Re: long-term fun

From: Angela Christie <anj@clara.co.uk>

Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Carol Mulholland wrote:

> Mark Wardell wrote:
>
> >> and not end up tripping over each other
>
> Most open-ended games cope with new players by opening new areas. This
> can be done plausibly in sf and fantasy games, but less easily when the
> game has a fixed map.
>

In our own game we don't trip over each other by always being aware of the
other GMs plans, characters and plot developments - this means we spend a
lot of time talking either thru ICQ or on the phone, but it means that we
can have three different GMs running eighty or ninety different individuals
all in some place - a of work but seems to work fine.

DO is quite an open-ended game (perpetual and unrelenting as some I know
would call it), but we have no new areas to open as the entire solar system
is the games backdrop. I think that commercially a game like Day One (which
has four GMs operating in all areas) would be impossible - but four
independant minds working to generate new ides etc make it more than
worthwhile.

So, we have a fixed map(game area) and multiple GMs - but commercially it
would kill us.

Anj

References

long-term fun
"Enno Rehling" <rehling@usa.net>
Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: long-term fun
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Fri, 05 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: long-term fun
Carol Mulholland <Carol@flagship-uk.demon.co.uk>
Sat, 06 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: long-term fun
PNMarkW2@aol.com
Sun, 07 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: long-term fun
Carol Mulholland <Carol@flagship-uk.demon.co.uk>
Sun, 07 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000