# Recruiting - World Building game



## Ry (Dec 9, 2007)

Hi guys, I've got a world building game that I'd like to try.  We need ~ 5 players and can handle more, it's like a forum game.


----------



## Voda Vosa (Dec 9, 2007)

Count me in =D


----------



## James Heard (Dec 9, 2007)

I'm interested in theory, but I'd have to see what's going on in the meat of the game to say for certain.


----------



## Ry (Dec 9, 2007)

James Heard said:
			
		

> I'm interested in theory, but I'd have to see what's going on in the meat of the game to say for certain.



Everybody had 50 points of Mastery.  First player (I'll randomly list the turn order) spends 2 points to pitch an idea.  

The pitch is max 120 words and 1 300x400 pixel picture.  That can be anything you want about the world - ANYTHING from a description of a beggar who sleeps behind the inn to the details of Tiamat's love life and the forthcoming plane-spanning conflict.  

For that pitch to become Fact, 2 other people have to decide to spend 1 point each to support your idea, and no one vetoes it for an entire 24-hour period.  Once that happens, it's Fact.

When someone else makes a Fact that plays into conflict in the world and involves one of your old facts, you can, at your option, award 1 point (this is new money, not from your pool).

So the basic idea is you have to come up with something cool enough that you're willing to spend your points, and other people are willing to spend their points on, and no one goes "aw hell, that'd screw it all up."  Money leaves the system when you do a pitch, and money comes into the system when people dice it up with each others' elements in a way they find cool.  The pot eventually heads to zero, at which point we look at the setting and see whether it came out half or fully baked.


----------



## Lorthanoth (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm intrigued...


----------



## James Heard (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm not getting how it would work in practice, so I'm going to bow out of consideration. Thanks for explaining it some more.


----------



## Ry (Dec 10, 2007)

Fair enough.  To anyone who's played it, this will be something like a long Teneting phase in Universalis, or a pitch meeting in Primetime Adventures with a bit of currency levelling things out.


----------



## kinem (Dec 10, 2007)

I'd be up for it.  I'll try to get my Vance on.


----------



## Ry (Dec 10, 2007)

Bump - could use a few more if people are interested


----------



## Lorthanoth (Dec 10, 2007)

What the heck, I'm in.


----------



## Mavnn (Dec 11, 2007)

Sounds interesting... count me in, although I'm unlikely to be able to post much over the whole Christmas period (from the 20th Dec through into early Jan)


----------



## mfrench (Dec 19, 2007)

*Bump*

Is this alive?  It looked interesting, I was hoping to lurk and see just how this works.


----------



## Ry (Dec 19, 2007)

I felt like we were a little short; the game can support people dropping in and out a bit but it needs a solid 5 or so players so I'm hoping tostart with more.  In fairness to everybody playing, and to try to get off on the right foot, what I'd like to do is post another recruitment thread or bump this one somewhere between Boxing Day and the new year.


----------



## Spontorus (Dec 19, 2007)

Chance to create a world lovable by myself and others?

Want, now.

How many mroe do we need?

EDIT:

What's boxing day? Is that like Christmas?


----------



## Ry (Dec 23, 2007)

Boxing Day = Dec 26th - at least in Canada it is.


----------



## Lorthanoth (Dec 23, 2007)

And the UK. Only last night I had to explain it to my American girlfriend.


----------



## mfrench (Dec 29, 2007)

Bumping this again.  I'd like to see this happen.  If I have to move up from a lurker to a contributer to see it work, well then, so be it.  At least 5 have expressed interest.  Are you still around gentlemen?


----------



## Mavnn (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm here.


----------



## Lorthanoth (Jan 2, 2008)

Yup.


----------



## kinem (Jan 2, 2008)

Waiting ...

HNY!


----------



## mfrench (Jan 3, 2008)

If we don't hear back by Friday, I say we just give it a go, I'll post a thread and a turn order.  Anybody care to make the first pitch?  Ryan can certainly take over at any time - I'm just trying to get the rock rolling.  (I think he's got a very little one at home, I hope that's going well!)


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jan 3, 2008)

Count me in!


----------



## Awakened (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm a recovering slack-a-holic, but I'd be VERY interested... If I can just stay off the slackahol.


----------



## Voda Vosa (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm still around


----------



## Nightbreeze (Jan 3, 2008)

It could be interesting. (keep in mind that I would just recycle some idea from a homebrew setting of mine  ...and I would recycle some of your ideas into mine)


----------



## mfrench (Jan 4, 2008)

Ryan Stoughton said:
			
		

> Everybody had 50 points of Mastery.  First player (I'll randomly list the turn order) spends 2 points to pitch an idea.
> 
> The pitch is max 120 words and 1 300x400 pixel picture.  That can be anything you want about the world - ANYTHING from a description of a beggar who sleeps behind the inn to the details of Tiamat's love life and the forthcoming plane-spanning conflict.
> 
> ...



This is the basic set up of the game.  I'll start a list of everyone that has posted here post-New Year, and set up a random turn order.  Here would be my proposal for additional parameters.

If it's your turn, you have two days to post a Pitch.  If you don't post in that time frame, you head to the end of the active list.  If you're absent through your next turn, you're moved to inactive.  If you wish to delay, you can simply request that the next person go, and you'll take the spot behind him.  In you're going to be absent for a while, request to be on hiatus until you return.  I'll keep the Mastery point totals with the lists updated.

If Ryan returns, he can take over, or just be a poster, or whatever.

Here's the list so far:
Nightbreeze
Voda Vosa
Awakened
Frukathka
kinem
Lorthanoth
Mavnn
mfrench


----------



## Nightbreeze (Jan 5, 2008)

Sounds good enough for me. Maybe send a notification to the first one in the random order?


----------



## mfrench (Jan 5, 2008)

Here is the order, new additions will step to the back of the line.

*Active*
Voda Vosa - 50 points
Lorthanoth - 50 points
Frukathka - 50 points
Nightbreeze - 50 points
Awakened - 50 points
Mavnn - 50 points
kinem - 50 points
mfrench - 50 points

I would suggest a standard format, with something like this for the first line of a pitch:
*Pitch # (X)*

Then people can confirm, veto, or discuss a certain pitch quite unambiguously.

Also, I have been thinking, and (this is quite new to me) I would be inclined to say that pitches should avoid crunch whenever possible.  You can certainly have some in mind, and I would expect such discussion to take place; but I think that the only assumptions of crunch here should be the basic SRD, thus our creation could be (potentially) useful to people playing E6, or epic levels, or D20 Modern, or 4E, or whatever.


----------



## mfrench (Jan 5, 2008)

Gentlemen!

This might work . . .


----------



## Voda Vosa (Jan 5, 2008)

I'll post today at night, Argentina's time


----------



## Lorthanoth (Jan 5, 2008)

Judging from Ryan's initial post and his work on something similar (I forget the name but it has a wiki) a shared-creation world, I think there should be total avoidance of crunch. That way, the entry can be used in whatever way someone sees fit and doesn't limit them even to a specific rules system. E.g. the world could be used for 3E, GURPS, Fantasy Hero etc

Can I be put right to the back, please? I won't have readily available internet access for a while (prob 2 weeks) so thought I should give warning.


----------



## kinem (Jan 7, 2008)

So what happens if people neither support nor veto a Pitch?  After a day or 2, there should be a default rule.


----------



## mfrench (Jan 7, 2008)

I think that 2 days of no support is a sort of silent veto.  We should make that officially the case, unless someone has a better idea.


----------



## Spontorus (Jan 7, 2008)

oh hey, I totally spaced on this, I still want to play, is there stll room? D:


----------



## Awakened (Jan 7, 2008)

If Voda's isn't fact yet, then here's my support!


----------



## WarShrike (Jan 7, 2008)

I'd also like to participate if there's still room.


----------



## mfrench (Jan 7, 2008)

I have no idea how many people this was intended to support.  My only worry is that with so many people working on something that updates so slowly, interest would wane, people would lose track of their turns, and then there would be a succession of 2-day periods were people just time-out, and it would fall flat.

That being said, I would certainly be up for allowing more people.  I would suggest then that the window to throw out a Pitch be reduced to 24 hours, and the silent veto go to 24 hours as well.

What do people think?


----------



## WarShrike (Jan 7, 2008)

What is the cost of a veto?


----------



## Asmor (Jan 7, 2008)

If there's enough interest to start a second game, I'd like to get in on it.


----------



## Spontorus (Jan 7, 2008)

it would be easier to split it into two or three seperate groups, and in the end we could combine the worlds, or hell if we get enough people we can all work on the same world, but with seperate groups for different parts of the world.


----------



## mfrench (Jan 7, 2008)

I suggest we split into 2 groups, with the people that haven't spent points there yet (no offense, it just works easiest) splitting off to start a new Game thread.  That would make the rosters:

Mavnn
kinem
mfrench
Voda Vosa
Frukathka
(hiatus) Lorthanoth -- I wouldn't want to move him without his approval

and then, in a new thread:

Nightbreeze
Awakened
Spontorus
Warshrike
Asmor

You could start with the first two Facts, or start completely independently.  It might be interesting just to take Fact 1, and see how divergent they have become by the time both are over.  In either event, I would request that someone from that group start a new in game thread and manage it, please.


----------



## Nightbreeze (Jan 7, 2008)

The split, and taking the first fact is fine for me.


----------



## Spontorus (Jan 7, 2008)

I'll start the thread then, I'll link to it in a sec.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3979457#post3979457

yay!


----------



## Nightbreeze (Jan 8, 2008)

By the way, are we really sure that a veto should be free? As 2 points are needed to propose a pitch, and 2 points are needed to support it, it seems fair if at least 1 point is needed to veto it.


----------



## Spontorus (Jan 8, 2008)

1 point to support it


----------



## Asmor (Jan 8, 2008)

Spontorus said:
			
		

> 1 point to support it




1 point x 2 people = 2 points


----------



## Spontorus (Jan 8, 2008)

is 1 point from each player, 2 players need to spend 1 point each.


----------



## Nightbreeze (Jan 8, 2008)

Yeah, but at the end 4 points are needed for an idea to become fact. And 0 point to throw it out of the window? It doesn't seem really fair.


----------



## kinem (Jan 8, 2008)

There is already a cost for vetoes - the risk of starting a grudge!  But perhaps a point cost would actually lessen that.

It may be too late, but it would be better to keep all discussion except for pitches (and a note if a pitch was NOT made into a fact) out of the IC thread, so that it will be somewhat readable as a campaign setting.


----------



## Spontorus (Jan 8, 2008)

Anyone know where warshrike and awakened are? we're awaiting their posts in our game.


----------



## Asmor (Jan 8, 2008)

Both of them apparently were logged in today, so I suspect they either don't know about the game or do not wish to participate.


----------



## mfrench (Jan 8, 2008)

Awakened posted in the other thread earlier today.

As per Vetoes: I would suggest that people can spend a point to offer a veto, if the vetoes out number the supporting votes, it doesn't become Fact.  I would also suggest that someone could offer the reason for a veto, thus giving the Pitcher a chance to amend their Pitch, if they so chose.


----------



## Asmor (Jan 9, 2008)

I veto mfrench's idea.  j/k

Actually, that does give me a fun idea for a meta-game... A world-design-game-design-game, if you will.

Would play like Mao

I like the idea that one person can veto an idea. After all, this is something we're all supposed to be happy with, so if something annoys someone enough they should be able to get rid of it.

However, I also think vetoing shouldn't be free. Here's how I'd do it: A veto costs 2 points. The person who pitched the idea loses his 2 points. Anyone who supported the idea gets their points back. This also applies to "silent" vetoes; the pitcher still loses the points, but if one person supported it he should get his points back.

Net result is that each pitch takes 4 points out of the system regardless of whether it's vetoed or not (except in the case that it's killed by a silent veto), which makes the duration of the game a bit more predictable.


----------



## Mavnn (Jan 9, 2008)

On the timing side of things, can I suggest that weekends don't count towards the various limits? There seem to be a lot of people who can't post normally at weekends (myself included).


----------



## rgordona (Jan 9, 2008)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Actually, that does give me a fun idea for a meta-game... A world-design-game-design-game, if you will.
> 
> Would play like Mao




I think it would be significantly closer to Nomic

Mao being rule discovery and Nomic being rule evolution.


----------



## Mavnn (Jan 9, 2008)

Voda Vosa said:
			
		

> I super support this pitch
> 
> 46 points.






			
				Ryan Stoughton said:
			
		

> When someone else makes a Fact that plays into conflict in the world and involves one of your old facts, you can, at your option, award 1 point (this is new money, not from your pool).




Just 'cause I'm unclear on the rules (and I wouldn't mind the extra point if Voda Vosa wants to give it!):

Could Voda Vosa award me a point for this pitch, as it directly builds on Pitch 1 (which he made)? I'm not clear on what Ryan means by "plays into conflict in the world." I'm also not clear about whether Voda Vosa would need to wait for the pitch to become fact before deciding wether to give the point of not.

In a way, it would be nice if you could rewards pitches that build on your facts even if they don't make it: a kind of "thank you for using my stuff, I thought the idea was cool even if it did get veto'd" kind of thing.


----------



## Mavnn (Jan 9, 2008)

Asmor said:
			
		

> I like the idea that one person can veto an idea. After all, this is something we're all supposed to be happy with, so if something annoys someone enough they should be able to get rid of it.
> 
> However, I also think vetoing shouldn't be free. Here's how I'd do it: A veto costs 2 points. The person who pitched the idea loses his 2 points. Anyone who supported the idea gets their points back. This also applies to "silent" vetoes; the pitcher still loses the points, but if one person supported it he should get his points back.
> 
> Net result is that each pitch takes 4 points out of the system regardless of whether it's vetoed or not (except in the case that it's killed by a silent veto), which makes the duration of the game a bit more predictable.




I definately think that any one person should be able to veto (there are only a fairly small number in each group, after all). I'm happy with the above, or just leaving vetos free: I don't think we're going to see very many of them - I suspect silent vetos will be much more common than 'active' ones.

Sorry for the double post...


----------



## mfrench (Jan 10, 2008)

Alright, I'm in agreement.  Here's a few rules addenda for the first group, tell me how you feel about them.

1) A player can veto a Pitch for 2 points.  A Pitch that doesn't receive 2 points of support in the 24 hour window is silently vetoed.  Whoever spent points of support in a vetoed Pitch gets those points back.

2) Weekends don't count against a player's time limit.

3) Only one player may award a point for tying your Pitch into one of his previous Facts.  (This makes sure that Pitches don't generate points, and thus prolong the game forever).

Also, I would say that Voda Vosa could award Mavnn a point for that Pitch building into his; if he's interested he should announce this in the in game thread.


----------



## kinem (Jan 10, 2008)

There doesn't seem to be enough benefit to supporting a Pitch you approve of.  Sure, you risk it getting a silent veto if no one responds, but why not hoard your point until late in the day, and let other less miserly people jump in and spend their points for you?

Maybe you should have to have supported a Pitch in order to get a point for tying in to it.


----------



## Asmor (Jan 10, 2008)

This is a game, but it is not a competition. You're all supposed to be working together to cooperatively form a great setting you can all be proud of. I don't think there's any need to worry about such strategizing.


----------



## Voda Vosa (Jan 10, 2008)

Uhm.. I didn't understood this: "Also, I would say that Voda Vosa could award Mavnn a point for that Pitch building into his; if he's interested he should announce this in the in game thread."


----------



## Asmor (Jan 10, 2008)

See:



			
				Ryan Stoughton said:
			
		

> When someone else makes a Fact that plays into conflict in the world and involves one of your old facts, you can, at your option, award 1 point (this is new money, not from your pool).


----------

