Hello again! Been a busy few days, so I apologize for not circling back to this til now, but it's also been in the back of my mind, which I think I needed. This is a long post, so get your coffee or tea or wine and settle in for a while.
So far, it doesn't sound like anyone is in favor of Idea 1. Thank you guys for that; I was open about how I felt about it, but if that seemed like the best course of action in order to meet the goal of an active, fun system, that's what we would have done, regardless of temporary sad feelings. More than my own investment, however, I'm glad we're not going that route because it would slow everything down while a new setting gets created from scratch.
I am hearing some serious ambivalence between Idea 2 and Idea 3, sort of creating an 'Idea 4' that incorporates elements of both. I've also been hearing since the start of the thread that the main objective here is to have an active system -- not a perfect system, not an ideal system, but one where there's regular activity and engagement. We could spend a lot of time defining how we'll know when we've achieved that, but given our experience with online WtA games over the years, I'm pretty sure we all have a good idea of what that looks and feels like.
Here are some things I've been thinking: it seems obvious now to just gloss through the majority of the last year's history in WtA. Based on earlier points about sept size/NPC population, I want to creatively cull the existing sept(s) and significantly pare the setting down. Those two things are the essence of 'Idea 2'. The rest are details, and aren't necessarily determined solely by the setting/admin, but by the players and the characters they create. One character may see a 'power vacuum' or a vulnerable caern/city, but that's subjective. Another charater may see it as a stable, strong environment with an ancient caern heart and a viable city for them/their pack. It really depends on the characters we create and what goals and desires they bring to the setting, not what the setting gives them to do.
With a small group of people (though to be fair, every system on Denver is a relatively small group of people), the game needs a lot of collaboration and player contribution. And as with any online setting, it needs flexibility, especially since over the years many of us have gotten more demanding jobs, have built families, and have expanded our offline lives quite a bit. But the need for flexibility has always been there, on both large and small sites; part of the reason we play WoD online is the off-the-cuff social scenes, group scenes, and random play we can get when it fits in our schedule, even if we can't make pre-planned events.
Also, given how the ST rotation went for the first year or so of Denver WtA (hint: it didn't), I don't have a lot of faith that a scheduled rotation would actually work that well for us, at least not right away. There needs to be enough system stability so that if someone can only get on once every couple of weeks, they aren't so out of the loop that they get completely discouraged. There needs to be enough dynamism so that players don't feel like their characters aren't having (can't have) any impact on the game.
There is merit in keeping things more tightly focused, at least as we first regain our footing. I think the game is and should remain based on Denver as the central location, with the same forays outside of it that we could make in any setting/game. Ultimately, as Jacqui put it, everything ties back to the protectorate the characters have chosen. I want to make sure that potential character concepts for Garou and Kinfolk are both pretty wide open, and that's more doable in a game that stays in/around a central location... for the most part.
I'm not concerned with creating a single hook for the system to get people to show up for it. A hook is just a spur to start things off; like all games, offline or online, troupe style or not, the ongoing interest in the game is based around activity and collaboration, open scenes, and conflict. The setting and NPCs are there to stimulate collaboration. The storylines and one-shots are there to stimulate conflict and open scenes.
But it all comes back to characters with diverse interests, agendas, and personalities. I don't think we need a lot of up-front work to get things going again. I have a checklist of things to do: a timeline of the history we're glossing through, new descriptions of the setting as it is, some system page updates, but by and large, none of that has to be completed before we can get things active. If you guys want to build packs OOC and have them come to town together, that's awesome. If you want to just toss a solo character in and see what happens, that is also awesome.
My only (but my strongest) recommendation is that whatever you do, make sure that the character you're playing or the pack you're creating is open. Open to joining a pack or accepting new members, if not actively seeking them out. Open to meeting new people. Open to getting involved in situations. That doesn't mean you cannot play someone with the Shy flaw or the Loner archetype, not at all! The openness is more about you, the players in control of the characters, not standing guard at the gate to make sure that no other character and no situation impacts your character/pack in a way you haven't planned for. Down that road lies stagnation, boredom, and frustration. There; that's my sermon.
Next up: some details.
So far, it doesn't sound like anyone is in favor of Idea 1. Thank you guys for that; I was open about how I felt about it, but if that seemed like the best course of action in order to meet the goal of an active, fun system, that's what we would have done, regardless of temporary sad feelings. More than my own investment, however, I'm glad we're not going that route because it would slow everything down while a new setting gets created from scratch.
I am hearing some serious ambivalence between Idea 2 and Idea 3, sort of creating an 'Idea 4' that incorporates elements of both. I've also been hearing since the start of the thread that the main objective here is to have an active system -- not a perfect system, not an ideal system, but one where there's regular activity and engagement. We could spend a lot of time defining how we'll know when we've achieved that, but given our experience with online WtA games over the years, I'm pretty sure we all have a good idea of what that looks and feels like.
Here are some things I've been thinking: it seems obvious now to just gloss through the majority of the last year's history in WtA. Based on earlier points about sept size/NPC population, I want to creatively cull the existing sept(s) and significantly pare the setting down. Those two things are the essence of 'Idea 2'. The rest are details, and aren't necessarily determined solely by the setting/admin, but by the players and the characters they create. One character may see a 'power vacuum' or a vulnerable caern/city, but that's subjective. Another charater may see it as a stable, strong environment with an ancient caern heart and a viable city for them/their pack. It really depends on the characters we create and what goals and desires they bring to the setting, not what the setting gives them to do.
With a small group of people (though to be fair, every system on Denver is a relatively small group of people), the game needs a lot of collaboration and player contribution. And as with any online setting, it needs flexibility, especially since over the years many of us have gotten more demanding jobs, have built families, and have expanded our offline lives quite a bit. But the need for flexibility has always been there, on both large and small sites; part of the reason we play WoD online is the off-the-cuff social scenes, group scenes, and random play we can get when it fits in our schedule, even if we can't make pre-planned events.
Also, given how the ST rotation went for the first year or so of Denver WtA (hint: it didn't), I don't have a lot of faith that a scheduled rotation would actually work that well for us, at least not right away. There needs to be enough system stability so that if someone can only get on once every couple of weeks, they aren't so out of the loop that they get completely discouraged. There needs to be enough dynamism so that players don't feel like their characters aren't having (can't have) any impact on the game.
There is merit in keeping things more tightly focused, at least as we first regain our footing. I think the game is and should remain based on Denver as the central location, with the same forays outside of it that we could make in any setting/game. Ultimately, as Jacqui put it, everything ties back to the protectorate the characters have chosen. I want to make sure that potential character concepts for Garou and Kinfolk are both pretty wide open, and that's more doable in a game that stays in/around a central location... for the most part.
I'm not concerned with creating a single hook for the system to get people to show up for it. A hook is just a spur to start things off; like all games, offline or online, troupe style or not, the ongoing interest in the game is based around activity and collaboration, open scenes, and conflict. The setting and NPCs are there to stimulate collaboration. The storylines and one-shots are there to stimulate conflict and open scenes.
But it all comes back to characters with diverse interests, agendas, and personalities. I don't think we need a lot of up-front work to get things going again. I have a checklist of things to do: a timeline of the history we're glossing through, new descriptions of the setting as it is, some system page updates, but by and large, none of that has to be completed before we can get things active. If you guys want to build packs OOC and have them come to town together, that's awesome. If you want to just toss a solo character in and see what happens, that is also awesome.
My only (but my strongest) recommendation is that whatever you do, make sure that the character you're playing or the pack you're creating is open. Open to joining a pack or accepting new members, if not actively seeking them out. Open to meeting new people. Open to getting involved in situations. That doesn't mean you cannot play someone with the Shy flaw or the Loner archetype, not at all! The openness is more about you, the players in control of the characters, not standing guard at the gate to make sure that no other character and no situation impacts your character/pack in a way you haven't planned for. Down that road lies stagnation, boredom, and frustration. There; that's my sermon.
Next up: some details.
my whole life is thunder.
Since our playerbase is quite small, I think we should maybe try to do smaller packs as well; maybe no more than 3-4.
Yay, ideas.
