Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: formation of rec.games.pbnfrp (was Re: Broad Axe Tavern

From: gabai@paul.rutgers.edu (Steven Gabai)

Date: Tue, 04 Jul 1989 18:36:15 +0000

>From cfg@cs.duke.edu Tue Jul  4 08:34:42 1989
>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 89 08:34:45 EDT
>From: Christopher F. Gandy <cfg@cs.duke.edu>
>Message-Id: <8907041234.AA00552@dukvlsi3.cs.duke.edu>
>To: SHRINER@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu, bonar@math.rutgers.edu,
>        cfg@cs.duke.edu, davel@whuts.att.com, evil@blake.acs.washington.edu,
>        gabai@paul.rutgers.edu, jdp@pbhyf.pacbell.com,
>        rleroux1@uvicctr.uvic.ca, scorpion@rice.edu, wham2!tjb@att.att.com,
>        yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu, zamick@topaz.rutgers.edu
>Subject: Re:  should we take discussion into r.g.p?
>Status: R
>
>  In light of the recent hubbub in news.groups about our little foray
>into the new and different, this might not be a bad idea. The best
>start might be a "status report" of the efforts so far: What we've
>done and how we would do it differently if we were starting again. i
>think the registration process would be worth public debate, as would
>the process of getting/assigning meta-players.  The process of fitting
>the meta-players together and how much shared vs separateknowledge
>they should have is one we are still exploring, so it might be tougher
>to post right away, but WILL be good material at some point. Another
>issue may be the "wing it" taste this has as compared to a "well
>planned and scripted" face to face game. (I know alot of us run "wing
>it" ftf, but with this many meta-players it seems a bit tougher to
>keep from treading on one anothers plans.)
>
>  Take the lead Steven, tell us what you think so far. Sara might be
>able to add her point of view on how registration "should" be run with
>the benefit of hindsight, etc.  I am still of the mindset that r.g.pbm
>is "whatever we, the readers, make of it! If some other readers do not
>like it, let's introduce them to the 'n' key!
>
>Chris / [meta-player] military / general rabble-rouser

Well, let's see.  I guess the first thing I could reference is
set of discussions occurring in the various 'news.*' newsgroups.  In
one of them (news.admin ?), they are discussing a set of new newsgroup
readers, with several innovative properties.  Personally, I use vnews
(w/ -Options -A ?).  I can then look at just the posting-order#,
subject and author.  If I'm convinced that some topics aren't worth
pursuing, I mark them with the 'ud' (unsubscribe to discussion, knocks
out an entire stream of articles (now and in the future).  If I'm
reading an article and I find that I read it before and its outdated,
I might just hit 'n' (next, and mark as deleted).  If I don't
feel like reading an article now, I use the 'e' (er, not now :-).
Anyway, I have seen people describe the advantages of kill
files, but have yet the need to build one on any newsgroup I read.
I think there were some reference pointers in news.admin
to another newsgroup that has newsreading programs for the taking.
Have fun and good luck.

With regard to: the registration process.  What I did was wrap
up a set of common background material and some instructions for new
participants to put together a first draft version of new
player-characters or new/existing organizations.  Since the very early
stages of new participants is reading through their presentation and
identifying interesting ideas to pursue (such as someone's background
references working for an already established organization or involved
in an already existing plotline) and I put them in contact with the
appropriate meta-players.  Sometimes, there is a conflict of
game-balance, game-mechanics, or simply conflicting with already
established things.  This gets a little messier, because it involves
having to say "NO" to a potentially good idea that won't work because
of other constraints, despite attempts at compromise.  Typically, I'll
delegate the compromise/review stuff to the meta-players, and to the
meta-meta-player (whose in charge of seeing if things fit into what he
perceives as the big picture).  When they respond, I read through this
as well, acting as a passive observer, until there's something that
was missed or I disagree or I'm asked to step-in-&-make-a-ruling.
At this point, with everything I have to juggle, I was approached
by one of the players, who asked where I needed help.
She agreed to handle some of the basic stages of organizing
the registration process.  I don't know exactly what she's
doing, but I've been forwarding new interested participants
her way, and somehow my load has lessened.

In a game where some actions can be assumed in the light of
standing orders, and some plot-lines run at independent
flow-of-time's, there is a serious problem of synchronizing time.
Each sub-group has to paced at a rate, such that they don't get bored,
and yet don't run into MAJOR conflicts with other actions.  This is
also true of the validity/consequences of any action(s).  When
problems arise, we (as a group sometimes) have to patch in what has
happened without causing too many reprocusions.  Ex: someone's action
is delayed in the mail system, and somebody else is doing something in
conflict with the delayed action.  If not too many people, and # of
actions as a consequence, are involved, we sometimes try to back-play
it.  As the delay becomes relatively significant, then we make some
excuse why the person's action didn't occur until later (as well as
cushioning the results of the apparent inaction.)  This is inevidable
as some people use services other than a direct internet linkup and
some have messy schedules (and made reasonable efforts to respond).
This necessitates at least one human in the loop (several if you
include the person running the sub-plot, the affected persons, and the
mapper/time-keeper, as well as myself), and hence makes it very
difficult to imagine an intelligent auto-mail-daemon that can resolve
these problems.  The fewer intermediaries on some simple actions, the
better the feel of the overall flow.  This was one of the initial
reasons for using a sub-section of a newsgroup; if an action was
inappropriate or mis-timed, it can be corrected quickly.  This also
applies to private moves in email, but because of my long mail queue,
tends to be out of date.  Example: in the length of time it took me to
write this discussion, my mail queue increased by about 10 letters and
I had to pause to hold a discussion with 2 different people at 2
different times on 2 unrelated topics.  And this is on the 4th of
July, when nobody's around :-)

Anyway, I ramble, so I'll sign off again.
Have fun, discuss, research, and whatever.

take care,
Steven Gabai
gabai@paul.rutgers.edu

PS: for those interested in some statistics
I refer you to 'news.lists' for readership, and costs and other
tidbits.

References

Broad Axe Tavern
Martin-Charles@cs.yale.edu (Charles Martin)
Sat, 01 Jul 1989 22:14:28 +0000
Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: formation of rec.games.pbnfrp (was Re: Broad Axe Tavern
gabai@paul.rutgers.edu (Steven Gabai)
Tue, 04 Jul 1989 04:39:21 +0000