Setup: Quixotic Restoration, Special Project by Invitation Only Options

[Blitz]

Alrighty folks, I've started this thread to get the ball rolling on organizing this bad boy. For those of you who are curious bastards and wanna lurk and watch ;) this is going to be a collaborative storytelling project. Instead of having a single GM running a storyline that players follow and flavor with their own subplots, we're instead starting a game where everyone is equally the GM. In the hopes of creating a detailed and intricate web of stories and destinies, there will be much more ooc collaboration to ensure the story moves ahead smoothly. My hope is to begin creating a regular webcomic using the stories and characters generated here. (crosses fingers)

This type of project will likely be diffuclt to manage which is why participation is set as invitation only. It is important that I not only have confidence in the participants as players, but also as GM's. It is possible that we will recruit additional players into the game, but at this point the doors are closed while we get some idea of how this will work best.

The base concept is centered around a set of twins, both young (approx. 10 years), who were born from day one with awakened abilities. Though they are by all accounts identical twins, one is a boy and one is a girl (ah the wonder's of modern science). The girl, an otaku/technomancer and the boy is a magic user, tradition unknown. They are more than mere children. Their gifts, and their vision, enables them with an unusual level of wisdom, calm intelligence and deeper understanding of the chaotic world that exists. (think of the girl who explained the concept of the bending spoon to Neo :))

They believe they are destined to bring about a sort of utopian balance of the three worlds (wireless matrix, astral reality and mundane existance) and are accompanied by an archtypical cast of shadowrunners who for whatever reasons near and dear to their hearts, souls or credsticks, find themselves on the same path/quest.

Currently, we have Buddha72 playing the boy mage, myself playing the girl technomancer and Grendel will be taking the counterpoint as our nemesis/advasary. (who better to play the big bad evil corp dude:)) McQuillan, Fenris and ES Sparky have all been invited to create SR players to fill out the team. At this point, these are the members that should be posting here.

To the five of you, thanks for saying yes to this crazy project! While I came up with the silly idea, it should now belong equally to all of us. I am anxious to hear any ideas on how best to organize this so that we have a smooth storyline moving forward.

[Blitz]

Yay! happy to announce that WinterRat1 has accepted an invitation to join as well. Welcome! :)

[HeySparky]

Greatness!

Howdy all. Let the chaos ensue. Oh, uh, wait... We're supposed to be fixing that...

[WinterRat1]

It’s an honor to be a part of this group. Thanks for the invitation and I look forward to working with you all.

Here are some initial considerations I’d like to toss out for discussion:

Structural Considerations

1. What is the scale of the story? How far reaching are the implications of our character’s actions? Is the focus going to be centered on the characters themselves (their actions, responses, lives, development, role in the story, etc) or the story (the consequences of their actions, implications, development of the world at large, etc.)?

2. What is the scope of the story? Is the focus on the singular quest to achieve the utopian balance between the three worlds, or we will be examining the implications of their quest (and the consequences of such a quest) across the board, so to speak?

3. What is the format of GMing we will be using? Are we going to implement some sort of permanent or rotating GM system, or will this truly be an effort in collaborative storytelling?

4. To what extent, if any, will dice play in the story? Are we going to use a diceless system or use standard rules (I’m assuming SR 4, since we have technomancers), and if we use rules, are there going to be any house rules and who will determine them?

5. Do we have a mechanism for maintaining internal consistency between us?

6. What is our ultimate goal? To tell a story, play a game, a combination of the two, or something else entirely? That will impact our structure and direction.

7. Do we have a system for coming to final decisions? I think it is fair to say that achieving unanimous consensus on all major decisions (let alone all decisions) will be nearly impossible. I suggest that we will need to implement some sort of structure that allows us to come to conclusions quickly and decisively when discussion has been exhausted and the time for a decision is necessary.

8. How will we juggle the fact that each person is simultaneously a GM and a player? Relying on individual maturity and discretion is necessary to an extent, but I think we need at least the basic framework of a structure within which to exercise that discretion.

9. Do we have a predetermined end point for this story, or are we allowing it to develop as we go along? If we have a set timeline for the story, then it makes sense to begin breaking down the timeline into its component parts and examining each part in more detail. Conversely, if we want the story to develop and unfold as we go, then we need to build into our structure the flexibility to allow that to happen.

10. If there is a genuine intent to attempt to develop this into a webcomic or similar media product (novel, comic, etc.) the considerations of converting this from a play-by-post game to our chosen medium should at least be cursorily examined, to ensure a smooth transition (not to mention ensure we actually can convert from one medium to another!) from one form to the other.

Mechanical Start Up Questions

1. What is the time period we are starting at? Obviously starting in 2070 when technomancers are an established phenomenon is very different from starting a few years prior, when they are just beginning to emerge.

2. What system of character creation should we use? Is there going to be an established BP limit, or should we create characters to fit the scale and scope of the story as appropriate?

3. Where would the story start? Are we going to start with the team gradually coming together and eventually interacting with the children, or will the game begin with the entire group (team plus children), and the story of how they came together will be narrated in a flashback style format? This decision is relevant to character backstory and development, in case people are wondering why I put this out for discussion so early.

Obviously I have some initial thoughts on most of these issues, if not all of them, but I would like to pause for the time being so my initial post is not too long winded and to give everyone a chance to start thinking about and discussing some of these considerations. If there’s stuff I missed (or on the flip side, if I presented some things that people think are not worth discussing) please feel free to point that out.

I hope that helps get the ball rolling for discussion, so let’s get this show on the road! :)

[Blitz]

Wow, that was an excellent entrance Winter :D

This looks like an awesome guideline for us to begin our discussions. It is a lot to go over so I'll break it up a bit.

Structural Considerations

[Blitz]

Part 2 (and much shorter, thankfully :)

Mechanical Start Up Questions

[WinterRat1]

[Blitz]

what the hell happened!? I had this beautiful HUGE post addressing all of your questions...and it all disappeared except for that one question??

[WinterRat1]

Ah ha. I thought that was rather odd. Um, please tell me you saved aforementioned beautiful HUGE post somewhere else before it was lost in the digital ether? If not, perhaps the admins can help with its recovery, I know LITS has had similar problems during periods of forum trouble and we were able to recover most of our stuff.

[BishopMcQ]

Poking my nose in to let people know that I'm here and have accepted the invite. Once we get some of the mechanics nailed down by Blitz as to what her vision is, I'll start throwing out my own list of questions to the group assembled.

[Blitz]

If anyone gets emailed notifications of posts, they should have the whole version. It was all there until I was stupid and edited it to bold the stupid subtitle.

[WinterRat1]

I'm sorry, but it won't work. I get emailed notifications of posts, and I checked the notification link, and it only shows the most recent version of the thread. If the admins can't get it for you then I'm afraid you'll have to reenlighten us with your thoughts, because you can't backtrack through the previous notification links.

[Blitz]

I can't recreate it while working, least not until maybe lunch time. Expect it by the end on tonight.

[Buddha72]

Good points all from WinterRat and much the same questions I would have. I think a structure just to address the issues that always seem to come up during these games is an excellent plan. The big question now is what.

As for the twins, I like the idea of having no idea of their life before and through the course of the thread drawing the team together while the "bad guys" work to stop us, maybe even with us not at all aware of their interference. I like seeing the relationships form through the story and it lets the other players really roleplay their lives before and after joining the team. That's my two cents.

[Blitz]

1.

[ Spoiler ]

What is the scale of the story? How far reaching are the implications of our character’s actions? Is the focus going to be centered on the characters themselves (their actions, responses, lives, development, role in the story, etc) or the story (the consequences of their actions, implications, development of the world at large, etc.)?

I envision it as a sort of snowball effect. We start as your average run of the mill local shadowrunners, but over the course of the game I anticipate the stories becoming bigger, more far-reaching and influential first locally, then eventually globally.

2.

[ Spoiler ]

What is the scope of the story? Is the focus on the singular quest to achieve the utopian balance between the three worlds, or we will be examining the implications of their quest (and the consequences of such a quest) across the board, so to speak?

The main point of this project is for there to be a much richer character development than you typically see in a game. Usually individual character stories, even really well written ones with detailed backhistory and a plethora of plot hooks, get lost in the plot of a game, left to the player alone to make references to it if they choose. In this collaboration, I'd like all those stories to be woven together to create a tapestry more true to how life works, with a bit of fantasy, cyberware and extra cool stuffs thrown in for fun! While the inspiration for the start point was my idea of the twins, I would hope that every character participating has an equally compelling and interesting story to tell. I really want this to be an equal participation deal.

3.

[ Spoiler ]

What is the format of GMing we will be using? Are we going to implement some sort of permanent or rotating GM system, or will this truly be an effort in collaborative storytelling?

When it comes to the actual process we end up using, Im willing to let the more analytical minds on this project take point.

4.

[ Spoiler ]

To what extent, if any, will dice play in the story? Are we going to use a diceless system or use standard rules (I’m assuming SR 4, since we have technomancers), and if we use rules, are there going to be any house rules and who will determine them?

I definately want us to be basing the system we come up with on SR4. While I am open to a diceless system if that proves to be the best option, I want to really keep in line with the new system. The reasoning for this is that if the comic goes well, I may seek to get official support from Fanpro/Wizkids and if the strip is a good "ad" for the game, I'll have better luck.

5.

[ Spoiler ]

Do we have a mechanism for maintaining internal consistency between us?

Nope...got any suggestions? :)

6.

[ Spoiler ]

What is our ultimate goal? To tell a story, play a game, a combination of the two, or something else entirely? That will impact our structure and direction.

Yes :D really all of the above. The story is paramount, but I would like elements of chance and choice equally so there should definately be some game elements to it. While I would like us all to have a conscious idea of where we are heading in general, the exact path there should be something a bit more nebulous. Not only will this help us to maintain our own interest in the project, it will flow better as a story in my opinion.

7.

[ Spoiler ]

Do we have a system for coming to final decisions? I think it is fair to say that achieving unanimous consensus on all major decisions (let alone all decisions) will be nearly impossible. I suggest that we will need to implement some sort of structure that allows us to come to conclusions quickly and decisively when discussion has been exhausted and the time for a decision is necessary.

I'd say with this group I don't really expect any major issues, but a majority vote should work for any final decisions. However, I think it's important that all characters/players have the right to veto an action or decision that will radically change their character (such as death, permanant disability, loss of a core ability to their concept, etc). No decision should be made that alienates any other player. Again, don't expect any problems with this group in that regard, that's why I kept it invite only :)

8.

[ Spoiler ]

How will we juggle the fact that each person is simultaneously a GM and a player? Relying on individual maturity and discretion is necessary to an extent, but I think we need at least the basic framework of a structure within which to exercise that discretion.

We'll definately need some sort of framework. Again, I have no initial ideas on this so Im wide open to suggestions.

9.

[ Spoiler ]

Do we have a predetermined end point for this story, or are we allowing it to develop as we go along? If we have a set timeline for the story, then it makes sense to begin breaking down the timeline into its component parts and examining each part in more detail. Conversely, if we want the story to develop and unfold as we go, then we need to build into our structure the flexibility to allow that to happen.

No predetermined end. I really want the game to have an organic, real life feel. The type of goal I gave the twins could theoretically span their lifetime :)

10.

[ Spoiler ]

If there is a genuine intent to attempt to develop this into a webcomic or similar media product (novel, comic, etc.) the considerations of converting this from a play-by-post game to our chosen medium should at least be cursorily examined, to ensure a smooth transition (not to mention ensure we actually can convert from one medium to another!) from one form to the other.

This I don't think is as important an issue to deal with from this side of things. I wont promise that if the comic goes forward that it will be word for word or action for action from the posts here. It may end up as being only a rough guideline, or may end up being scripted straight from the forums onto sketch paper. The concept originally came from my desire to get my brain out of a funk, but the idea of having this sort of detailed storytelling collaboration is neat enough even if the comic never comes to fruition.

[Fenris]

'ello all.

I don't have thoughts or opinions to throw down on everything, but I'll add my two cents in where it occurs to me to do so.

Structural Questions:

[ Spoiler ]

Structural Considerations

1. What is the scale of the story...world at large, etc.)?

I have a couple of different thoughts regarding this. One of the more interesting thoughts in my head would be to assign one of the player/GM's to considering the implications on a larger scale, running it by the other players, and then inserting those reactions into the game. Basically, we assign someone to think about the larger considerations, and let the rest of the players/GM's focus on the characters themselves. It also has the unintended side effect of placing a sort of check and balance on the player running the advesaries.

2. What is the scope of the story...across the board, so to speak?

Truthfully, I don't see alot of difference in the two options. The concept of establishing some sort of utopian symbiosis between the three worlds on a global scale requires us to consider those implications. Consequently, monitoring the scope is again made much easier if one of the player/GM's is assigned to focus on it.

3. What is the format of GMing ... in collaborative storytelling?

As you might have guessed, I'm advocating an assignment section from a player/GM standpoint. I like the idea of breaking different parts down and giving people things to focus on. I think if all the GM's try to constantly consider everything at the same time we're going to cause more chaos then we're looking for. Of course, this is outside the scope of the individual characters, which the players will obviously have control over.

4. To what extent, if any, will dice play...determine them?

I'd rather just go with the standard SR4 d6 system. I don't see alot of benefit (especially with a collection of GM's and someone playing the bad guys) to going diceless. Such a system always begs the question of conflict resolution, and since we'll have differing viewpoints of the story and where it should go, it seems silly to introduce an additional level of complexity and conflict when we already have a system in place to resolve such situations.

5. Do we have a mechanism for maintaining internal consistency between us?

Again, addressed by the concept of assigning sections to the GM's. I assume over-arcing story and style will be agreed upon beforehand, so if everybody's moving forward with that goal in mind, derivation from the agreed upon story should be minimal.

6. What is our ultimate goal?...direction.

This is sort of Blitz's baby, and she indicated in her inital post that she was looking for the story. Subsequent conversations have yielded the fact that she's hoping to arrive at a situation where the story becomes more important then powerful characters, more karma, or new gear. So it sounds like we're focusing on the storytelling portion of the show ;)

7. Do we have a system...decision is necessary.

Again, my vote is to break it down and have each GM cover a different part, aside from their characters and such. This removes alot of the potential for slow-downs and conflict, since within their area, each GM will be calling the shots.

8. How will we juggle the fact...discretion.

Can you give an example or two of the sitautions you're thinking about? The question seems somewhat unclear as to exactlty which aspect of the sitaution you're seeking to regulate.

9. Do we have a predetermined end point...happen.

Considering the scope of the goal, unless we're going to be ending the game before this goal is achieved, I'd say we won't really have a predetermined end point. I do, however, like the idea of drawing up checkpoints or milestones in the storyline as the characters work towards their goals.

Mechanial Start-up questions:

[ Spoiler ]

2. What system of character creation should we use? ...appropriate?

I'd say just go with the standard character creation system. Again, I'd rather just use the structure where it's been provided and focus on the storytelling.

3. Where would the story start?...so early.

My vote would be the have the team already assembled, and use flashbacks or situations where the history pops up in the game. Of course, as someone that GM's on the boards a bit, my vote is always going to be for any direction that moves us immediatly to action and maintains interest.

[WinterRat1]

NOTE: This was written before I saw Fenris's post, and so does not include any response, direct or indirect to his thoughts.

Broad Structural Considerations

Scale and Scope

[ Spoiler ]

I think that the definition of our quest is a strong argument for us to treat this as a large-scale enterprise. A quest for a utopian harmony between three worlds is at least moderately insane, even by the standards of the 6th World. Whatever our characters’ reasons, just the fact that we are on this journey is enough to give anyone who hears about it pause.

Certainly our quest will take us far and wide into many areas of life, both in a physical/geographical sense and a metaphysical/conceptual one. Consequently, I believe that the story should take precedence in determining the scale. Our actions, their consequences on the world at large, the implications of just the search itself, let alone the answers we may find, and the impact all this has on the development of both the world around us and the people we meet are all issues (among others) that must be directly addressed, which seem to lend themselves best to a large-scale enterprise.

In my opinion, the quest for a utopian world by definition is a large-scale endeavor, and it is our impact on the world (or lack thereof) that will be what ultimately defines our journey and its success or failure. It therefore follows that the journey must be larger than the people walking it. In other words, it seems to me that with respects to scale, our focus is on the destination, and not the journey, and thus I suggest a worldwide scale and focus for the story.

On the other end of the spectrum, I think we would do a journey of this magnitude a disservice if we limited our scope to the singular quest to achieve utopia. While the story itself is focused on the drive for this utopian balance, of equal import is the impact of this journey on the people who are walking it.

Any definition of utopia is to some extent subjective, and for us to strive for a singular definition of utopia almost guarantees we will conflict with other peoples’ idea of utopia, perhaps even that of our own characters. Therefore the question must be asked ‘At what cost success? At what price victory?’

In the end, is what is gained by our quest, whether we succeed or not, worth the price we must pay to achieve whatever we managed? How can that be answered in an absolute, overarching way? I do not believe that question cannot be answered in a purely objective sense of ‘did we or did we not succeed’? Rather, it must be answered in the impact on human life, and on the price paid by all along the way to our goal.

Ultimately, only each individual person can decide if the price they paid along their journey, no matter where they ended up, was worth it. For all those who had no conscious choice in the matter, (read: for all those who will inevitably die along the way) the weight of their lives, the loss of those lives, and the subsequent impacts as a result of our actions and choices is a responsibility each person left standing at the end must evaluate for themselves.

Therefore, I believe that the scope of our story should be an attempt to tell the consequences of our journey. If the scale of the story is focused on the quest itself, in its entirety, then the counterpoint to that grand endeavor should be the impact of that journey on all those who walked it.

I propose that the scale of the story should be focused whether or not we succeed, whether or not we attain the object that we strive for. The scope of the story will tell of the cost we paid to achieve that object (or not). It is only after knowing what we have and what it cost us that each person can reflect and determine the value of their accomplishment to themselves. I would suggest that with a large scale quest and a scope that examines the individual lives of all those who strive for the quest, somewhere between the two we will paint a grand picture of the value of our journey in the mark it leaves behind on all those who are left to see what we have created in the end.

An Ultimate Goal and Predetermined End Point

[ Spoiler ]

I suggested the scale and scope that I did because I believe it also ties into the ultimate goal and end point we have in mind. Simply put, when can one truly assess the value of one’s life? I would imagine that we all reflect on our lives from time to time, but we cannot possibly come to a final conclusion until the end of all things.

Therefore, I concur with Blitz that there should be no predetermined end point. If there was, we wouldn’t be playing a game, we’d be living out a story. And whose story would it be that we were writing? As a collaborative effort, I believe that everyone should have a part in not just what we do or where we go, but how we get there and why.

I think having the flexibility of a large scale enterprise that examines in-depth the impact over a broad scope gives us near infinite capability to play out this story as long or as short as we choose, and at whatever point we end, for whatever reason, there will be ample opportunity to reflect on the story and bring it to an appropriate conclusion without the need for a predetermined ending.

If our ultimate goal is to tell a story and play a game, then questions 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 become essential to set up the structure through which we all operate in telling the story and the functional mechanics of the game. Unless anyone disagrees with Blitz that are doing both, this gives an appropriate jumping off point to examine the structure and mechanics of the story and game, respectively, in more detail.

More thoughts to follow as I make time to write up some thoughts on a Functional Structure and Framework within which to operate.

Everyone by all means chime in with your thoughts on what has been presented so far so I can continually assess and reevaluate my own thoughts. I tried to keep it short and to the point so if there’s a need for further elaboration or clarification of my thoughts, please let me know. Thanks!

[WinterRat1]

Be careful when editing your posts everyone. There seems to be some problem where random stuff gets lost if you edit a post and resubmit it. I recommend copying and pasting for a while from a saved document until the problem is fixed, especially if you write something long.

[Blitz]

Yeah...was really careful the second time that was posted :)

I am very intereted in exploring the consequences of the quest we are on, but I disagree that our focus should be on the destination. I perceive the story as being the journey and not the success or failure of the mission. A big part of the reasoning behind my decision to quest for utopia is because I believe there are no utopia's only distopia's newly forming :). Stories reflecting the attempts to create utopia's and the causes for their eventual collapse have always captivated me and Im eager to tell my own utopian story.

I want to explore all the social, political, economic and personal rammifications of such a quest, but I don't want that quest to be overshadowing the lives our characters are living. As an analogy, compare the story to a salad. The quest is the greens. A great base for the overall story. It's the foundation for where we start and where we're going. However, greens alone makes for a rather boring flat salad. it's the addition of the bacon, and the chicken and the cheese and the tomatoes and the cucumbers etc. that makes for a full robust and filling meal The other characters in the story are the extra toppings. (I know..lame analogy, but I didn't sleep last night :P)

I agree with Fenris for the most part about using the game mechanics of SR4 as our guideline, but given that I'd like all the characters to be exceptional in some special unique way, I think there needs to be room for flexibility to an extent.

[HeySparky]

I'm gonna say this about GMing duties. This is in response to Fenris' post. I don't think that sectioning off responsibilities in the is a good idea. If I'm understanding you right Fen, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're proposing a Matrix GM and a Magic GM and a Combat GM or something like that.

I think that will happen naturally, and maybe we do need to designate GMs to have the Last Say in different areas of mechanics, but I think our roles as GMs shouldn't stop there, because - now it's Blitz's turn to correct me if I'm wrong - I think the idea here is to get divergent approaches GMing the story to get a more unpredictable, organic world than we might otherwise have with one GM responsible for everything plot and story related.

That said - I think you're right that we could end up with chaos if everyone is pursuing everything. SO... I propose this:

Each player's PC will be adopted by a GM Secret Santa style. Except not Secret. For example: I adopt FenrisPC, Fenris adopts BlitzPC, Blitz adopts WinterPC, Winter adopts BuddhaPC, Buddha adopts McQPC, McQ adopts grendelPC, grendel adopts mePC.

(Blitz would make the selections, whether at random or by choice, her option - though neither she nor Buddha should adopt each other, nor either of them adopt or be adopted by grendel)

From there I think we should take turns GMing 'runs' for the group while having individual GMs advancing personal plots. Whichever GM is in the hotseat will probably be focusing on one of the PCs, but making an adventure for all.

Certainly we can lean on each other for ideas.

Where I see this collaborative GMing having problems is when the necessity of planning and integrating we will need to do as GMs starts stomping on the surprise of playing as simply player. GMs adopting players would turn the game into an intertwined series of parallel solo campaigns that becomes a group campaign because our characters are tied to one another.

[WinterRat1]

It may be helpful here to clarify the distinction I am using between scale and scope.

Scale is 'how much', or a vertical examination of how large the story is we are telling. In this case, the question is, how big is the game we are playing? It appears there is general consensus so far that the story is to be told on a large (i.e. big) scale. I would suggest that we are saying the same thing Blitz, that the key part of the story is the journey, and therefore our focus for the scale is the story itself.

If we were say, doing an autobiography that was focused on a person, (think Eyes of Long Knives, where the story was focused on well, Blitz. :)) that's an example of the scale of the story being focused on a person, and following wherever that person goes. No matter how much Blitz (the character) does, that's still a very small scale of a story, because the focus is on that one person. The 'how much' is always limited to Blitz herself. Expanding upon that, if we have a story that is focused only on the characters, it is still only a small scale endeavor because we are principally concerned with the characters alone.

By having a large scale vision (which a quest for utopia certainly is), I would argue that by definition we have to focus on the story, because as you stated, we are concerned with many things outside of the characters themselves. Specifically, I only say destination to mean that our focus here is on the story itself and wherever that takes us (i.e. the destination, which is really a continual sequence of destinations that form the path of the story) in whatever form that destination happens to look like. This is in contrast to focusing on the journey, which would in turn focus on the characters themselves, and thus be a small scale enterprise. Does that help clarify things?

Scope is 'how broad', or a horizontal examination of how wide the story is we are telling. In this case, to what extent (i.e. how many different ways/in how many different areas) are we examining the story? I suggested a broad scope, which would include all the things you mentioned: social, political, economic, and personal ramifications, with a special inclusion of the lives of our characters.

If we only examined the storyline itself, with a very narrow, linear focus (for example, most one shot games on DSF, with specific beginning, middle, and end points that do not deviate much from the basic story the GM has planned), that would be a narrow scope. You want a much more inclusive examination of all the things outside of the basic premise of the game itself, as you mentioned. That is a broad scope. I also agree with everything you said about what you would like to include within this broad scope and why.

Therefore, I agree with everything you said with regards to the 'how much' of a story we are telling as well as the 'how wide' of a story are we telling. I broke it up into specific aspects (scale vs. scope) because I feel that for as detailed of an undertaking as this promises to be, it's important to be on the same basic page with our terminology and concepts so we all understand exactly what it is the other is saying. These past few posts are a perfect example of how you and I said the exact same thing in two different ways. By narrowing our own unique ways of expressing ourselves to a common terminology, this will help make future communication between all of us easier.

I think this is especially important because for the most part, all communication will be written and it's generally harder to clarify the written word (and easier to misinterpret because we all have built in ways of 'reading' specific words), and without being able to do the usual back and forth clarification that happens in verbal communication, misunderstandings occur easier and with more frequency than the spoken word. Putting the time in now to ensure common definitions of specific terminology to describe certain key concepts will save us the trouble of clarifying and explaining later. Does this help clarify my position and reasoning?

BTW, aren't Caesar salads made only of greens? If I'm not mistaken, those are pretty popular salads and are offered in just about every restaurant, correct? :P

[Blitz]

Winter...I see your point now, I have a feeling you are a rather left brained while I am very right brained :) It does seem we are on the same page and yay for that!

Oh..and ceasar salads have croutons and shredded parmesan cheese :) and sometimes chicken!

[HeySparky]

Traditional Caesar salads must also have anchovies in the dressing. Sometimes milk-soaked anchovies, to cut the brine.

So, give me some easy story examples here of scale and scope for our little twinks. Examples trump all forms of communication.

Technomant Twin:
Scale:
Scope:

Caster Twin:
Scale:
Scope:

[WinterRat1]

In general, scale and scope are there to define the role of the people; people are not supposed to be defined by the scale and the scope.

In other words, the scale and scope of the story are determined first, and based upon that, the roles of the characters are fit into the story as appropriate. One is not typically supposed to start with the characters and then figure out how to integrate scale and scope into them.

That disclaimer aside, here is a brief, specific example per Sparky’s request:

Techno Twin (although it’d work just as well for the caster twin):

Scale (Large): The role of the techno twin in bringing about a larger utopian balance between astral, matrix, and physical worlds is the emphasis of the story. The focus is on the quest for this utopia, and the journey said quest takes the twin on. Story emphasis is on how the quest impacts the world and people the twin encounters along the way. The results of the quest are emphasized here.

Other Large Scale Examples: Any epic quest type story where actions and their consequences affect many people in a material way, such as the Star Wars Trilogy or Lord of the Rings.

Scale (Small): The techno twin’s personal journey and attempts to bring about the utopian balance are the emphasis of the story. The focus is not on the quest itself, but rather how the quest impacts, and is impacted by the twin. Story emphasis is much more personal and focuses on the individual rather than the quest; more emphasis is placed on the changes in the twin and personal development as a result of the quest rather than on the quest results themselves.

Other Small Scale Examples: Any story where the focus of the story and the consequences of people’s actions are on a small group of characters rather than the world at large, such as Firefly (the TV series, NOT the movie, which would be an example of a large scale story).

Scope (Large): The story focuses on not only the twin, but the people around the twin and perhaps even opposed to the twin. There would be solid character development of the whole team, both twins, the opposition, perhaps even other significant characters (friends and enemies) the main characters encounter along the way. The ‘main characters’ are more of a true team than a one-man show that the rest of the characters revolve around.

Other Large Scope Examples: Any story where you basically can have (or not have) any of the characters present in the show and you barely notice. Star Trek is a great example of this. On any given show, you could center it around any of the main characters, whether one or a group, and still feel that the show makes perfect sense, because they’re all well developed characters that interact with one another in a ‘balanced’ way. No particular character, not even the captain, is the centerpiece of the show. Heck, there are plenty of shows where Bad Thing X happens to the captain and the whole show is about how the rest of the crew has to save/rescue/help/get the captain back.

Scope (Small): The story focuses and follows the twin. Other characters are ancillary and are more of a ‘supporting cast’ than true main characters. The action, pace, plot development, etc. revolve around the one (or a few) main characters with the other characters in the story only defined by their relation to the main characters.

Other Small Scope Examples: Equilibrium, wherein the entire story centers on Preston and his actions. None of the other characters are really developed at all except in relation to him: Preston’s love interest, Preston’s superior, Preston’s partner he’s forced to kill, Preston’s new treacherous partner/wannabe rival, etc. Everything is defined in relation to the main character, and the story moves along entirely with the main character.

Note that on a micro level, it is perfectly possible to change combinations of scale/scope throughout the course of a story.

Firefly is the best example of this. Most of the episodes are small scale, where we are typically only shown the actions of the crew and the consequences of their actions focus primarily on them. However, Serenity (the movie) is definitely large scale as their actions and the consequences of their actions reverberate throughout the galaxy and affect pretty much everyone living in that galaxy.

They are generally large in scope in that all of the crew is well developed and all the episodes tend to involve and address each one to a significant degree. However at times the shows shift to a smaller scope wherein each one has at least one episode and/or moment(s) that focus on them as individuals and their particular life and involve the others to a much smaller extent.

So I would say that on a macro level Firefly is a small scale/large scope story, as it does shift into different combinations from time to time, but the primary focus is on the adventures of the crew and how their actions affect them (small scale) and on the lives of each of the crew members and their reasons and responses for/to being on the ship (large scope).

To be specific to our game, my vision (and as I understand it, Blitz’s as well) is a generally large-scale game wherein the quest for utopian balance takes us across the world and impacts many people, such as ourselves, friends, enemies, people we encounter along the way, and the world at large.

The scope of the game is large as well, because we want significant character development of all the characters, their personal lives (which obviously includes their friends and enemies) as well as development of the opposition force(s) and other people we encounter along the way.

Sure there will be times the story might focus on one character or the other more than the rest, which would be a shift to a small scope and possibly small scale if the story involves actions and consequences that are primarily limited to one character or just the team. And obviously the twins are the central characters to the story (much as Mal is the central character in Firefly) but you could have a story with just the rest of the team and it would make perfect sense, which is generally a key indicator of a large scope story.

Similarly, even if for a short time the story may center on just the team or a specific individual, by and large the story of our whole team and their quest for this utopia is the basic theme of the game and end goal toward which all the characters are striving.

Does that help clarify things for everyone? I tried my best to give other examples to draw upon to explain myself. Blitz, did I represent your position accurately?

[WinterRat1]

And as I do not eat Caesar salads, I have nothing more that I can contribute to that particular discussion. :)