Setting of the Week:

Matt Larkin (author) · January 15, 2007, 02:10:42 PM

I'd oppose tying reviews or the SotW (or SotM) to PbP. Not all of us have time for that, and even if we did, not everyone wants to play D&D. The great thing about this site is that we can write about worlds, and ask that they be interpretted independently of mechanics.

The Setting of the Month might work well, though a few concerns:
1) With so long a period, I fear people might be even more likely to procrastinate until time is up and thus no more (or possibly less) likely to review.
2) If the Setting is going to last that long, there will be only 1/4 as many. That means we might need stricker criteria for when a setting can be nominated. If we just did a rolling like before, you could wind up waiting 3-5 months for your setting to be chosen. For most world builders, waiting so long would not only be discouraging, but they might have moved on to some other project (setting-wise or RL).

Hibou · January 15, 2007, 02:40:00 PM

I don't think if it became SotM and was put in the CBGuide that it would need to require any sort of review. Personally, with having an overview and maybe some example material from my setting featured in the Guide, as well as an interview about the setting, I'd be very satisfied with getting my setting featured.

Unless someone's got a distinct grudge against the author of the setting or the setting itself, I can't see many people overlooking it in the Guide assuming most people read magazines, books, and similar things the same way I do: when I get access to a new book, I look through it and stop to read things I immediately like the sound and/or look of, but I quickly take the time to give everything else in the said issue a good looking over and perhaps a response as well.

Kalos Mer · January 15, 2007, 02:48:23 PM

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting tying the SotW to PbP. That was a completely independent thought on a different way to get certain worlds some extra exposure, since any way to get settings some extra input is a good thing, right?

Lmns Crn · January 15, 2007, 03:02:27 PM

Quote from: Kalos Merbut what if groups that PbP together have some kind of mutual-reviewing agreement amongst them?

Quote from: Phoenix KnightI'd oppose tying reviews or the SotW (or SotM) to PbP. Not all of us have time for that, and even if we did, not everyone wants to play D&D. The great thing about this site is that we can write about worlds, and ask that they be interpretted independently of mechanics.

As for the issue of the SotW in general,[/b] I'm not sure whether tweaking a few details is ever going to transform it into a system that works as well as we'd all hoped it would. We can't obligate anyone to review the SotW-- the closest we come in that direction is self-obligating groups like the Sable Cabal, or more loosely, the group of folks participating in Raelifin's setting badges project. I think that if we really want to increase the amount of feedback that authors get in this community, we need to shift our focus away from projects like SotW that-- like it or not-- are somewhat guilt-oriented, and focus more on free-form and perhaps even competitive ideas.

I've been putting a little thought into ways to increase community interaction here lately. Here's one of them that still needs a lot of work, but this thread seems like the appropriate place to share it.

Review teams!
Like SotW but smaller (and more tightly self-regulating), and also free-form and leisurely-paced! Interested people would form themselves into little groups of two or three, and coordinate their reviews. Teams review whatever settings they want, at whatever pace they want, but the reviews always come in groups.

For example, let's say I teamed up with sdragon1984, and we called ourselves a review team. We'd take turns deciding what we're going to review, and let's say we agree that for our first week, we're both going to review Aertica. If I decide to wuss out, procrastinate, or otherwise slack off with my review, sdragon can say, "Hey buddy, where's your Aertica review?" Since the groups are small, it's harder to weasel your way out of it. But different groups can work at different paces, so nobody feels overwhelmed. Maybe one review team does one setting a month, but another team does one or two every week, if they're comfortable doing that.

The effects I hope this would have on feedback would be pretty nice:
a.) More reviews overall (I hope!)
b.) Setting reviewed by a team would get two or three big reviews in a very short span of time (super-concentrated action!)
c.) Nobody has to submit their setting to a list for a review team to choose it (review-lightning strikes anywhere!)
d.) Harder for people to get burned out on the idea like so many people did with SotW, and end up reviewing nothing (durable and long-lasting!)

Discuss.

Numinous · January 15, 2007, 03:21:53 PM

I like the review teams idea, and even if it isn't "officially" implemented, I'll bother Raelifin about it at my earliest convenience. Let our reviewing madness commence!

Matt Larkin (author) · January 15, 2007, 03:56:11 PM

That's an interesting idea, LC. It sounds like the foundation for something with potential. Although it could also be the start of elitist clicks, which I wouldn't want to see here. And of guilds within the guild (how many levels does this place have, ah there's no bottom :?: )

As was you comment on the idea of competitiveness. I think that could have pros and cons. People might be more likely to get reviews if a contest was based on it, but if settings are competitive, some people might be discouraged by being compared in that way.

snakefing · January 15, 2007, 04:10:01 PM

I wonder if somehow the setting of the week/month could be tied in to the monthly contests in some way? You know, design a monster, temple, write up an encounter or bit of fiction with the setting of the week/month as a theme.

If it worked, this might stimulate people to look into the setting in more detail, and provide some creative input. Of course, it would be understood that nothing actually becomes part of the setting unless/until the owner of the setting approves it.

And maybe the winner of the contest gets to have their setting chosen for the next week, or they get a badge, or they get to choose the next setting, or something.

Well, it might not work, but it would be a thought.

Lmns Crn · January 15, 2007, 04:36:36 PM

Quote from: Phoenix KnightThat's an interesting idea, LC. It sounds like the foundation for something with potential. Although it could also be the start of elitist clicks, which I wouldn't want to see here. And of guilds within the guild (how many levels does this place have, ah there's no bottom :?: )

As was you comment on the idea of competitiveness. I think that could have pros and cons. People might be more likely to get reviews if a contest was based on it, but if settings are competitive, some people might be discouraged by being compared in that way.

You're correct-- it's absolutely not a perfect idea, and it has a lot of wrinkles to be worked out!

I don't foresee it as likely to mutate into elitist cliques, although I guess the potential is there. (Didn't people raise the same objections about the Sable Cabal? I don't remember.) But let's not put the cart too far ahead of the horse: at its core, it's nothing more than reviewing using the buddy system to make sure it gets done.

Epic Meepo · January 15, 2007, 05:03:44 PM

Quote from: Phoenix Knight(how many levels does this place have, ah there's no bottom :?: )

and I want to add [new content]. Should I take [direction X], [direction Y], or [direction Z] with [new content]?"

Or: "My setting has [short blurb]. Would [X] fit in with [short blurb]: yes, no, or only if modified?"

Stargate525 · January 15, 2007, 05:05:07 PM

Quote from: Luminous CrayonI don't foresee it as likely to mutate into elitist cliques, although I guess the potential is there. (Didn't people raise the same objections about the Sable Cabal? I don't remember.) But let's not put the cart too far ahead of the horse: at its core, it's nothing more than reviewing using the buddy system to make sure it gets done.

I like the idea LC. Just throwing this out, but maybe have each group have a badge as well? Something else to put in signatures ftw!

Poseptune · January 15, 2007, 05:22:46 PM

I say anyone that wants to review something, but doesn't know what to review, roll the dice. Roll a die and review the setting that is in that position.*

*Not a real suggestion, just wanted to be part of the in crowd. :(

Elven Doritos · January 16, 2007, 11:44:51 AM

I've been holding off on commenting on this conversation for a while, but I suppose I'll step in now and add a few comments.

We (meaning the Opal Council) have discussed a lot of the ideas that are being kicked around here, and if there's enough support, we're all for it. Namely, I know we've mentioned the interview/Guide "Setting of the Month" showcase as well as some of the earlier ideas (some of which we actually implemented!).

I wholeheartedly encourage folks to form autonomous "review teams." I don't really see how such a group would become "clique"-ish, especially if their goal is to benefit the community overall. (Besides, there's nothing wrong with a little camaraderie, in my opinion.) That being said, if review teams start to become a problem for setting owners (for whatever reason), it'd be fairly easy just to contact the "team leader" and try and resolve it-- all accomplished with minimal mod interaction. I'm all about member empowerment.

Who said I never look out for the little guy? :P

-ElDo

Stargate525 · January 17, 2007, 07:13:07 PM

I'd be all for starting up review teams now. What with the three day weekend coming up for me I should have plenty of time to get a start on it.

Anyone else?

Hibou · January 18, 2007, 12:54:09 PM

Count me in on a team.

Kalos Mer · January 18, 2007, 01:01:40 PM

If this has morphed into the thread to volunteer to be part of one of these review teams, then you can count me in, as well.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Setting of the Week:

Matt Larkin (author)

Hibou

Kalos Mer

Lmns Crn

Numinous

Matt Larkin (author)

snakefing

Lmns Crn

Epic Meepo

Stargate525

Poseptune

Elven Doritos

Stargate525

Hibou

Kalos Mer