[War_ooc] Okay, so...

[lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca]

Personally, I don't feel guidelines are strong enough to enforce  
proper gameplay. As soon as there's a disagreement amongst ourselves  
those guidelines may split into a variety of interpretations. IRL, the  
world doesn't stop running when there's a disagreement -- for that  
reason, I'd make an argument for defining a qualitative scale in terms  
of fiscal, legal, and political policy. Ie, if country A tries to do  
something that is far-protectionist in an economically liberal  
environment, well, people would be pissed off and it wouldn't work  
very well. Similarly, like if an administration decides to go to war  
with only 50% support. Shit would happen.

Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Iain<iain at iain-waddell.co.uk> wrote:
>> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
>> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I admit it) this
>> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good set
>> of players/writers.
>
> Yes, guidelines. That is the word I've been trying to best descrinbe
> it. I am afraid hard coding (and I am fully prepared to be proven
> wrong on this) would make it too much of a numbers game and not about
> creative writing. Maybe all of us should try and iron out a defenition
> of what we consider 'decent, near-realistic' enough to qualify as
> acceptable?
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>