The written word is a pesky thing. Misunderstanding abounds whenever people communicate, but the written word throws up special challenges, all of which come down to people reading things without getting any balancing feedback. So they read what they see, and you're not there to fine tune your words to their concerns. If I was talking to you all, I'd be able to see your expressions and your feet shifting and you reaching for heavy objects, and well, I'd change the tone or explain what I really meant, or well, flat out lie. Like people do. Writing stuff for the blog, I don't have the sense of what the eventual readers will be preoccupied with when they finally read my words, and from this, sadness and recrimination can flow.
So it seems like an overdue idea to put down some ground rules about the editorial voice here. Rules is probably too strong a word; it's not as though every post will come with a heading and a sarcasm level warning.
But that said, posts are going to fall into the following rough groups
Rules and rulings; Rules will deal with purely campaign issues. I had thought that the campaign rules would be locked by now, but they're still evolving a little, and I suppose I'm going to be tinkering all the time. Rulings will deal with collisions between the canonical GZG rules and the campaign framework - the GZG rules were primarily written to govern tactical engagements and sometimes it's going to be necessary to add some wording glue to fasten them into the bigger frame. I know I have a tendency to pronounce all this as the word from on high, but in reality I am a kindly tyrant and will listen to anyone who has a better idea. So if a ruling or rule appears which you think is unfair, stupid, unnecessary or directly against something in the GZG rules, email me, put in a comment or raise it with me when you see me.
Cogitation; there are a lot of posts put up which simply think aloud about things. As we play through the games, it strikes me that weapon system X is worth talking through. It might be that weapon system X is your most favourite thing in the world. In which case, your love should be stronger than my scorn. If I find myself thinking aloud about something, it's just my opinion; until I put up a rule, you have nothing to worry about. Your own views could be just as interesting as mine, and that's why there's a commenting system; use it. There's been a tendency for cogitation to shade into ruling; I will be resisting this in future.
Status reports; When something happens, I'm going to try to put a note of it on the blog. This is going to involve reporting on screw-ups, and occasionally pointing out that they WERE screw-ups. Cowboy up, people. I am not going to be mocking you for spite, and I'm not going to be taking sides, but victory goes to the guy who makes the fewest mistakes and how on earth am I going to report on that without mentioning those strokes of anti-genius from which we're all going to learn so much?
Guff; UN press releases, bad jokes and pure whimsy are going to pop up when i have the energy to do them. Disrespectful things will be said about player forces. We're all adults here, so don't make me spell out the obvious.
Finally a word about the peculiar objectives and ruling structures of this campaign and blog.
The campaign proper is a two headed step child, having come out of a semi-drunken confab between John and me earlier in the year. We wanted a structure into which we could fit interesting Full Thrust battles, and we decided to aim for a campaign which could run itself once it was set up - that way both of us would actually be able to play in it. This was a must-have a) so that we could have some fun and b) so that we'd have enough actual players to get a decent dynamic in the game. We figured on a joint umpirate, reckoning that it was unlikely that both of us would be under attack in any given engagement, so we could resolve any arguments using an outsider to any given fight.
The initial rules were written collaboratively, with me doing the initial drafting and John weeding out idiocy. This continues to be my preferred approach to writing the rules; most of the rules and rulings are arrived at collectively, after some measure of discussion between us. There's rather less collectivity when the rule involves an issue that affects John directly, and it should be taken that when I pronounce on something in that area I am doing it after hearing submissions from all parties, or alternatively, from none of you.
However, what goes up on the blog is first and foremost my responsibility; if you have an issue with it, it's my fault not John's, because I do the typing and the posting. And even where John has had an input into a rule, he has little control over how I choose to express the thoughts.
The overarching philosophy of the blog and campaign is that it's supposed to be fun. And it's not fun if people are cranky and out of sorts. So I encourage feedback. If you're annoyed with something I've said, tell me about. If I'm wrong, you have the right to expect me to admit it and redress the balance.
Normal programming will now resume.
No comments:
Post a Comment