To reply to Kevin’s points,
>To be honest, I’m not sure I am totally comfortable with the submission
>process. It seems a little weighty and complex to me at this point; I’m
>having trouble getting a handle on it. Maybe I’m just dense…(or have been
>reading my email too late at night!)…I guess my main sticking point is the
>“one idea at a time concept”. I can see some benefits, but I think its really
>going to slow the process down to a snail’s pace. Sorry, consider me the
>“loyal opposition”, I love this project and don’t wanna be a monkey wrench…
reading your email too late at night…hmmmmm…that’s probably it. I know
what you mean…the words start to blur; you find 400 lines of a single
character on the screen because you fell asleep on the keyboard (don’t
laugh, I’ve done it)…
Anyway, enough of that. I am going to try and explain the submission
process in words, as well as my thinking behind it.
My main aim with the submission process is not to simplify it, but to make
it as conducive to email communication as possible. I agree with you when
you say that it could be made simpler. It could be cut down to a single
submission to the SC, with an accept/reject for further work vote. But,
imagine the chaotic emails that will fly back-and-forth as people send
messages saying “I have a really good idea for XXX. How about YYY”,
followed by emails saying “What has happened to YYY. Have you used it? If
not, then what about ZZZ”…etc…etc…etc. Do you see what I mean. While
the submission process has been simplified, the design process (which is
where the majority of the work will be) has been made infinitely more
complex. The two need to be balanced, so that the optimum is acheived (see,
I’m an engineer, I can’t help optimising 
). I hope this does not come
across as me lecturing you, because that is not what I mean to do. I
think that the greatest problem facing this project is that of
controlling/minimising all of the email traffic. So it is mostly to this
end that I have endorsed ideas which have seemed to acheive this (such as
the idea of having a ‘wizardly advisor’).
Now, onto the submission process. I am going to set this up by saying that
Group X has decided (be it by the SC member selecting it, vote, etc) to
start work on design Y. For the purposes of an example, I am going to go
with the College of Sorcery, being designed by the Magic group. I do not
have the BoM, so if anything I say contradicts what is in there, just
ignore it. I am only using it as an example.
Allright here is the proposes process by which the design comes to
fruition. I will give my reasoning for it afterwards.
The magic group announces to the entire project (through the homepage,
overall coordinator post, etc) that they are going to start work on the
COS. They announce that they will be accepting ideas (for the COS, or some
aspect of it) from members of other groups for, say, 3 days. Someone from
the Magic group is designated to receive and collate these ideas. During
the 3 day period, the Magic group is involved in it’s own ‘brain-storming’
session (or whatever you want to call it); ie. coming up with their own
concepts/ideas. Once the dealine passes, the ideas which were sent in by
external members are distributed amongst the members of the Magic group.
The Magic group then goes away, and works the COS to the stage where they
can make a preliminary submission to the SC. Think of the preliminary
design as a skeleton on which the final design will be built (I like that
analogy). Once the preliminary submission is given a ‘pass’, it is then put
up on the homepage. At this stage, members external to the Magic group have
their chance to comment on the ideas. I suppose the easiest way to do this
would be as described above - one person is nominated to receive and
collate the comments/suggestions. Alternatively, some kind of message board
system could be set up on the webpage, where the comments could be seen by
all. Again, some kind of deadline would need to be set up for this.
Following this, the comments are again passed on to all members of the
Magic group for review. The Magic group then goes away to design the final
product. Some of the suggestions may have to be chased up (for example,
where the COS interacts with another design in a different group; eg. one
of the high-ranking COS members may be under the hammer of the Thieves
Guild - in this case there will have to be some liaison with the Guilds
group), some may be discarded, some used etc. This may be a good stage for
adventure hooks to be built into the design by the Magc group. The final
submission for the COS is then presented to the SC, and again will be
accepted/sent back for further work. Once accepted, the COS is then placed
on the web-page in it’s final form.
I hope the use of the COS example makes this process a little clearer. Like
I said in one of my previous posts, I am not very experienced at drawing
flow-diagrams. Now to my reasoning/justification for the above.
Firstly, why have all these ‘stages’ for external
comments/submissions/suggestions (I will call them ‘feedback’ stages)?
Well, although this makes the process more complex, it keeps all of the
external email ‘together’ (in time). Also, it allows everyone to give their
ideas (first stage of feedback) and comment on the design (second feedback
stage). In addition, it allows members of other groups to ‘join’ the ideas,
providing ‘threads’ which may run through multiple designs. The designs
must, after all, interact with each other. What I do believe this system
does is reduce the email flow, especially that between the (Magic) group
and those members who are external to the (Magic) group.
Secondly, why have both a preliminary and a final submission? Well, to put
it simply, this allows external members to see the basic ideas without
seeing the details. They can then say “but hang on a minute, in our design
of XXX, NPC YYY was linked to the head of the COS” (my mind has gone blank,
but I’m sure you understand what I am trying to say).
>I think if this is the case it should probably be an internal decision made by
>each design group. Different design groups are going to have different needs.
>The more complex the topic, the more structured the group will have to be.
i fully agree on this one. The Other group, in particular, will be
organised completely differently than the rest. I feel this should be
left to the SC member to decide, organise, change when needed, etc.
>But I caution against “over-organizing” this whole process. (see below) I
>dunno…upon further reflection, it seems like the role of the group leaders
>should be to solicit, edit and organize the submissions for their respective
>areas, get whatever feedback is appropriate from the design team, and pass
>them on to the steering committee at large. Does it need to be more than
>that?
>No, it doesn’t. I think its a little dangerous to impose an ironclad format
>such as this onto each group. (Probably my semi-chaotic nature…) It just
>seems like the creative element here is too unpredictable and shouldn’t be
>pigeonholed. Its like telling the weather, ok, we want you to snow on this
>side of the mountain and rain over there…If someone comes up with a really
>good idea, who’s to say the idea will be limited just structure, or just
>assets? I can’t speak for others but I know my mind doesn’t work like that.
>When I get inspired to write something it just kinda all comes out, and stuff
>is interconnected in all kinds of weird and unpredictable ways. I think you
>might be trying to impose a little too much organization here…not that this
>project doesn’t need to be organized mind you, lets just not get carried away!
>No offense, but if my submissions are going to get dissected by half a dozen
>committees, I’m not sure I want to send them in.
I have had some time to think about this, and I have come to the conclusion
that the internal structure of each group should be left to the individual
SC members, with maybe some restrictions imposed by the SC (like the Magic
group must have someone who is designated the ‘wizardly advisor’).
>My personal philosophy of life is, “simplify, simplify, simplify!” I think
yes, as an engineer I cannot agree more. The simplest design are (almost)
always the best. BUT, you must ensure that simplifying one thing does not
complicate another far more. For example, to simplify the design of a car,
we could say “let’s make them run in a straight line”. This would mean a
simpler internal design, axles, not to mention making driving easier if we
don’t have to steer. But, imagine how much this would mean changing the
road system. This is a stupid example, I know, but it serves to emphasise
my point that simplifying one thing may not simplify the entire project.
>generally speaking the Steering Committee should have a few basic ground
>rules, and we should have solid guidelines for submissions. We need SOME
>order, after all. But too much bureaucracy can be stifling to creativity.
>(Guess that makes me “neutral good”, eh?) The best stuff will come out of
What does that make me: ultra-lawful neutral?
>this when people are allowed to go crazy (within certain limits) and be
>creative.
I fully agree with you on this one.
>I was toying with a first person greeting from a city native, speaking to the
>reader as if they were knew to the city; its a tried and true format…but
>maybe this is something that should wait until the end, when we know what sort
>of things the city actually has to offer? Again, speaking as a writer I quite
>often write my introductions last; its easier when you know what you are
>talking about.
yes, this would be great, and could be used as a kind of ‘player’s
introduction to the Imperial City of Anuire’, but as you say, it will mean
waiting until later. BTW, I now have received twoi submissions, which I
will give to Darkstar over the weekend.
Well, I hope that answers your comments, or at least clears up some other
issues. Thanks for the feedback. It really is a big help,
Simon