[War_ooc] John gets to thinking.

[Ian Martell]

My experience is that while the WR is a pain in the ass to write, it's also been pretty essential to the game, after all without the WR how do we know if what we propose in our posts work or not? As others have said the alternative is figuring it out for our own selves free of judgment of a GM which pretty much negates the 'game' aspect of WAR, and then it becomes a cooperative writing exercise, which is not a bad thing, but it's not the WAR I've come to enjoy. 

My thinking is that we should keep the WR, I for one feel like they're the payoff for the work I put into my posts and spurs me to writing new stuff in reaction to it.  As for format etc. Automation would be the GM's holy grail, let me tell you, John's not kidding when he says they're a beast to write, but lacking a method for that, I'd say the old format works just fine, if we can tighten it, go to point form or whatever for the sake of GM sanity, no problem, further I think we should make them indisputable unless the WR it self fails the Crack Test T and thus save the GM from responding to tons of complaints and focus on writing the WR and playing their country.

Yep I know that was a bit of a ramble, but give me a break, I just got up. =)

Anyhow, that's my two cents.


From: John Penta 
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 9:04 AM
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com 
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] John gets to thinking.


I'm going to hit on the various points Mike raises on their own between the message. Hope this goes through...


On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Michael Brittain <michael.brittain at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

  Hey guys! I'm still on the WAR lists, and as I've already said to John would be more than willing to help out, so I thought I ought to speak up and get involved in the discussions :-)

  My thoughts on the points below are yes to an activity requirement and yes to post counts (useful information, I'd say). Of course it's up to the rest of your guys, but I wouldn't have a problem with them. Also, I think that the WR could be replaced by another format not in so much detail. 

  My past memories of WAR have always been that the WR is a monster to complete, and after a while plays a big part in the GM's feeling some form of burn out or unnecessary stress. We're all relatively :-P intelligent people so we're aware of the potential implications of our actions, posts etc, so detailed responses I don't think are really that necessary - we can all estimate approval ratings, economic growth etc ourselves as Dan says, and if there are issues a GM can step in to help. Good posts/plots and interactions between players and countries should negate the need for a detailed world report, at least in my opinion, especially as the game isn't being played 'scientifically', in that there's no sliding scales of actions to be considered etc. 

That ignores the role of Secret Actions: In short, all the sneaky stuff players get up to, from the subtle to the noticeable. In my time with WAR, they've run the gamut from false flag terrorist bombings to currency manipulation to diplomatic campaigns to...Well, if you can imagine it, I'm willing to guess that since I joined in 2001, someone has tried it.

The WR is hard to complete, in part because it's just plain big (one section per country, plus global sections...It adds up), in part because (and if we do go ahead with the WR, this is where I'd really like help) there's no template. Making a readable, easy-to-assimilate WR takes time.

I think when I was able to really focus, when the issues were simple and not-too-much research was required to give a realistic, considered response, I got the WR down to taking maybe 20 minutes per country. There's a fundamental reason, hence, why I would never promise a WR more than once a week. Having other people help was a huge assist when WAR got big, but also made the process longer in some respects. If the WR is a source of stress, it's because the GM can usually expect to spend the better part of an evening working on it; I don't recall a single instance where it did not take at least an hour and a half...And usually, once you get the WR out you get called out on stuff you missed, logical errors, and things people just plain don't like. 


  I'd be more in favour of  'fake' news reports from the various countries media outlets, or global news bulletins, as a way of responding to the actions of individual players but also as a way introducing new 'problems'/issues to deal with. I think it would make it more realistic and hopefully be an easy, routine way of introducing new plots and moving the game play along. They could be flexible in terms of when they're needed to be sent out - they'd be no fixed date, they'd be fluid to in game plots, wouldn't need to be very detailed or long, could follow a simple format and are less monotonous maybe? You could also use them on the website to make WAR more realistic to potential players, and so that they could see what was going on.

  Maybe there's just as much work in these 'news snippets' and maybe I'm being a bit naive! What are everyone else's thoughts on this? :-)

Most plots in WAR come from players interacting with players. It's *incredibly* rare that the GM can launch a plot on their own and actually have players pay attention to it long-term. Either it's because I and previous GMs suck, or some other reason, I don't know.

Writing in a journalistic style would take just as long as writing in the third person semi-omniscient that the WR uses. It doesn't disqualify it, such writing comes in very handy for flash reports that introduce new events, but it isn't easier.

John


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090627/61ac6879/attachment-0001.html