(Discussion) General Part VII

[Erekose13]

Having just been invited to join the judge team (this has not yet been announced officially to LEW at large), since I'm not currently doing anything, I'll step up.

Looking at the thread list... several others don't have judges listed. Are they judgeless, or have the judges just not been named in the thread title?

Congrats, glad to see another judge and one I know will do well.

I know that Animus' adventure Curse of House Thimbral needs one as he says in the adventure title.

 

[Knight Otu]

Having just been invited to join the judge team (this has not yet been announced officially to LEW at large), since I'm not currently doing anything, I'll step up.

Looking at the thread list... several others don't have judges listed. Are they judgeless, or have the judges just not been named in the thread title?

Neither of my two adventures has a judge at the moment.

 

[Manzanita]

Neither of my two adventures has a judge at the moment.

Looks like Orsal can get off to a flying start!

Actually, I'll take one if no one else volunteers.

On general judge news, we've had several adventure proposals, but am I the only one to have given feedback? If we've got 12 PCs in the Inn, then we really need to approve an adventure. We must be careful not to let the beaurocracy stifle this place.

In that vein, I thought we might talk a bit about all the currently outstanding proposals. We judges haven't necessarily been very prompt at commenting upon, and voting on these. I think we should consider what our vision of LEW is. Do we want a "any reasonable proposal accepted" world, a close to core-only world, or somewhere in between?

I think the third option would be favored. So while many of the proposals seem like the "I'd like this race/class/feat/skill for my PC" type, I'd be much more inclined to support them if they had wide appeal. As such, I intend to require myself to vote on any proposal that receives three or more positive (or 5+ positive or negative) comments once it's well written up. I'll try to spend some time reading the current ones and vote if this criteria has been met.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Hmm...I actually think we have more than 12 PCs in the Inn

 

[Knight Otu]

I'll need to get off my behind regarding proposals in general.
I'd say we should take an in-between route.

 

[Bront]

I agree about the inbetween route. I've tried to make proposals that are more flavor driven than crunch driven, but I did try to propose a race that I thought might have some wide appeal, and they appear to, and just need to be fleshed out a bit more as far as background, location in the world, and perhaps why they have only recently been seen in this area (All of which I sorta have worked out, but need to put into words on the proposal).

Honestly, I think that the aim should be to make Enworld unique. Right now, it already is in several ways, but most of them feel more mechanical than anything else (a race, a few PrCs, the craft system, and the pantheon (which still needs a bit more work) being the major additions). With a united purpose and a request for players and judges to propose interesting flavor tidbits, we can make this world shine as much as any published setting.

Heck, I think it would be cool to work on getting stuff organized and put into a PDF format as well so players can read this stuff in other formats, as well as perhaps use this in their home campaigns. That could be a pipe dream, but it would be cool.

 

[orsal]

Neither of my two adventures has a judge at the moment.

OK. Animus, add me as judge for Curse of House Thimbrall. Knight Otu, you can add me for... let's say, Slaves of the Dragon. Should I take on the other one too? It seems a little overwhelming to snap my fingers and suddenly be judging three adventures. Who else can? It looks like you and Manzanita are carrying all the adventure-judging burden, so I guess I can take on a third if the other judges don't want to. Pbartender? Nimisgod?

 

[Jdvn1]

I think the third option would be favored. So while many of the proposals seem like the "I'd like this race/class/feat/skill for my PC" type, I'd be much more inclined to support them if they had wide appeal. As such, I intend to require myself to vote on any proposal that receives three or more positive (or 5+ positive or negative) comments once it's well written up. I'll try to spend some time reading the current ones and vote if this criteria has been met.

Yes, the in-between route is favored, but the problem with it is that it's vague. Some will lean more to one side than others.

If we're aiming to main EN World unique, we could try some minor changes/quirks that don't change much mechanical stuff. Like, naming months, having unique names for currency, directions, and so forth. Like the stuff you'd see in the beginning of a chapter called "Life in EN World." I don't know if such a proposal would pass, though.

 

[orsal]

Do we want a "any reasonable proposal accepted" world, a close to core-only world, or somewhere in between?

I'd lean toward a liberal standard for "local" flavour proposals, an in-between standard for "global" flavour proposals, and in-between, maybe even on the restrictive side, for crunchy proposals.

By "local" I mean features that don't impinge on much of the rest of the world -- maybe developing some town or small area of the map in detail, although it doesn't need to be local in the geographical sense. A organization that exists worldwide without being such an important player as to substantially shape the culture of the world (e.g. the Freefolk) would also get the liberal standard from me. If you've got an idea, the world should be big enough to find space for it.

A "global" flavour proposal could be a new god, or a major historical personality who shaped the world in definite ways. Of course, I want to be open to ideas if they do fit into the world as it is developing. But we do need a little restraint in the interest of coherence. Create a god of fire (for example), with all the associated mythos about how and why fire was given to the mortals, and the rest of the mythology needs to fit in with it. By all means, we want to encourage that, so I still want a fairly liberal standard, but we ought to consider how a proposal might restrict future ideas. That's not a problem with local proposals.

The reason I favour a stricter standard for rules-driven proposals is that I don't want to end up with a world that seems too foreign to newcomers familiar with standard D&D. Any time you join a campaign, you expect a lot of world-specific geography, organizations, culture, etc. that you hadn't been prepared for. But you also expect seven core races, eleven core classes, etc. If a new player brings his first LEW character into the Inn, meets five people of five different races of three of which he's never heard of before, it might be a little off-putting. Some people are happy playing every game in a totally different setting, but some people prefer to get to know the rules and options of their system inside out, and I'd like LEW to be accessible to that kind of player too.

 

[Animus]

I'd lean toward a liberal standard for "local" flavour proposals, an in-between standard for "global" flavour proposals, and in-between, maybe even on the restrictive side, for crunchy proposals.

By "local" I mean features that don't impinge on much of the rest of the world -- maybe developing some town or small area of the map in detail, although it doesn't need to be local in the geographical sense. A organization that exists worldwide without being such an important player as to substantially shape the culture of the world (e.g. the Freefolk) would also get the liberal standard from me. If you've got an idea, the world should be big enough to find space for it.

A "global" flavour proposal could be a new god, or a major historical personality who shaped the world in definite ways. Of course, I want to be open to ideas if they do fit into the world as it is developing. But we do need a little restraint in the interest of coherence. Create a god of fire (for example), with all the associated mythos about how and why fire was given to the mortals, and the rest of the mythology needs to fit in with it. By all means, we want to encourage that, so I still want a fairly liberal standard, but we ought to consider how a proposal might restrict future ideas. That's not a problem with local proposals.

The reason I favour a stricter standard for rules-driven proposals is that I don't want to end up with a world that seems too foreign to newcomers familiar with standard D&D. Any time you join a campaign, you expect a lot of world-specific geography, organizations, culture, etc. that you hadn't been prepared for. But you also expect seven core races, eleven core classes, etc. If a new player brings his first LEW character into the Inn, meets five people of five different races of three of which he's never heard of before, it might be a little off-putting. Some people are happy playing every game in a totally different setting, but some people prefer to get to know the rules and options of their system inside out, and I'd like LEW to be accessible to that kind of player too.

It's funny, because as I was about to reply I read your post and agreed with everything you said ! So I guess there's no need to repeat it. I'd like to see this world really grow and thrive.