system.:)) Or Cyberpunk WAR,
> or whatever. Requires a shitload of work in terms of world-building. Some
> can be accomplished in-play, but a lot would need to be accomplished before
> we ever got off the ground.
>
> Quality of writing and decisionmaking can pose as much problems here as with
> Historical WAR, for much the same reasons.
> ***
>
> Are there any other setting possibilities I've left out?
>
> Anyhow...Yeah.
>
> One thing this does set out for me is What WAR Is. Not in a setting way, but
> in a general "mission-statement-y" way. You may not agree with everything
> written, but I'm calling things as I see them. Including this really because
> it's been on my mind.
> ---
> WAR (which may or may not need a renaming) is a game, yes. It cannot hope to
> be a simulation, even when it has simulation characteristics, and even
> though WAR has classically been an excellent teacher of politics and
> international affairs. Not a wargame, though it does include war, as seen
> tactically, operationally, and strategically (and from a grand strategy
> perspective). In many cases, much of the fun comes from desperately trying
> to -avoid- the general war that will in many cases end the game. It is not,
> strictly, a roleplaying game in the conventional sense. It may include RPG
> devices - it could even include stats and things like that if players felt
> so inclined. It does come imbued with a heavy dose of roleplay, everything
> from action posts (combat and similar RP) to diplomacy to strictly social
> scenes and character development, and players tend to play their roles, on
> the best days, very immersively, like the best roleplayers.
>
> WAR is as much the OOC surroundings as the actual play - the reality is that
> the game only really works when players are active on an out-of-character
> basis with other players, whether that be through instant messenger chatter,
> IM chats of multiple players, or chatter on the OOC list. WAR players are
> opinionated, yes; play often requires a thick skin, and the OOC
> conversations and debates and such do as well. At the same time, though, WAR
> is best played with the game full-contact, but with the players behind the
> characters still able to be friends...of sorts, anyway. We may never meet in
> real life to drink beers together, but the idea is that the game shouldn't
> prevent the bonds of friendship forming such that we could if we wanted to,
> or even if we just ran into each other and somehow figured out the
> connection. The moment IC activity causes OOC sniping (or worse), we've done
> something wrong. Not just one of us, but all of us. Just because we can ICly
> be at each other's throats gives no excuse for that to carry over into OOC
> terms.
>
> WAR is not meant to be educational: We play for fun, not as a requirement
> for any course. Telling a good story may occasionally beat out realism,
> though (particularly in a modern or historical setting) we've found realism
> to be extremely helpful to our endeavors. Nonetheless, WAR *has the
> possibility* to teach about many things - and players should "come to the
> table" willing to learn from play, both about the subjects at hand and stuff
> not necessarily apparent. WAR can teach the attentive player much about its
> subjects through the activity of play, and about many things not strictly
> within our remit, whether that be human behavior (broadly speaking) or any
> number of other things. Including, though this is not fully advisable, about
> oneself. Or ar least certain aspects thereof.
>
> WAR is about writing, though it is more competitive than most MUSHes,
> MOOs, or most freeform RP of other types. We compete, and compete hard, but
> there is no way to "win" at WAR - and trying to win like WAR is any other
> game is not taken well. We compete in order to write a fun story -
> ultimately a cooperative endeavor. This story may, or may not, have an end.
> We're not sure. Finding out is part of the adventure.
> ***
>
> So, summary of all this babble:
>
> Go back and read my babble, dammit. You win no points by skipping to the
> end.
>
> We need people to volunteer for the OOC tasks set out above - multiple
> people can do a single task, but cooperating in such cases seems like a good
> idea, and in any case these need to be done.
>
> If for some reason they can't be done, well...then we're a bit stuck, and
> I'd be open to ideas on how to navigate out of the stuckness.
>
> Setting, like I said, should really be decided by consensus - and no, don't
> just go "I'll do what everybody else wants" and be passive-aggressive.
> Silence in this case does not equal consent.
>
> Regardless of whatever else, I'm kinda sorta claiming "ownership" of WAR,
> insofar as that means -anything- (It doesn't, except that I might break tie
> votes or something if we ever need to vote on stuff), because I basically
> had both the idea to restart WAR and to actually dig out this list to use
> for such a purpose.
>
> Let's decide the setting of WAR, all that good stuff, then we'll figure out
> GM for play purposes.
>
> John
>