Graf
Explorer
from this post
In principal I'm in support of this. I think I need to take a bit of a back seat though (or rather, work more on ticking off boxes than making boxes to tick).
My only concern is that there has also been a pretty big push toward "not filling anything in". I'd hate to wind up with an exhaustive list, fill everything in on it and then have people say "you're setting's too detailed/in filling in all these boxes you've added some details that i don't like -> and upsetting the apple cart (so to speak).
It's very easy to complain that a setting isn't the sort of setting you'd write if you were doing it, or if it were your home game or that it's not the way that you think it ought to be because you like X and prefer that X be a really big part of the setting and you don't like Y so you think that it ought to be more X than Y.
edit: basically I'd like to see objections come with constructive suggestions.
And, I think, some things that some people feel are "must haves" aren't things that other people want.
[d]--[/d]
I also, point out, once again that both settings (Zheen, Transitive Isles) are on the Wiki and can be edited by anyone.
You can suggest elements to be changed here, on their talk pages (talk:Zheen, talk:Transitive Isles) OR go re-write them yourself.
I would love to see people getting involved writing and re-writing. (and I don't just mean fixing my hideous spelling and awkward sentences).
Obviously there are certain fundamental things that I'd like to keep (Transitive Isles as mid-sized islands in the shifting seas) but other than that you can go nuts.
Or "fork" a setting and make your own proposal... maybe Daunton is on the plane of Law and ruled by Modrons... go nuts.
Thus, I think as far as setting goes, the next step is for all of us, especially facilitators, to read the current setting proposals and come up with specific todo lists for each setting. As for whether we vote to proceed as soon as the first setting ticks all the boxes or wait for others, well, we can decide that when the time comes, based on our feeling of relative levels of interest.
In principal I'm in support of this. I think I need to take a bit of a back seat though (or rather, work more on ticking off boxes than making boxes to tick).
My only concern is that there has also been a pretty big push toward "not filling anything in". I'd hate to wind up with an exhaustive list, fill everything in on it and then have people say "you're setting's too detailed/in filling in all these boxes you've added some details that i don't like -> and upsetting the apple cart (so to speak).
It's very easy to complain that a setting isn't the sort of setting you'd write if you were doing it, or if it were your home game or that it's not the way that you think it ought to be because you like X and prefer that X be a really big part of the setting and you don't like Y so you think that it ought to be more X than Y.
edit: basically I'd like to see objections come with constructive suggestions.
And, I think, some things that some people feel are "must haves" aren't things that other people want.
[d]--[/d]
I also, point out, once again that both settings (Zheen, Transitive Isles) are on the Wiki and can be edited by anyone.
You can suggest elements to be changed here, on their talk pages (talk:Zheen, talk:Transitive Isles) OR go re-write them yourself.
I would love to see people getting involved writing and re-writing. (and I don't just mean fixing my hideous spelling and awkward sentences).
Obviously there are certain fundamental things that I'd like to keep (Transitive Isles as mid-sized islands in the shifting seas) but other than that you can go nuts.
Or "fork" a setting and make your own proposal... maybe Daunton is on the plane of Law and ruled by Modrons... go nuts.
Last edited: