Forum Structure
- YK - Yuri Khavlor
- King
- Posts: 692
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:13 pm
Forum Structure
At this time much of the game is played in forums. Probably for the best given the drawbacks of email, and past complaints about group discussions in email. I do get the impression there are drawbacks that can be addressed in the current format. Such as the ingroup/outgroup dynamic that crops up all the time, which becomes so cancerous to the longevity of games.
I really enjoyed the Taelshore dynamic, forums were not public but may as well have been. The courts and membership to various centers of court intrigue made sense.
I really enjoyed the Taelshore dynamic, forums were not public but may as well have been. The courts and membership to various centers of court intrigue made sense.
YK - Yuri Khavlor
Lord Mayor of Lyssan
“Nature is not cruel, but pitilessly indifferent. The hardest lesson for one to learn, is to admit that things might be neither good nor evil, but simply callous -- indifferent to all suffering"
Lord Mayor of Lyssan
“Nature is not cruel, but pitilessly indifferent. The hardest lesson for one to learn, is to admit that things might be neither good nor evil, but simply callous -- indifferent to all suffering"
- TH - The Hunt
- Emperor
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:27 pm
Re: Forum Structure
I like all of the first idea, but the second one, I just love.
The third, I'm not so sure. I thought the lack of transparency for and awareness from the participants was a feature, not a bug.
I don't like the 'you do not receive a reply' because it seems too much like social 'cutting', like it's the same as ignoring a message, only more aggressive. (Though still less aggressive than the whole 'kill the messenger' shtick.)
"The message is received, but there is no immediate response." is good because it doesn't lock the recipient out of replying later if they calm down, or otherwise change their mind. It also prevents time travel problems, where someone already knows what's (not) going to happen in the next year or two wile they're still deciding what to do the first week.
The third, I'm not so sure. I thought the lack of transparency for and awareness from the participants was a feature, not a bug.
I don't like the 'you do not receive a reply' because it seems too much like social 'cutting', like it's the same as ignoring a message, only more aggressive. (Though still less aggressive than the whole 'kill the messenger' shtick.)
"The message is received, but there is no immediate response." is good because it doesn't lock the recipient out of replying later if they calm down, or otherwise change their mind. It also prevents time travel problems, where someone already knows what's (not) going to happen in the next year or two wile they're still deciding what to do the first week.
"The Hunt rides. The Hunt protects."
- TH - The Hunt
- Emperor
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:27 pm
Re: Forum Structure
Oh... there should be a clear option (it already exists, but let's formalize it) to say '<myrealm> breaks diplomatic ties in response to this message' (with an optional ' violently.' and a further optional description of the violence done to the messenger, envoys, diplomats, available hostages, or embassy).
Then the cutting is serious, no IC messages can be sent in either direction, and the only way to reverse it is by saying '<myrealm> seeks to establish diplomatic ties', optionally with gifts or other concessions delivered uncondionally to the recipient, in an OOC manner. The one seeking to reestablish the ties can only hope for consent from the other party, they have no real way to communicate--which was the point of cutting ties.
If we have this in effect, then even threatening to do it is serious, just like it is in real life.
Then the cutting is serious, no IC messages can be sent in either direction, and the only way to reverse it is by saying '<myrealm> seeks to establish diplomatic ties', optionally with gifts or other concessions delivered uncondionally to the recipient, in an OOC manner. The one seeking to reestablish the ties can only hope for consent from the other party, they have no real way to communicate--which was the point of cutting ties.
If we have this in effect, then even threatening to do it is serious, just like it is in real life.
"The Hunt rides. The Hunt protects."
- JB - Jana Boulderbrew
- King
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:45 pm
Re: Forum Structure
As great as the idea is, I believe the best choice needs to be something that reduces the administrative burden on the DM.
The objective should be to make it easier for the DM to find conversations that can be forwarded for espionage.
The objective should be to make it easier for the DM to find conversations that can be forwarded for espionage.
"Success is measured in blood, yours or your enemies."
- TH - The Hunt
- Emperor
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:27 pm
Re: Forum Structure
The way to do that is just to standardize the format for email subject lines, isn't it? (And also get people to stop replying to the threads from previous turns.)
"The Hunt rides. The Hunt protects."
Re: Forum Structure
I tend to agree: the private forums need to be reduced.
Some times, it feels like they are being used expressly to evade espionage.
That said, forum communication is far easier than by email.
So open forums work as a quasi-solution to that problem.
Also allowing spies to gain access to Private Forums: you'd simply have to create a new "alliance" forum (or sub forum the old alliance posts) each turn. Tedious, perhaps, but plausibly doable. And lock all the old threads.
Some times, it feels like they are being used expressly to evade espionage.
That said, forum communication is far easier than by email.
So open forums work as a quasi-solution to that problem.
Also allowing spies to gain access to Private Forums: you'd simply have to create a new "alliance" forum (or sub forum the old alliance posts) each turn. Tedious, perhaps, but plausibly doable. And lock all the old threads.
- CI - Charrek Ironfist
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:37 pm
Re: Forum Structure
That's my brand!AF - Areida Faderan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:54 amThough still less aggressive than the whole 'kill the messenger' shtick.
Lord Mayor Charrek Ironfist | Charrek.Ironfist@mail.com
Stormpriestess Khalia Ironfist
Stormpriestess Khalia Ironfist
- CSF - Flint
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:32 pm
Re: Forum Structure
It definitely felt like there were large parts of the game being played that were completely invisible to most of the players. I tried to do my best to post News! regularly that would be common knowledge but if not all players are doing that it doesnt really solve anything.
How much of an impact did winterfests not existing / being consistently undermined affect the global news/storyline propagation compared to previous campaigns?
Was that where most of the international mingling occurred previously and the loss/undermining is the problem?
Can we incentivize "good" news posts or winterfest participation somehow to raise engagement levels?
How much of an impact did winterfests not existing / being consistently undermined affect the global news/storyline propagation compared to previous campaigns?
Was that where most of the international mingling occurred previously and the loss/undermining is the problem?
Can we incentivize "good" news posts or winterfest participation somehow to raise engagement levels?
Captain Shanol Flint
- WM - The Waste Mage
- King
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:41 am
Re: Forum Structure
If Juan stopped posting News so we were all blind to anything unless we heard from other PCs it might spur some chatter between players. And make going to Winterfest a necessity to learn about the lands far away.
- TH - The Hunt
- Emperor
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:27 pm
Re: Forum Structure
The Winterfests last game didn't change the course of it much, they did more to make it easier to move in the direction it was already going. Most of the game was still invisible to most of the players, that's just the nature of having dozens of players of which only about a half dozen interact with any given one.
I like the idea of wars not being in the turn news, though I imagine a consequence would be people saying 'my two units beat their ten!' 'no, my ten units beat their fifty!'
I like the idea of wars not being in the turn news, though I imagine a consequence would be people saying 'my two units beat their ten!' 'no, my ten units beat their fifty!'
"The Hunt rides. The Hunt protects."