ISRP Rules and Rulings Reference (OOC)The place to check for rulings, setting and area updates, seminars, new information, and where to participate in discussions for ISRP rooms changes and improvements.
I agree with everyone that the decision for one setting is highly dependant on what is decided on the other, so I want to know how you want to run the voting for this.
Option A. Run both votes concurrently.
Option B. Vote on Juxta first, then Greyhawk.
Option C. Vote on Greyhawk first, then Juxta.
Option D. Something else entirely, but what?
Yes, I'm actually making a poll out of voting. *chuckle*
If you vote for option D, I expect to see an explanation of your meaning posted in this thread, otherwise I won't be able to interpret it.
My vote goes to figuring out the result for Juxta's replacement first. The voting concerning the CRT and Greyhawk will likely hinge more on the result of the Emporium/marketplace room enough to make deciding that necessary for many to form a full opinion.
My vote goes to figuring out the result for Juxta's replacement first. The voting concerning the CRT and Greyhawk will likely hinge more on the result of the Emporium/marketplace room enough to make deciding that necessary for many to form a full opinion.
My vote goes to figuring out the result for Juxta's replacement first. The voting concerning the CRT and Greyhawk will likely hinge more on the result of the Emporium/marketplace room enough to make deciding that necessary for many to form a full opinion.
Let's just put all the settings up in one poll.. and see what gets the most.. for example.
I..don't understand. Elaborate?
I don't think all the options could fit on one poll since we are determining the fate of two rooms. I just don't get how we could put all the options from the prevote threads on a single poll, each room has to have its own outcome.
Edit:
Adele,
Er.. If by some chance "run both votes concurrently" wins and we get conflicting results, what happenes?
Example: Juxta is chosen to merge with Ford Keep/CRT and CRT is voted to become a stricter setting. It makes no sense for fiends and whatnot to cavort around the town and Domain, but no sir! Not in this one little tavern!
That option just seems to work against itself and bound to propagate delays.
"Something else entirely" suffers from this as well, 5 votes and only one person has answered the "but what?" Unless, they're all agreeing with Dontella (or they are conveying it privately)..which is possible. We could be dealing with X different ideas here and then we'd end up with another poll with these same options, plus X more if everyone has their own idea.
Nevine, in your example if Juxta were chosen to merge into Greyhawk, and the Setting Restricted Greyhawk proposal were chosen we would need to run a third and final poll, to determine if the merged areas would also apply the Setting Restricted proposal.
In other words, it's possible to have two fantasy areas set in greyhawk, where a tavern themed area has a stricter enforcement level than the marketplace themed area. They'd be in the same setting, but have different enforcement levels.
Dontella is the only one to convey her intention in her something else entirely vote. Others should as well. I should be able to edit the poll to add additional choices... I hadn't thought much about that yet...
Anyway, to address Dontella's selection straightforward:
If the request is to hold one large vote and the two most popular choices become the two new settings, I think that would be rather messy, because conflicting settings would exist in the same poll. In other words the two Greyhawk proposals could in theory win, which would be really hard to implement. They need to remain two separate polls, each identified and associated with a current setting area.
If the request is to hold one large vote and the result be one entire new setting, and just one setting, I'm not keen on that either. We need two settings (four main rooms). If in the future, we want to pursue eliminating a setting completely and dropping down to one setting (two rooms) we can discuss that. However, it's not on the table right now.
If the request is to hold one large vote and the result be one entire new setting, and just one setting, I'm not keen on that either. We need two settings (four main rooms). If in the future, we want to pursue eliminating a setting completely and dropping down to one setting (two rooms) we can discuss that. However, it's not on the table right now.
Why isn't it on the table? If we have only one setting with two rooms, then it will be easier to find storytelling partners, and everyone can focus on getting real good at the setting that we pick. Too many setting is kinda confusing, and too many rooms means I have to hunt around for people to play with. I don't always have a bunch of time, but I still want to play
Because not everyone likes having the same setting. My cat characters do not belong in a Tavern. They haven't ever since the Tavern was rerelocated - and so they only go there if dragged.
If you personally feel that staying in one setting is more worthwhile, you are free to do so. In that way you would develop your knowledge of that setting.
Others may prefer a choice - do they feel like playing one style or other tonight? Wouldn't you prefer to choose which setting you hold to?
If there is only one fantasy setting avaliable, you would have no choice on the site.
Incidentally, I've found that a strong character with interesting faults and strengths and a solid, believable background has served me better in finding games than just how many rooms I've wandered through. If people go to another room because they don't want to play with someone else, just finding them won't necessarily change their mind.
I think Chitara summed it up nicely, it's because we want to offer a variety. It's because if we are going to try a trial of new settings, as voted on by the patrons, then we want to have more than one choice so those who didn't like the final choice still have something that will hopefully satisfy them. It's because I'd like to see two very different types of settings to better satisfy the needs of the patrons.
And if it doesn't work out, then we can adjust it then. But for now, I do want two settings.
So, if you vote for option D, I expect to see an explanation of your meaning posted in this thread, otherwise I won't be able to interpret it.
Incidentally, I've found that a strong character with interesting faults and strengths and a solid, believable background has served me better in finding games than just how many rooms I've wandered through. If people go to another room because they don't want to play with someone else, just finding them won't necessarily change their mind.
- Chitara
Wow. That was totally uncalled for. Thanks for assuming that everyone is running away from me, which isn't what I said. You also haven't ever played with me, as f ar as I know, so you probably can't really know if I'm annoying or if I know how to play or not. I don't play in this name.
Everyone is allowed a different idea, you could have stopped with your first comment and not added that last part.
Why isn't it on the table? If we have only one setting with two rooms, then it will be easier to find storytelling partners, and everyone can focus on getting real good at the setting that we pick. Too many setting is kinda confusing, and too many rooms means I have to hunt around for people to play with. I don't always have a bunch of time, but I still want to play
I think if we have one setting and only one setting we'd have too many people in the room at a time, assuming there ARE alot of people left... though I AM in favor of ditching Juxta, it seems a little hokey.
... though I AM in favor of ditching Juxta, it seems a little hokey.
::is in shock::
wow...what's so 'hokey' about something that has a homebrew flavor? It's not like any part of Juxta can't be altered to 'suit' its inhabitants' needs/desires? Ever heard of the alterable morphic ability of a demiplane of a transitive plane before...too easy.
Two rooms doesn't necessarily mean that we have to have two settings. I, for one, think that Juxta can continue to exist as a Planar room within any setting.
Yes, Greyhawk is advantageous because it is more open...being the generic D&D setting, and FR has what one could consider to be setting restrictions in that it is more defined and thus requires more moderation.
In the end it will depend on whether we want restrictions or not... or rather, to what degree we want restrictions...
Which is funny, I might add, because Juxta has restrictions...and everyone is so quick to be rid of it because of them... has no one thought of just changing them?
Cystuni is also correct in that roomcounts become an issue. At least in ichat there was a max in how many people could be logged into one room at a time, and once you got near that level (which was highly possible on a good night) the software started weirding out.
But even if the new software doesn't have those limitations, just trying to follow your own storyline, much less several others, in a very full room can give one a headache really quickly. I've found having 8-15 people in a room ranges from comfortable to more than I can handle. I've been in a room with 20-30 before and it is NOT something you want on a regular basis.
Dontella, there's two votes going on. One regarding the replacement for Juxta, and the other regarding what direction we want to go with Greyhawk.
So, for those that voted Option D, I really need to know what you mean, otherwise I'm confused. A few of you have already written to remove your vote for D. I will keep track of those.
Nathan, I think the common issue with Juxta's restrictions were that they were nonsensical to some, were restrictions that were not desired, explained, or were overly strict. We did try modifying the restrictions, but it didn't do much for the popularity or room counts. I am not comfortable modifying the setting further because it was already heading so far away from it's roots and intent. I'd like to remain true to the setting, and that's not possible with the changes desired or the changes requested by WoTC. So it's only fair to let it go as a supported setting, and remain in Limbo theme nights, and personal play.
The other settings proposed, while they may have restrictions, are different restrictions. Many of them make sense, are clearly desired by some, and are fairly reasonable. And the biggest thing is, that if that setting wins it is because everyone WANTS that setting with those restrictions. The same couldn't be said for Juxta, as that setting was created by one person with no outside input.
It's really nothing against Juxta. It's about trying to meet the needs and demands of the majority.
Thanks for assuming that everyone is running away from me, which isn't what I said. You also haven't ever played with me, as f ar as I know, so you probably can't really know if I'm annoying or if I know how to play or not. I don't play in this name.
Someone please point out to me where I said people were running away from him, because I never meant that and don't see it. If anyone wanted to be rid of someone in particular they need only use the /ignore function, possibly coupled with advising their friends of their action and suggesting that they follow suit. That is not an uncommon course if someone in a room really is annoying others and the others don't all want to move.
I do see however that if players must be searched for rather than staying in the main room or the setting, then they may we wanting privacy not more company. In my personal opinion two rooms separated by a lobby are not too much to glance into if I'm looking for someone.
Nathan, if Juxta was used as a planar room, wouldn't it still be another setting? *ducks* Well otherwise it wouldn't be Juxta, would it?
Anyway we've already been discussing Juxta's possible replacements (plural because more than one setting has been discussed) so it still makes mroe sense to me to vote for the replacement first. Either way it's easier to decide the other once we have the first pinned...
Juxtan Marketplace Replacements
Two templates for possible suggestion...
For a touch of Shadow Society...
This example could easily fit into any fantasy setting with a famous city (Waterdeep, Greyhawk city, City of Sharn, Lankhmar, or even London :P).
(City Base): The Marketplace exists parallel, aside, and under our own. In the forgotten section of the city, forgotten sewer tunnels, the shades of alleys, and the corner of your eyes, a whole population of folk eke out a daily existence in a world full of magic, danger and endless adventure. Merchants and customers sell, trade, haggle, and sometimes argue over the price of fish, rice, light bulbs, rubber bands, and bottled dreams - whatever one might like to acquire. This setting is very urban and surreal, resembling something from Simon R Green's Nightside or Clive Barker's Abarat.
For a touch of Faeire Tale...
This example could also work with any setting that has a mythology of Faeiry tales (Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, etc).
(Wilderness): Whenever wandering off the path, the trail, the road or even opening a forgotten closet door, one has the chance of entering the Roaming Marketplace. Where sylvan merchants and other worldly beings barter and haggle over the price of fine china and love potions. The setting is very sylvan and surreal, resembling something from Lewis Carrol's Alice from Wonderland or Neil Gaiman's Stardust.
As for planar cosmology, my suggestion, throw it all out the window. All cosmologies are possibly true.. Wheel, Turnip, Matrix, Fourth Dimesion, etc.
__________________________________________________ ___ this message has been brought to you by the Planar Trade Consortium, when your looking to sell your soul or beliefs to attain your dream, think PTC, because we care..
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
