jTWG

[FictionJunction]

Re: jTWG

it's just such a ridiculously unnecessary difference.

omg adding a red miller makes this a REAL TWG not a jTWG!

just help the new kids understand how the roles work if the issue is in mechanics, if it's not then they'll still have to talk to players regardless of what you choose to call a game. Point is, calling it jTWG creates an unnecessary barrier where none should be.

If you guys want to play games with complicated RPG elements, sure, but don't pretend it's a reserved game for 'experienced players' as if a traditional seer/guardian game wouldn't be.

[cedolad]

Re: jTWG

no

[Vendetta21]

Re: jTWG

Fiction is fiery hot with anger but I totally see his point it's so much better to have us all in one pool, eliminates the veteran status complex. Remember we're getting older and that silly status stuff tends to matter less as we age and we liked that shit in our teenage years but now if someone is struggling to get the game we have 30 vets who want to explain it passionately and just listen to them talk about TWG, please and there's a wiki and there's like 8 guides. And above all the character skills you actively work in TWG are gaining confidence with how you present yourself online and confidence in forming opinions about others and seeing how your thought processes can be totally wrong, which is best done without this idea of proverbial training wheels.

[Tokzic]

Re: jTWG

I like the idea of specifically having one simpler/more casual game running alongside one TWG that is more complex and/or requires more commitment.

[DarkManticoreX2]

Re: jTWG

I kinda think if we're actually going to discuss this topic, We should do so in a less biased thread/manner.

[FictionJunction]

Re: jTWG

what so if I had said 'let's discuss jTWG' in my post this would an ok place to discuss?

Pretty sure I asked people to explain why they want things. Not sure how this entire discussion is biased because I have an opinion. Just say why you guys feel you need it. I don't think we need it.

[Crazyjayde]

Re: jTWG

So just run two games at once, each assigned with a different level of complexity. Everyone will be able to subscribe to the game he's the most comfortable.

I kind of like this as an unofficial rule. Maybe every other game could "forced" to be a "vanilla" variant.

I like the idea of specifically having one simpler/more casual game running alongside one TWG that is more complex and/or requires more commitment.

So me, afro and tokzic are seconding the same idea and I think I need to stress that fact for people to consider this since it's not at all hard to do and will please everyone.

[FictionJunction]

Re: jTWG

the not so different alternative would be to have a case-by-case discussion as opposed to a schedule where people vote for the games they want to play - as we do now - and play it by ear. If someone chooses to not vote for X game or chooses not to join X game because they don't want to play something with RPG elements or something that is too complicated they simply play another game.

The issue with setting a schedule with expected types of games is that there will come a time when everyone wants to play stupid complex games and another when everyone wants to play simple games.

[FictionJunction]

Re: jTWG

I like the idea of having 'easy' games available but I oppose the idea of strictly calling them jTWG and of requiring we host two 'kinds' of games as opposed to just hosting games that meet the current demand of the players.

[Crazyjayde]

Re: jTWG

That's part of the debate you might have assumed too quickly is intrinsic to hosting more accessible games. Players talk about jTWG because that's the terminology in place on FFR for calling those types of setups. I have not seen anybody thus far supporting the idea of bringing back jTWG in the form of a jTWG.

Otherwise, I like the duality you show between scheduled versus individual host process and I think it's very justified. Both our ideas are flexible since we can always interchange one with the other. But I find the latter to be more situational which is prone to slow decisions. Sometimes people just want to play and I like to have fixed conditions in those instances.

[Afrobean]

Re: jTWG

I like the idea of having 'easy' games available but I oppose the idea of strictly calling them jTWG and of requiring we host two 'kinds' of games as opposed to just hosting games that meet the current demand of the players.

If we exclusively host games that people "want" to play, we end up with ridiculous bullshit almost every time. People offering to host simpler games are often ignored in favor of whatever retarded bullshit some other person wants to host.

I think it could help to artificially force more simple games sometimes.

[FictionJunction]

Re: jTWG

Afro is saying you most of you guys want really complex games.

is that because nobody is building anything simple and putting it in the pipeline?

Wouldn't that be fixed if the host recieves game submissions via PM, lengthening the time we have to submit games - and thus the number of games submitted - to have a more useful discussion over what games we'd like to play?

I can't force people to give constructive criticism about the games that are offered but it'd be nice if we tweak games in during the voting process before the games are hosted. A lot of times hosts scramble to make changes before d1 ends.

[FictionJunction]

Re: jTWG

Ultimately I think people sign up for games because they're what's available..

[dAnceguy117]

Re: jTWG

@Fiction, the last 4+ games used pretty simple setups.

I have not seen anybody thus far supporting the idea of bringing back jTWG in the form of a jTWG.

it has happened, and there are at least a few people who support the idea.

[Vendetta21]

Re: jTWG

what so if I had said 'let's discuss jTWG' in my post this would an ok place to discuss?

Pretty sure I asked people to explain why they want things. Not sure how this entire discussion is biased because I have an opinion. Just say why you guys feel you need it. I don't think we need it.

alright i fear i might stoke the fire here but it's just the tone of aggravation and the big ego makes it hard to have a discussion and also makes people dislike your opinion on the matter because of your presented personality which has nothing to do with the possible impact of your opinion (as in you're predisposing them against it for other reasons than its content)

nobody here is going to get angry so there's not a need to feel vigilant in defending our stances as this community has become incredibly gregarious over the last year. we're just a bunch of peeps having fun with our favorite forum game. it gets intense in game, but everyone is extremely nice in postgame and other discussions.