[WF-General] Distinguishing Admin and Player

Bryce Harrington bryce at neptune.net
Wed Oct 11 21:51:06 PDT 2000


On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Pug wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:17:20PM -0400, Tess Snider wrote:
> > Making such a list, I think it's also a good idea to make it clear which
> > decided-upon principles are universal, and which are specific to the game
> > instanc "Belchfire," the world instance "Dural," or the game system
> > instance "Circe."  Universal principles apply to all of our work,
> > regardless of what game, world, rule system, or specific running instance
> > someone is talking about.
> 
> A very good idea, especially since we didn't start using the term "Belchfire"
> until well into the Project, so all of the old discussions are a bit
> ambiguous.
 
Agreed.  In fact, in reading Malkin's post, it struck me that what we
_really_ need... the one thing that will __definitely__ address the
problem, is to start on a good old fashioned, tried-and-true Official
BelchFire Game Spec.  That's something we _haven't_ talked about yet at
all. 

Further, I'm *very* tempted to initiate this with a blank file, and
paste the text from the WF_Plan document about Belchfire, and simply
void any previous decisions.  Think about it: if we have any decisions
that have been written up officially enough to be able to show them to a
newbie, then cut'n'paste into (or reference from) the official document
should be no prob.  If not, then those decisions probably need review
and documentation anyway.

The nice side effect of this, of course, would be that our newbies would
get a chance to revisit and rediscuss ALL of our old topics.

Anyway, I like this idea, but what do you guys think?  If it sounds
cool, then this weekend I'll take the action to get this officially
started.  (But please poke me if I slack on doing it.)

-- 
Bryce Harrington
bryce @ neptune.net





More information about the General mailing list