PBEM Game: Yarnspinners 2 (Running)

[Alneyan]

Regarding the independent nation: if I play them along with another nation, the independents will be open to anyone, so it will be possible to check what happens with their hoard. It also means everybody will have access to the Eyes of God enchantment, which could be annoying depending on how much information the spell gives.

Even if the host wasn't playing in the game, I think I would still rather have the independent nation open to everyone, if I were simply a player. There can always be suspicions about how all those pearls are used, or simply mistakes.

And something I forgot: my turns will be kept on Gandalf's server (along with all the other turns), in case a thorough check is needed. Having the files on his server should ensure they haven't been altered, one way or another.

[Alneyan]

Who will play what nation:
- PashaDawg: T'ien Ch'i
- Griffin: Ulm
- The Panther: Man
- Sedna: Marignon
- Djo: Vanheim
- Puffyn: C'tis
- Alneyan: Pangaea
- Quantum Mechani: Pythium
- Zen (Sorry, I forgot to add you in my previous roster): ?

[Alneyan]

Does anyone have an opinion about the reward per yarn? I would say that five pearls per yarn is fairer than a single one; if most players find the yarn enjoyable, it could become ten pearls instead (five pearls every three turns isn't that high after all).

An alternative solution for the independent nation: they could be "closed" (only the host would see them), but the host wouldn't be elligible for pearl awards. I would say it is fair, and easier to manage than the other solution. There remains the risk of the host cheating ("one thousand shiny, lovely astral pearls for my own treasury... My precious..."), but that wouldn't be a very "efficient" way of cheating (meaning there are others ways to cheat, which would yield much better results).

[djo]

Regarding map size: YS1 also had ~9 players and used Cradle (220). It was suggested (by puffyn?) that a smaller map would help build dramatic tension via earlier player-player contacts. Orania is much bigger (280), and Inland is much smaller (150?). Are there any wrapping maps only a *bit* smaller than Cradle (I didn't see any)?

Rewards: 5 astral/yarn/3 turns is reasonable; it's like having another magic site ("Yarnspinner's Publick House").

Overseer nation: I vote for whatever's easiest. Lazy and trusting, I am.

Regarding website: this really cries out for a wiki. Does anyone have the ability to host one (I don't)?

Other website option: many people (me included) have web space through their ISPs. Players could host their own pages, and one player could host a central index of links (which is easy to maintain). I'm trying to think of ways to avoid dumping any onerous hosting/webmastering duties on anyone.

[Alneyan]

I don't think there is any wrap-around map bigger than Inland and smaller than Orania; with the current players, I believe Inland will be fine. If more players join in, Orania will likely be used. There is also the problem of water nations, which would be in dire straits on Inland: the biggest "sea" only includes four provinces. It may be interesting to play a water nation put in this situation though.

I don't know how Wiki are set up: what is needed for them to work? I believe my own web space should be able to handle it, but I am not too sure. The problem with all of us having our own webpages is organising all the yarns. It was planned to have two ways of sorting the yarns: depending on the nation and on the turn number. So, R'lyeh yarn for turn 36 would be both on "yarns for turn 36" and on "yarns for R'lyeh".

[djo]

For those who don't know: a wiki is a web app for collaboration; all users can edit the web pages, add links/images/etc. It uses a simple markup language similar to html or UBB codes.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

There are a zillion varieties of wiki, but in general you need to be able to install and run CGI scripts on a webserver. After that, you configure, generate a few starter pages, and (in theory) the users do the rest (adding pages and links). Disclaimer: I've read a lot about wikis and plan to use one at work in the future, but I've never set one up.

Advantages: once set up, everybody can pitch in on generating and organizing content; all content in one place

Disadvantages: someone needs to set it up & host it; users need to learn to use it (far easier than learning to play dom2...)

[puffyn]

I like the wiki idea, though I too have no practical experience running one. It would be especially useful for linking between the dramatis personae and the narrative ("Who the heck is this Pandokos character again?") It would probably be best if we semi-restricted editing capabilities, ie, only give out the password to people in the game?

I'll look into whether it would be feasible for me to host it and get back to you.

[djo]

I would be willing to help make a wiki work, although I can't host it myself.

If it's easy to do, we could restrict editing for most pages, but allow a page for spectators' comments. That could be amusing (if the comments are amusing) or disheartening (if there are no spectators!).

[The Panther]

My son has offered to host this game (PBEM, of course) without playing and play the observer role. In case you are worried about favoritism - don't! He will certainly not give me any special advantages over anyone else. He is also very trustworthy and would never even remotely think of allowing cheating of any kind.

I like the idea of a closed overseer myself, posting only the eyes of god every third turn. But I am a trusting sort...

[Alneyan]

Very well Panther; it is certainly fine with me - less work for me.