Hey Sam -- I hear what you're saying. I just wanted to add that even though large scenes are not your preference, even if we reduced the number of rooms to 12 or 13, no one would be 'crammed' into big scenes. We're a small group to begin with, and almost every room has a Current/Day/Night option, too. We could have 5 IC rooms total and still have 15 spaces for separate scenes. Right now, without even taking into account the 6 system-specific rooms, we have thirty-six separate spaces to RP in. So, apart from reiterating that personal preferences shouldn't be the main focus of this discussion, I wouldn't let the concern of RP suddenly becoming claustrophobic be a deciding force.
To Sam and HDub both, as for the number of rooms overall: I don't think it's about how much 'harm' it's doing (or not) to have a ton of rooms. But when many of them sit empty and unused and add no flavor to the game, the question becomes: what good do they do? What value do they add that is worth defending? So... having lots of rooms doesn't increase activity and maybe decreasing rooms won't change the number or quality of scenes (which I actually sort of disagree with). If that really is the case, then again: why keep them? Other than 'more places to have small scenes' (which I addressed above), what's the value?
If we really want to get precise with the setting, then we need a 5 Points, a Ballpark, a Cheeseman Park, a City Park, the Zoo (sub-room of City Park), Denver Museum of Nature and Science (also a sub-room of City Park, next door to the Zoo), Pearl Street, University Hills, the Highlands, Cherry Hills Village, Cherry Creek, Glendale (it's actually a separate little town), a Shotgun Willies (it's pretty iconic and technically would be a sub-room of Glendale), Lodo would need to be its own sub-room of Downtown, and... so on. I'm not saying this to mock the idea of specificity, especially since I'm arguing against some of the more bland, generic rooms we have. What I'm trying to do is make the point that you can't increase the ambiance of a setting by just saturating it.
Before we get too far off the main topic, I also want to add: no one is going to force anyone into larger or more open scenes. I think open group scenes give me a lot of fodder for smaller scenes later; that is, again, just personal preference. But there seems to be some defensiveness in this thread about the suggestion that open, group scenes are a good thing, so I want to make sure it's clear that reducing the number of rooms is not suddenly going to make this site inhospitable to smaller scenes, private scenes, or 1:1 scenes. So let's set that much aside, okay?
To Sam and HDub both, as for the number of rooms overall: I don't think it's about how much 'harm' it's doing (or not) to have a ton of rooms. But when many of them sit empty and unused and add no flavor to the game, the question becomes: what good do they do? What value do they add that is worth defending? So... having lots of rooms doesn't increase activity and maybe decreasing rooms won't change the number or quality of scenes (which I actually sort of disagree with). If that really is the case, then again: why keep them? Other than 'more places to have small scenes' (which I addressed above), what's the value?
If we really want to get precise with the setting, then we need a 5 Points, a Ballpark, a Cheeseman Park, a City Park, the Zoo (sub-room of City Park), Denver Museum of Nature and Science (also a sub-room of City Park, next door to the Zoo), Pearl Street, University Hills, the Highlands, Cherry Hills Village, Cherry Creek, Glendale (it's actually a separate little town), a Shotgun Willies (it's pretty iconic and technically would be a sub-room of Glendale), Lodo would need to be its own sub-room of Downtown, and... so on. I'm not saying this to mock the idea of specificity, especially since I'm arguing against some of the more bland, generic rooms we have. What I'm trying to do is make the point that you can't increase the ambiance of a setting by just saturating it.
Before we get too far off the main topic, I also want to add: no one is going to force anyone into larger or more open scenes. I think open group scenes give me a lot of fodder for smaller scenes later; that is, again, just personal preference. But there seems to be some defensiveness in this thread about the suggestion that open, group scenes are a good thing, so I want to make sure it's clear that reducing the number of rooms is not suddenly going to make this site inhospitable to smaller scenes, private scenes, or 1:1 scenes. So let's set that much aside, okay?
my whole life is thunder.