CWBP 2 Deciding the map

[Falconius]

It is just poor grammar. What I mean is that I can't think of any solutions to make people feel comfortable joining in the discussion. In other words to open it it up somehow for them.

[modernhamlet]

It is just poor grammar. What I mean is that I can't think of any solutions to make people feel comfortable joining in the discussion. In other words to open it it up somehow for them.

As a infrequent visitor/lurker, here's my take:

First, I think a big part of it is that it's December. People are just really busy this time of year. You're much more likely to get traction once the new year is here.

Beyond that, you're probably dealing with a few different kinds of concerns for people:
1. Committing to the project, but not having the time to "pull your weight"
2. Being willing to give up total creative control in order to be part of a collective project
3. Worrying that (by comparison) one's work (maps, cultural background development, sociological detail) will be "lame" (Just look at the quality of the work produced by the folks involved in this thread before you say this isn't important...)
4. Lack of direction/clarity OR lack of flexibility. Yeah, this is a double edged sword, but some people "need" a clearer global vision from which to work, while others will be turned off by what minimal parameters are imposed.

Not sure if that's helpful or not! I do hope this gets momentum, as it's a nice idea.

[Azélor]

I started the discussion 4 months ago already...

aside from that:

1- That is not a problem from my point of view but maybe people are not convinced.
2- most of the creative part is left untouched, such as the style of the map and all the details. Other things can be deicided as a group.
3- I suppose it's possible to spice things up or help the person in the process.
4- Azelor/Falconius : yes I totally understand that part

Thanks for the input !

[Falconius]

1. I'm with Azelor. There are no time limits, and you take on what you want to complete it in your own time. If you decide you don't want it anymore you just say so and it will be put back in the pool. There is absolutely no chance of running out of things to do and there is no weight to pull. I don't know how to convince others of this though.

2. Could be a negative or a boon. I think only the most minimal of control is being given up. What is being given up though is being given up merely to be developed in co-operation, so people may not be giving up as much creative control as they think.

3. I would have hoped that this would be a good platform for people to learn and develop their skills or for those who are too shy to just dive into the WIPs on their own. That could be unrealistic though. I should note that 'living by comparison' is no way to advance through life in any case, so I would hope people join regardless of whether they think their stuff is lame or not. I can also tell you from experience that the Artist is often not a very good judge of their own work. It's why people hire editor's and so forth. I know this because it is a struggle I have with my own things. Indeed it could very well be the central struggle of any artist, to overcome your fears of just putting stuff out there and 'bearing your soul to the world.' ( Hehe how's that for melodrama?) The ability to do so may be the only thing that actually defines who is and who isn't an artist. That said, it's a personal struggle for people that they have to deal with on their own, there is not much we can do to help until they decide to make the jump.

4. Lol Yeah, though I never really thought of the argument coming the other way like that. Azelor and I keep butting heads over this, making input from outside parties invaluable I think. Especially from those who even have the slightest inkling of participating in this, as this point will directly effect them in their endeavors on this project and is a large component of point 2.

Cheers.

[modernhamlet]

For the record, I understand and agree with all your responses. I was just brainstorming different reasons for the subdued interest.

To be honest, I think you should just march forward with the "team" you've got. People will come. People will go. But as long as there's someone creating, the project is still alive.

[Azélor]

Yep but we blocked on the map choice.

[jbgibson]

Suggestion: let's list some of the pros & cons of the various choices. Example - 1&5 minimize tropics, 2/3/6 have a moderate amount, and 4 has the most.

If divided into squares, 4 probably has the most that are landlocked, followed by 1,2,& 5, with 3 & six maybe more coastal bits. Having participated in several geofiction build-your-own nation games, I can say people are drawn to coasts - it's easier to envision connections & conflict. With landlocked territory one is really stuck with however your neighbors develop. Not to say interior spaces are uninteresting - if you want a silk road across vast desert expanses, skinny isthmuses won't be prospects.

In that vein, 2/3/6 seem to have the most semi-protected waters to become cradles of early shipborne transport, followed by the others. That's a maybe, depending on currents and wind patterns.

1/3/5 have some pretty isolated lands, depending on how proficient our explorers and colonists are (thinking flora & fauna as well as people). That would give us better rationale for wildly different races, critters, ecosystems.

Shall we say we're somewhere between sword age and cannons, maybe with great differences in development level? That doesn't affect the terrain, but it'll have bearing on the manmade features.

As far as inducement for voting, how about if those who vote - for anything! - get a say in the pool of continent & ocean names? Best if we have several to choose from for each, but to stick possibilities in the pool could be a perk. Sure, the myriad cultures on a fantasy world will have a myriad+1 names, in local tongues, but for *our* purposes it's a bummer to be referring to "landmass 3" and "ocean F". Common names won't tie one down - one's map doesn't even have to use latin script! :-).

A flaw in thinking, IMHO, when building a cooperative array of nations, is that many, many folk want their territory to be the best and brightest. That way lies the Lake Woebegon effect, where everybody is above average. We are pursuing this mostly to make maps, not so much to role play the nations and peoples, but acknowledgement up front that *nobody* is top dog should help. We are partly mitigating that tendency by chopping area up geometrically instead of by political boundaries, but the competitive mindset is grating to other participants. Not to say one's obviously nautical territory doesn't have extensive fleets, and considerable trade - just that I don't get to say that stretch over there outside my box is all vassal states to the Mighty My Own Empire.

What's Really Fun is the negotiation & compromise to get edges to match up.

What are some other deciding characteristics of the worldmap choices?

[Falconius]

Neighbors don't really have to agree all that much, especially if we use the variable plots I'm advocating. For one thing one does not expect medieval maps to even be semi accurate. And with the variable plot method the intervening areas between maps will be filled in after having established earlier maps with which they intersect. Here is an example of what I mean.

Red areas are at the moment un-mappable and blue areas are the plots where a person can map, the green areas are plots that people have chosen to do. As long as a person is working in a plot that plot is locked off for them alone. When they finish the map the plot opens back up for others to work with if they so choose. They can choose as much or as little of an area in whatever shape they want. I feel that this will lead to greater intrest and flexibility in the project.

So for example the guy in C4 is only mapping about half his available area, but no one else can take over the other half (unless of course he feels like working with that person or in a partner ship). Essentially during the time he chooses to keep it it is his to do with what he will.

In F3 and F4 the person claimed adjacent plots, in this case he can choose to map the intervening space. for the restricted areas, should sufficient map information be completed in either plot adjacent to it they will open up and be mappable.

I'd also say that if a person chooses to just map a city in an empty plot that also locks off the plot till its done, but I didn't do an example of that.

Nor do the plots have to be strictly arranged in a grid. It makes sense to arrange them according to the geography as well, as long as they all have labels it shouldn't be a problem.

This is just an example, I think that the restricted zones should actually be a bit wider. Another alternative altogether is to have an many small plots and people claim as many as they feel necessary to complete their maps. I feel the first example is simpler to execute though.


On breaking down the land points that way that is indeed an interesting way to look at them. I hadn't really considered that. Personally however my main interest is in the land forms and a lot of variation.

[Azélor]

Neighbours don't really have to agree all that much, especially if we use the variable plots I'm advocating. For one thing one does not expect medieval maps to even be semi accurate. And with the variable plot method the intervening areas between maps will be filled in after having established earlier maps with which they intersect. Here is an example of what I mean.

We are not doing an atlas; we just need the map to be easy to understand and to look good.


Ok I see the point. So the space between plots will be mapped after the surrounding maps are done but who will do it? Is it 50/50 between the two mappers or is it collaboration between them in order to blend both styles together? I think the latter would look better but it is also more complicated.

About mapping a city; I don't think we should lock the plot since the city is probably just a dot on the regional map. But we should lock the city. Also, since city shape depend on the landscape, it might usually be better to map it after the regional map is done but not mandatory.

The plot arrangement does not have to be a grid, you are right but it just need some order. As long as we define specific area (just like you did) it should work fine. Also, I changed my mind about political boundaries; they are not that good for plot placement.

[Neyjour]

I really like Falconius' idea. Here's another option that expands on that, but slightly different.

Blue is mapped first. So you get to choose from a large square, a smaller square, or an even smaller rectangle (for pieces that fall around the very outer edge of the map).
Red cannot be claimed until all the blue areas around its (relevant) borders have been mapped.