Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Brknlf 07-24-03, 04:05 PM	This was started on the ‘How about a POLL to choose a world MAP’ thread, but deserves its own spot. Besides I think this is why people come and go so fast without sticking around this particular board. This is something along the lines of why I left the original boards. I don’t really think my point is getting across as well as I want, I’m probably not articulate enough to explain what I mean. Dream Spinner wrote: If it's because we're stifling them and their thoughts, which is really horrible, then I want to at least try to "reopen" this project. Here, let me show you two examples from the Ithawu thread I started recently to express what I mean by stifling: Example 1: Bandido responds: The Ithawu are forest-dwelling people? That's good, although they probably wouldn't be elves, as they don't seem as elemental as the elves we have.... No problem! Perhaps they can be humans, or Leaves' gnomes, or some random thing no one's thought of yet! This says to me, all elves on this entire world we are creating have to fit into the mold being shaped by Bandido’s thread on Elemental Elves. Elemental elves were a cool, novel idea for elves up until the point it was decided that every elf that is to be created on this world creation project has to be an elemental elf. Instead of saying they are not elemental elves, it was suggested they be humans or gnomes. Example 2: Leaves responds: I'm not sure gnomes would be right for this story; they are more scientific in this world than in the core D&D setting. An as-yet undefined subrace might be a possibility. Again, this is saying that Leaves is mandating that the only acceptable form of gnome on the world creation project is the one she is creating. Both replies are telling me to choose something else, humans is the catch all. Humans can be whatever it seems, but every other race is going to be restricted to fit certain molds it seems. All this because I made a statement that the Ithawu could be a kind of elves (one poster says no, they can’t be the way I made elves, try gnomes … to which another posters steps in to say no, they can’t be the way I made gnomes, try humans). Defining and restricting to this degree is a grave mistake in a project of this magnitude I believe. It shouldn't take a genius to realize that not everyone is going to like a particular kind of elf or human or form of magic. It was a very big mistake that happened on the old boards as well. Even before the old board was up, it was a problem on the MtG and D&D metaboards. On the metaboards I eventually caught on and yet, some people had to argue for rigid guidelines for the physical nature of this world after WizO_Paradox pointed out how to start this new board. When the board was finally up I was trying to loosely define things like ley lines and stuff, but a couple of people had to have a definite, well defined explanation of everything that came out and then would argue it if it wasn’t what they imagined. I felt that was restricting creativity so I bowed out after much disagreement. Since the new board has been up there has been less arguments about what exactly a ‘ley’ line was and everyone seemed to be getting along. I was hoping everyone was a little more accepting to the fact that in sharing ideas with each other that means nothing will fit to our own specific ideas of how it should be. If two people contribute to making one thing, it will neither be wholly what each imagined individually. I could care less how magic works, I was interested in creating stories and new aspects of a fantasy world that could then be converted into MtG cards and D&D game material. I truly feel it is better to start small and work big on a project like this as starting big then working small is setting too many guidelines for creative minds to interact. I feel anything can be worked into the bigger picture. This is like arguing over something as stupid as ‘how exactly is magic fueled on this new world’. Really, if someone wants mages that memorize from books, then it could be said they learn ancient words and gestures that manipulate magical energies. If someone wants sorcerers, then it could be said that they learn to draw energy to themselves and shape it to the affects they prefer. If someone wants psions, then it could be said that they learn to concentrate energy in an area away from their person to create a desired affect. Sorry for stepping out of the wood work so soon, but this is a hot topic for myself because it really seems like everyone is trying to exercise a sort of rigid control over certain aspects of this world creation project, but it should be a lot looser if it is to grow as a both a jointly created world and a community.
Oops 07-28-03, 01:31 PM	I haven't read everything you said, but I'd like to explain my side anyway: When I read stories with inconsistencies, it drives me nuts. Science fiction often pretends to be set in the same universe as we live in, and when I see unaccounted-for inconsistencies between the science of the stories and observed reality on Earth, that bothers me. Whether or not a story pretends to be set in the same reality as we are in, I sometimes see internal inconsistencies, in which I read or watch something (depending on whether it is a book, movie, or TV) that leads me to believe something works a certain way, only to read or watch something later that contradicts that 'mechanism.' This drives me nuts because it confuses me as to what is and should be going on. If the world works in contradictory ways, I can't even begin to guess at what will happen. I can't tell if a character will or should think of something until it happens, because I don't know if that is how it works (btw, character stupidity drives me nuts, too). I often have daydreams in which I put myself in fantasy worlds I read about or watch, and whether it is that or actually writing a story, I need to know how things work to determine what happens in my own story. I can't do that if the world contradicts itself. When I first came to the World Creation Project, this was my main concern. It is very difficult to have large numbers of people working on something without inconsistencies popping up unless there is some framework that everyone can follow that prevents such inconsistency. Also, I haven't written stories for a very long time, and I was desperately hoping that this could be an outlet for my unused creativity. (It's been complaining of being stir crazy for quite a while.) It is quite obvious to me now that no one shared my concerns. Few people were patient enough to work on the backround of the world, and some people didn't even bother to read back to see what had already happened. A point would be raised, it may or may not be discussed, no one would have any objections to the decision, then a month later people would start objecting, saying "No one ever agreed to that!" My own efforts to prevent a personal catastrophe (which at the time I didn't realize was personal, since everyone else seems to have a way of tuning out inconsistency and just writing on their own) seem to have stifled the project as a whole. Several people left (or possibly never joined), and the project itself ground to a crawl. This is my first time back after the boards change, as the only things that were happening were A) people were coming up with mythology for races that either hadn't been invented or that had been invented but didn't live anywhere or have any culture, and B) a race of lizard-like creatures was being created. I wanted to eventually have a civilation to work with (actually, I figured I'd create my own once the backround had been worked out), but the creation of such a civilization was not going to happen in the foreseeable future, so I just stopped coming once the old threads disappeared (for discussion purposes). I'm glad to see that this board is doing better than it was when we switched over (at least, I think it is), and I'll probably start regularly posting here again. However, I won't be contributing anything as meaningful as I had hoped for quite a while. For those who are here now: Don't make my mistake. I suggest taking an Articles of Confederation approach until serious problems arise.
Leaves 07-28-03, 05:52 PM	I found myself getting a little testy when I first read this, so I thought I would give myself a few days before replying. Just my luck that GenCon was last weekend and there was hardly any activity anyway. First, I'd like to respond to your examples. It seems to me that you have interpretted these two brief comments in the most negative light possible. I'm going to explain how I'd interpret them. Originally posted by Brknlf: Example 1: quote:Bandido responds: "The Ithawu are forest-dwelling people? That's good, although they probably wouldn't be elves, as they don't seem as elemental as the elves we have.... No problem! Perhaps they can be humans, or Leaves' gnomes, or some random thing no one's thought of yet!" This says to me, all elves on this entire world we are creating have to fit into the mold being shaped by Bandido’s thread on Elemental Elves. Elemental elves were a cool, novel idea for elves up until the point it was decided that every elf that is to be created on this world creation project has to be an elemental elf. Instead of saying they are not elemental elves, it was suggested they be humans or gnomes. When you posted your story about the Ithawu, it was the first thing I remember seeing you post on this board since the switch-over. You haven't posted any replies to the Elemental Elves thread. I don't have any evidence to think that you have read any of the Elemental Elves thread, and neither does Bandido. There is no reason to assume that Bandido was doing anything more than pointing out that the discussion about elves so far has been about very different elves from the Tolkien-derived elf. I think that's fair, since there's no way for him to have known you had read any of it. He pointed out that the characters in the story "don't seem as elemental as the elves we have." Then he offers up the possibility that they could be humans, or gnomes, or something new. The only way you have of knowing that a new sub-race of elf isn't included in the "some random thing no one's thought of yet" is to actually write up another kind of elf, and have it shot down; by Bandido, and by the whole community. Nobody has proposed a non-elemental elf, so you don't know what the response would be. Originally posted by Brknlf: Example 2: quote:Leaves responds: "I'm not sure gnomes would be right for this story; they are more scientific in this world than in the core D&D setting. An as-yet undefined subrace might be a possibility." Again, this is saying that Leaves is mandating that the only acceptable form of gnome on the world creation project is the one she is creating. Both replies are telling me to choose something else, humans is the catch all. Humans can be whatever it seems, but every other race is going to be restricted to fit certain molds it seems. Again, I said no such thing. Bandido had mentioned Leaves' gnomes, which is silly, since gnomes aren't mine, and I hadn't even posted a gnome thread yet. Still, I did reply specifically about my gnomes, ie the sub-races I have written up so far. I don't know what you thought of the sentence "An as-yet undefined subrace might be a possibility." To clarify, what I meant was "But please! If you'd like, come up with a different sub-race!" And I repeat the invitation. I don't own gnomes. If you want to come up with a sub-race, go ahead. You are assuming that they wouldn't be accepted, and you have no evidence that that is the case. I urge you, please, don't make a sweeping judgement about the attitudes of the WCP based on assumptions you are making about the attitudes of a few individuals. If you want to know whether or not something is welcome, ask!. I can't stress that enough. If you haven't asked, you don't know the answer. Not that this post isn't already long enough, but I had another point you wanted to make. You posted this on my Map Poll thread: Originally posted by Brknlf The central kingdom is still a large chunk to begin with. Lets assume there are thirty people posting (which there are not if you haven't noticed), one begins talking about the idea of the central kingdom and the duchies, dukedoms and baronies that make up the kindom. They begin talking about the names, locations, politics of how these all interact and why they are all loyal to one king. Several posters contribute by talking about the militaries and fuedal aspects of said dukedoms and baronies. Another poster is inspired and goes off to discuss the jousting tournaments of the knights to replicate and reduce the need for fuedal warfare between neighboring land holders. A few people start threads making up cards about the knights and lands discussed so far while some others begin to write up D&D game states, new spells, new PrC's. Another group of people begin talking about the enchanted forest in the middle of the kingdom, about the faeries and druids that live there and their secret pact with the king to offer protection in time of need (maybe this helps the king stay king, maybe there was a prophecy that fortold him, maybe he holds the other kings in thrall with the wizard that supports him). The stats people start with more cards and more RPG info about forests, druids, faeries and mythical creatures from the forest. Another person mentions a story about a treaty between the central kingdom and the elven forests to the distant north, the trade between the kingdoms and the troublesome wars between the orge mongrels to the east (which inspired the elves and the central kingdom to forge the pact). More posters begin to contribute by defining the elves and mongrel ogres more. Yet some people still like the central kingdom and the knights and they begin telling stories about knightly quests and adventures and the wizarding friends some knights make. All the while the card and RPG people are converting it into stats, the people who like art are drawing by inspiration of some of the threads and the map people are continously adding aspects of what is discussed (a few boarders for the kingdom with a few cities initially , then more as dukedoms and baronies rise up to fill in the gaps creating boundaries, the the trade route to the elves, the mystical forest in the central kindgom sproutes, then the horde lands of the ogres and the elven nations to the north, and they keep adding). I want you to understand, that the way you feel about anything I posted is probably very similar to the way I feel about this quote. It made me cringe when I read it. In this happy scenario of yours, who decided we were working in a fuedal system? What if I wanted to develope an Athenian democracy, or a magocracy? What if I wanted to work on a society that hadn't yet domesticated the horse: how could that fit anywhere near a kingdom with knights and jousting? What if I wanted to develope this concept of an ancient feud between two nations, but everyone else wants the kingdom to be at peace? The point being, that while you seem to think your scenario is one where everyone can freely express their creativity, I feel like my creativity is being stiffled. You can't please everyone, any more than I can. I really, honestly, absolutely believe that the same scenario you described could happen even if we were using a world map. Somebody wants to make a fuedal kingdom? They pick a place on the map and get started. They want a forest to the north, but there isn't one? A mystical forest in the middle of the kingdom? Just alter the map and add them in: it's written in electrons, not in stone. Meanwhile, if somebody else wants to make a horseless society, they can pick a spot a reasonable distance away and get started. If somebody else wants to write a story involving both areas, they can get out the old world map and plot the route that would carry their characters from one place to the other. If somebody wants a millenia-old fued between rival states that has continued undisturbed, they can pick and island and start working on that. If somebody else wants and island, but there are no more on the map, make another one. I don't see the difficulties you see. I don't know whose version will actually play out. I don't know how to finish off this post, so I'll stop typing. http://www.geocities.com/leaves_or/leafcool.txt I do have a little to say about Oops' post. I, too, get really annoyed at things that are inconsistent or poorly explained. I'll probably have to work on the tendency, too. [wishful thinking] *sigh* The world would be so much easier if everyone simply thought like me . . . . . [/wishful thinking]
Brknlf 07-28-03, 08:10 PM	Leaves, I've every reason to believe you've never read the old boards, or even followed the threads leading to the creation of the World Creation Project. If you did you will have seen that I was active both before of and at he onset of the WCP (note, this is an example to let you know how it felt when you said I didn't do something I did). Bandido may recognize my name, I recognize his. Please do not suggest or assume I did not read the thread on Elemental Elves, that's a gross assumption that is entirely wrong. Frankly, I'm offended you would suggest I didn't do something I did. I said that the Ithawu could be elves, not elemental elves. I choose not to use elemental for a specific reason, because I wasn't keen to the idea of elemental elves for the people I was writing about. Bandido said to not use elves as the ones being created on the WCP are more elemental in flavor (go to the thread, read his response). I don't see how that can mean anything else other than, all our elves are elemental elves on the WCP. Again, I said no such thing You did so, I quoted directly from the Ithawu thread. You said I don't think they can be gnomes, the are more scientific in this world than in core D&D. You are saying all the gnomes should be more scientific on this project and you say try jerliks, a new race your introducing, or just a tribe of humans. I didn't pull that out of the air, I cut and pasted that from your reply on the thread. You caught on that I made the mistake of saying leaf gnome instead of leaves gnomes, so why do you think I'm suggesting the Ithawu be the gnomes you are creating? It made me cringe when I read it. In this happy scenario of yours, who decided we were working in a fuedal system? What if I wanted to develope an Athenian democracy, or a magocracy? Exactly, there is room for everything. That is the whole point I am making on this topic. I'm not forcing feudal societies on you like your forcing your opinion about gnomes on me. Just because england was a feudal society in the middle ages doesn't mean that the rest of the world was does it? I am not forcing it upon you, it was an example of how the project could work.. Notice, my 'example' is in a thread discussing the stifling nature of the boards, I didn't start a new thread saying 'this is where everyone will create from, Richie's Feudal society and no one can create anything differently now' did I? I think we all need to realize that this is a community board. If we want to create our own settings, we need to go elsewhere (I'm still working on my own little setting based on norse mythology - I learned early on that all the ideas I had for myself wouldn't work here after arguements on the metaboards announcing the World Creation Project being created). I'm not trying to say create the world in my image, I'm saying let people do what they want in helping create it. I want to send an apology to Oops for arguing with him so much on the old boards. Also, I want to point out that I didn't plan to get into arguements like this on my return. I was shutting up about people telling me not to use elves or gnomes. I just added my opinion when WizO_Iyala mentioned it might be best to work small/general to large/specific, offering me reasons for this. Which is that if too much is defined for the entire world early on, its has stifled creativity. If someone wants to create that magocracy, cool let them (I might contribute to those threads), if someone wants a feudal kingdom, cool let them, if someone wants an gnomish technocracy, cool let them. Quite saying, no it wont work because we determined already that this race has to be in our image. Heck, I really want to see work on the lizard-centaur creatures, Galen has done a lot of nice things and good work for this WCP, both here on the new one and on the old one, its good to see Galen is still posting infrequently.
Dream Spinner 07-29-03, 03:28 PM	<Sigh> I guess I have to join. Originally posted by Brknlf: Both replies are telling me to choose something else, humans is the catch all. Humans can be whatever it seems, but every other race is going to be restricted to fit certain molds it seems. This is not the case. Although I can see how you can see this in those quotes. Originally posted by Bandido: The Ithawu are forest-dwelling people? That's good, although they probably wouldn't be elves, as they don't seem as elemental as the elves we have.... Here, Bandido is just saying they aren't like the elves we have so far. I won't deny I like the idea of excluding the "typical" elves, but that is not the case as of yet. If you really want the Ithawu to be elves, they can be. It's just that some people might like the idea of all the elves being elemental. Originally posted by Brknlf: I could care less how magic works, I was interested in creating stories and new aspects of a fantasy world that could then be converted into MtG cards and D&D game material. You might not care, but some people do. They don't want a world where each novel/set/campaign has magic coming from a different place. Consistency can be a big thing with people. For example: Originally posted by Oops: When I read stories with inconsistencies, it drives me nuts. Science fiction often pretends to be set in the same universe as we live in, and when I see unaccounted-for inconsistencies between the science of the stories and observed reality on Earth, that bothers me. Whether or not a story pretends to be set in the same reality as we are in, I sometimes see internal inconsistencies,... And it's true for me too. I really don't like stories, whether in print or on the screen, where they say the writers bend their own rules to make things easier for themselves. I also don't like stupid coincidences. For example, in the D&D movie (ew), that guy grabbed a bag of magic dust or something like that. When he died, he fell over the wall. But then, his bag of magic is suddenly back on the wall for the wizard to grab. Okay. :twitch: I also thought how the guy's friend went "NO!!!!!" which is really fake, but that's besides the point. Originally posted by Brknlf: ...it really seems like everyone is trying to exercise a sort of rigid control over certain aspects of this world creation project I don't see how we're doing this. I don't see anybody being tyrannical in his/her control over something. There may be somebody that's unofficially "in charge", but somebody like that is needed. Even though it may seem like fun to throw in every single idea somebody has, if there's no control, the entire thing just ends up a mess. If you find a gameboard without the rules, go ahead and make new rules. Then, as you play, you may change it to make it better. People may help you change it. They'll suggest new things. The rules will become unique and neat to play, but if everybody forced each whim in, you'll end up playing a game where to move you have to roll a die and and upon rolling a 3, playing "triple-dutch" until you collapse and the number of beads of sweat that you produced while playing "triple-dutch" will be counted and multipled by pi and rounded down to get the number of spaces your piece moves. I'm sorry, but I don't want to play that game. But that was off the point. Basically, I don't feel anybody's forcing others to work in a certain way or only come up with ideas that work to his/her whims. Originally posted by Brknlf: ...but it should be a lot looser if it is to grow as a both a jointly created world and a community. Yes, I agree completely. But if we never decide on anything and just keeping adding, this isn't a growing into a beautiful sandcastle, but a huge mound of sand that'll be toppled when the tides rise. P.S. Sorry if none of what I said makes sense. <Shrug>
Brknlf 07-29-03, 04:50 PM	It's just that some people might like the idea of all the elves being elemental. Yes, some people might like the idea of /all/ elves being elemental, just as some people won't like /all/ elves being elemental. The distinction is when the few people here all agree that /all/ elves are Bandido's elemental elves, they've pretty much turned everyone else away who isn't a fan of the elemental elves. Lets face it, if we're going to convert into TCG cards and RPG stats, this is very limiting, what if someone wants to make an 'expansion' set of cards - they certainly can't change the elves in this new set, /all/ the elves on the WCP are elemental elves. Or, how about when someone new tries to post but they are met with negative respones like 'I wish you would have read this' or 'no, that won't work in /our/ world'. Really, it isn't the communities world creation project anymore with only two or three people are making all the major decisions. Its more like its their project and they only allow additions that fit into the framework of what they want. If those three people agree with themselves and no one else, why don't they just go off and create their own world, its not hard to open a board or group or club page nowadays. Personally, I think there is a bigger group of people who like elemental elves but think other varieties might be nice to have around as well (no ones saying the 'common' variety elf, which I really don't think the Ithawu would fit into as well). There is a difference between saying 'almost everything will fit this mold' and 'everything will fit this mold'. In the latter, everyone who doesn't agree is excluded and in the fomer, everyone who doesn't agree has the option to create that little element that is outside the mold. 'They probably wouldn't be elves' and 'I'm not sure gnomes would be right for this story' can be construed as a suggestion that might indicate that there is still the slight possibility that they could be elves or gnomes. However, let's be honest, the implication of what was said is the elves and gnomes being created here won't work. Really, saying I've misinterpreted their replies is more like back-peddling to say 'oh, while they said they are most likely not elves and gnomes, they didn't quite mean it that way, they really meant they are not like the elves or gnomes they were creating, feel free to create something else elvish or gnomish (even though we both suggested the could be something else like humans instead)'. Honestly, I don't care if the Ithawu are a race of alien doppelgangers, its just funny that as soon as I suggest they could be elves maybe, I'm getting replies saying 'oh, they probably not elves in our world.' About my not caring about the intricate workings of magic: [QUOTE]You might not care, but some people do.[QUOTE] I did care somewhat, go read the old board and see the amount of arguements on the Nature of Magic threads to see how much arguements arose out of that can of worms. Really, once it gets too defined, it stifles other options. If it gets so specific as to define the exact context of how magic is maniuplated, then it really only alows for specific types of magic user types to operate now doesn't it? I think it should also be noted that a community world creation project isn't a community campaign setting project. There is a big difference between those two things. Campaign setting is very specific with a unique flavor, world creation allows for many alternatives - look at Forgetten Realms, Al-Qadim and Kara-Tur campaign settings, they all exist on the same world. I don't really know how to get my point across. I came here for the second time to create interactively with other users, but the only responses I get to something I offer is negative responses saying nope, won't work. I didn't get anything like, cool idea, what if you add this, or what if this happened, or what if there was this other tribe just like them that did this. Well, ok, I did get a 'the sacred light idea' is cool response, but that was the only comment about the post other than addressing what races they were not. To use your sand castle analogy. We're on the beach, you start making a sand castle, I come up and ask if I can help. You nod and say sure, I could use the help. Then, as soon as I start making stuff for the castle, I'm being corrected at every step. No, that window won't do, that drawbridge is stupid, the horses go on the north side stupid. I'm confirming to what you had intended for the sand castle you wanted all along, I'm not really helping with the design of the castle, I've become a worker that is helping you make the castle you want. If we're to make the sand castle together, we should probably take turns adding something, you add a tower, I add a drawbridge, you correct the drawbridge, I add a balcony to your tower. Sure, when we're done its not going to be the pretties, best looking castle on the beach, but we'll both like it as it contains implements of our own imagination and we had fun making it.
Dream Spinner 08-01-03, 12:04 AM	Okay, this post is going to respond to everything else I didn't respond to in my first one. Originally posted by Oops When I first came to the World Creation Project, this was my main concern. It is very difficult to have large numbers of people working on something without inconsistencies popping up unless there is some framework that everyone can follow that prevents such inconsistency. I agree that inconsistency would be a problem. Is it a problem here in the new boards? Not really, but then, hardly anybody comes here! That's a problem. Anyway, no addition to what you said. Originally posted by Oops This is my first time back after the boards change, as the only things that were happening were A) people were coming up with mythology for races that either hadn't been invented or that had been invented but didn't live anywhere or have any culture, and B) a race of lizard-like creatures was being created. I wanted to eventually have a civilation to work with (actually, I figured I'd create my own once the backround had been worked out), but the creation of such a civilization was not going to happen in the foreseeable future, so I just stopped coming once the old threads disappeared (for discussion purposes). If you had wanted to start creating a civilization if you wanted to? And the people that "were coming up with mythology for races that hadn't been invented or that had been invented but didn't live anywhere or have any culture" was me. Am I not supposed to start on what I wanted to do and instead start on something I think others are more capable of doing? And unimportant, but to just set the facts, the thread on the race of lizard-people was just created here in the new boards. Originally posted by Oops I suggest taking an Articles of Confederation approach until serious problems arise. What do you mean? Everything Mr. Reedy said is now either suppressed or simply forgotten. I know the Articles of Confederation set a form of government where the states had the most power and problems arose, forcing them to make the Constitution. Originally posted by Leaves [wishful thinking] *sigh* The world would be so much easier if everyone simply thought like me . . . . . [/wishful thinking] If everyone thought like me, we'd all be, well, you can imagine. Originally posted by Brknlf I think we all need to realize that this is a community board. I don't think anybody have forgotten/didn't know that. At least, I know I haven't. Sure, I can see your frustration with the Ithawu, but from what I can tell from what you're saying, that's the only place where we've been stifling creativity. I mean, one instance (especially considering really little we have so far) of creativity stifling is still important, but I don't think the few posters here are out to whip newcomers into conforming into what we want. Originally posted Brknlf Which is that if too much is defined for the entire world early on, its has stifled creativity. Global things, such as the source of magic, divine beings, etc., are, as Leaves said, is always capable of being changed. If a lot ("a lot" taken loosely here) people don't want whatever, I'm sure it can be changed. Nothing is stuck the way it is currently. Nobody here has a huge stone tablet that has this stuff etched down. If someone has, we don't have to listen to his/her big rock. Originally posted by Brknlf If it gets so specific as to define the exact context of how magic is maniuplated, then it really only alows for specific types of magic user types to operate now doesn't it? How? Leylines don't really stop new kinds of spellcasters. Nor does it change ones already created for D&D. Wizards learn to channel the energy of the leylines through them by saying certain words, making certain gestures, etc. The energy is then released as a spell. Sorcerors are born linked to leylines and can invoke the energies through them at will. And so on. Originally posted by Brknlf To use your sand castle analogy. We're on the beach, you start making a sand castle, I come up and ask if I can help. You nod and say sure, I could use the help. Then, as soon as I start making stuff for the castle, I'm being corrected at every step....Sure, when we're done its not going to be the pretties, best looking castle on the beach, but we'll both like it as it contains implements of our own imagination and we had fun making it. Perhaps you have misread what I said. I said: "But if we never decide on anything and just keeping adding, this isn't a growing into a beautiful sandcastle, but a huge mound of sand that'll be toppled when the tides rise." Okay, maybe I shouldn't have said "beautiful", but what I meant was if everyone simply kept on adding whatever they wanted without any control, there would just be a big pile of sand. With a little luck, maybe it'll turn out to be a lumpy tower. But, what I'm saying is there needs to be some control so that the sand isn't just piled on. Now, I'm getting tired, so some of this may be incomplete thoughts and/or not make sense. :(
Brknlf 08-01-03, 05:31 PM	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Brknlf If it gets so specific as to define the exact context of how magic is maniuplated, then it really only alows for specific types of magic user types to operate now doesn't it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How? Leylines don't really stop new kinds of spellcasters. Um, you might want to back out for a second and look at the old Nature of Magic thread, I suggested that Leylines be used. I figured they could be easily be used by others and it would translate well between M:tG and D&D without using an M:tG color system for magic (like some people where getting at). My quote above is to say that the arguments that followed the leyline suggestion where dampening the enjoyment of creating leylines because people wanted to know how they worked exactly to a science and it became a big argument when the original suggestion was meant to allow people the freedom of interpretation. But, what I'm saying is there needs to be some control so that the sand isn't just piled on. Then, until someone is nominated to be a specific monitor of this board, everyone has to work as a community. Instead of bashing ideas, why not use the concept of thread death. By not responding to an idea, it falls to the bottom of the thread list and is eventually forgotten altogether. Taking the time to negatively respond to someones thread keeps it active and inspires that poster to defend their ideas - which in turn usually receives another negative response from the responder. THis perpetuates the idea and keeps it alive. Until a WizO steps up and says someone has the power to moderate the content here, the posters shouldn't take it upon themselves.
Oops 08-06-03, 04:06 AM	Dream Spinner, there was nothing wrong with working on the mythology. The problem was that not much else was happening. The Articles of Confederation comment was another way of saying, "Let people do what they want and only worry about it when it becomes mind-bendingly chaotic." I'm sure there are much simpler systems of magic that allow for more freedom than leylines, but the only way to convince people to pay attention to that is with a fake discussion engineered by a very skilled MuP flood. Also, it is possible to define a system in minute detail that still allows a lot of freedom for different kinds of magic users. I'm leaving this project again. I was wasting my time and effort the first time, and I'm not going to repeat that here. If you want my imput, you can email me.
Galen 08-06-03, 04:40 AM	Originally posted by Oops Dream Spinner, there was nothing wrong with working on the mythology. The problem was that not much else was happening. The Articles of Confederation comment was another way of saying, "Let people do what they want and only worry about it when it becomes mind-bendingly chaotic." I'm sure there are much simpler systems of magic that allow for more freedom than leylines, but the only way to convince people to pay attention to that is with a fake discussion engineered by a very skilled MuP flood. Also, it is possible to define a system in minute detail that still allows a lot of freedom for different kinds of magic users. I'm leaving this project again. I was wasting my time and effort the first time, and I'm not going to repeat that here. If you want my imput, you can email me. So, what do you think of the new race we're building? :D :D :D
Oops 08-06-03, 06:48 PM	Originally posted by Galen So, what do you think of the new race we're building? :D :D :D As long as you think it through, it's fine. Beyond that, I don't really care. It's also not very new anymore, considering that it was on the old boards. What does this have to do with the post you quoted?