World Builders Rules Suggestion

Lowly Uhlan · Post by **Lowly Uhlan** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:08 am

Well, enthusiasim for this project has died down considerably. When it first started everyone was stoked, entries were flying left and right. Now there's not really much input into the whole thing. World Builders is fun, and it would be really cool to play a game set in the world created by our joint efforts. Roataing GMs maybe. Help create a world then play a character in the same world. How cool would that be?

But that will never happen if we don't get entries in. So I have a suggestion. What we could implement is a time limit on each entry. Maybe 7 days from the announcement of the next letter for all entries to be in. Anyone missing the window loses the chance to have an entry on that specific letter. Then we move on to the next. Anyone missing an entry on a letter still can write an entry for the next, chipping in when they can. Otherwise this project might die.

So what do you guys think? If anyone misses a letter they still can throw in on the next. But I think a time limit is the only way to keep the ball rolling.

To help with cross referencing I'll volunteer to start and maintain a geography thread, and maybe handle dates as well. You could refer to those threads as needed, might make things a little easier.

What do you guys think?

And if we discuss this for like a week that's just more time wasted.

Cthulhu · Post by **Cthulhu** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:11 am

Might be a good idea. I know I'm really late on the C's. I'll have mine done tonight. A time limit might be the kick in the ass we need to keep it going.

BlanchPrez · Post by **BlanchPrez** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:42 am

Sounds like a good idea. I'm all for it.

Chris

Lowly Uhlan · Post by **Lowly Uhlan** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:58 am

Since you're our erstwhile leader in this BlanchPrez I think you have the final word. Anyone else have feedback?

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:46 am

I would participate more, but I just haven't had the time to really write anything.

Jonathan

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:14 pm

I think people should just chime in now and let us know if they are still interested. If they don't bother to let us now if they still want to do this they we should just move on.

BlanchPrez · Post by **BlanchPrez** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 5:33 am

What would you guys say to adding someone new to the mix, let them start with C?

Chris

Lowly Uhlan · Post by **Lowly Uhlan** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:43 am

I'm down with that.

Skyman · Post by **Skyman** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:30 am

me too

Lowly Uhlan · Post by **Lowly Uhlan** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:34 am

BlancPrez, should we put a 3-day deadline on the C entries? Say by Sunday?

And do you want me to start a sticky geography thread?

BlanchPrez · Post by **BlanchPrez** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:51 am

Okay, I've added Infernus to this group. Get your C entry in, Infernus! :)

I'll make the deadline Monday (sense I hardly ever get on the computer over the weekend). On Monday, however, I will close the C entries and open the D enteries. I'll start locking threads after the deadlines.

Lowly Uhlan, what exactly did you have in mind for a geography thread?

Chris

Lowly Uhlan · Post by **Lowly Uhlan** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:09 am

~~[quote="BlanchPrez"]~~Okay, I've added Infernus to this group. Get your C entry in, Infernus! :)

I'll make the deadline Monday (sense I hardly ever get on the computer over the weekend). On Monday, however, I will close the C entries and open the D enteries. I'll start locking threads after the deadlines.

Lowly Uhlan, what exactly did you have in mind for a geography thread?

Chris[/quote]

A sticky list similar to the phantom entries. I could put all specific place names up follwed by the name of the specific entry where they're mentioned, followed by the author. Might save time on wading through past entries. We could compile them into a map at the end of the project. Good idea?

BlanchPrez · Post by **BlanchPrez** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:23 am

Yeah, sounds like a good idea. Go for it, and I'll sticky it.

Chris

Infernus · Post by **Infernus** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:35 am

Got my "C" up, and I appreciate you guys letting me join a bit late. The geography thing would probably be a good idea, had to check and double check all the entries before I posted mine to make sure I wasnt contradicting anyone.

Lowly Uhlan · Post by **Lowly Uhlan** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:04 pm

~~[quote="BlanchPrez"]~~Yeah, sounds like a good idea. Go for it, and I'll sticky it.

Chris[/quote]

I'll have it done by Monday

Skyman · Post by **Skyman** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:20 pm

~~[quote="Infernus"]~~Got my "C" up, and I appreciate you guys letting me join a bit late. The geography thing would probably be a good idea, had to check and double check all the entries before I posted mine to make sure I wasnt contradicting anyone.[/quote]

Don't worry about contradictions. We had this discussion before recently and I don't want to regurgitate it all. Just relax with being too congruent since historians and lore keepers can write on the same subject and be totally off to each other.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:35 pm

~~[quote="Skyman"]~~Don't worry about contradictions. We had this discussion before recently and I don't want to regurgitate it all. Just relax with being too congruent since historians and lore keepers can write on the same subject and be totally off to each other.[/quote]

[code:1:42385495f7]3. Despite the fact that your peers are self-important, narrow-minded dunderheads, they are honest scholars. No matter how strained their interpretations are, their facts are accurate as historical research can make them. So if you cite an entry, you have to treat its factual content as true! &#40]

Actually Iâ€™d say that continuity is one of the most important aspects of this thing. The whole point of this is to mesh all of our ideas together into one world and we should try to avoid contradictions as well as we can. Contradictions whether they are geographical, chronological, or other wise will just make this even harder. If we donâ€™t try to avoid them then by the time this thing is over weâ€™ll have one country moving all through the continent or leaders invading lands fifteen years after they were supposed to be dead and succeeded. Remember after this is all done we want to have a very well detailed and accurate world in which to play a game and I think the less contradictions we have the more fun it will be.

Plus I personally think that is one of the most fun things about this game. I love going through my post and tweaking it here and there to make it mesh with everyone elseâ€™s. I had to almost completely rewrite my B post when I saw what Chris did for his. But I think it was better for it since it tied the world together a little more. Itâ€™s also fun to drop some information about a future post and see what someone will do with it, or go through all the posts pulling out all the information you can about your post.

That being said, donâ€™t kill your self tiring to avoid making a contradiction. If anyone catches itâ€™s easy enough to fix it. Itâ€™s a group effort after all and some people are going to know some posts better then others. And Infernus,I think you did a bang up job with your post. You seemed to come up with the same conclusion that I did in that we have at least two different mountain ranges. One near the Southern Vales and one including the Confederation of Nations. Plus we canâ€™t have Dwarves and Orcs living in the same mountains now can we? :wink:

Skyman · Post by **Skyman** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:50 pm

~~[quote="Jake"]~~[quote:978f5209c5="Skyman"]Don't worry about contradictions. We had this discussion before recently and I don't want to regurgitate it all. Just relax with being too congruent since historians and lore keepers can write on the same subject and be totally off to each other.[/quote]

[code:1:978f5209c5]3. Despite the fact that your peers are self-important, narrow-minded dunderheads, they are honest scholars. No matter how strained their interpretations are, their facts are accurate as historical research can make them. So if you cite an entry, you have to treat its factual content as true! &#40]

Actually Iâ€™d say that continuity is one of the most important aspects of this thing. The whole point of this is to mesh all of our ideas together into one world and we should try to avoid contradictions as well as we can. Contradictions whether they are geographical, chronological, or other wise will just make this even harder.[/quote:978f5209c5]

I guess I will regurgitate a bit more. Since my short line was obviously taken to the extreme of its intent. Since we have time limits to get the post in it would be a major obstacle to be totally exact, mostly as we get up in letters, much like the situation Jake ran into. You obviously have to keep on line to facts to the best you can but don't blow a gasket if you can't. Much like the above quoted parentheses suggest this is facts colored by interpretation.

Lowly Uhlan · Post by **Lowly Uhlan** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 8:54 pm

~~[quote="Lowly Uhlan"]~~[quote:2f57eca30d="BlanchPrez"]Yeah, sounds like a good idea. Go for it, and I'll sticky it.

Chris[/quote]

I'll have it done by Monday[/quote:2f57eca30d]

Uh, make thay next Monday.