OCP - Update

[simong@mech.uwa.edu.au]

Hello everyone,

Just a short post to inform everyone about recent updates. All in all, this
project is coming together quite well (at least that's what it seems from
my end). So here is the news...

I have completely reworked the introductory document, and it is now posted
on the homepage. Have a read of it and let me (and the group) know what you
think of it. Unfortunately, the conversion to rtf format has killed the
nice flowchart I had put in the document. It is exactly the same as the
flowchart which is up on the homepage, so it shouldn't present any great
problems. If you want the original document (it is in MS Word 8 format, ie.
Office 97, and weighs in at 166KB) mail me at slg@nw.com.au and I'll send
it along to you. Just a word of warning - the document is set up to be
printed on A4 paper, so if you use something else you may have problems
with the formatting.

I have still had little feedback on the submission structure which I posted
to the homepage. It is far from complete, and needs some definite
refinement. The major problem, as I see it, is getting external ideas
(ideas which people who are NOT working on a certain project may have about
that project) to the correct design group in some orderly manner. The
biggest hurdle is the 'email barrier',ie. attempting to cut down the
cross-traffic.

One idea I have had is that before a design group is due to begin a new
project (say a week before), they announce that they will accept external
ideas until date X. Until this time, they work the project (ie. throw ideas
around) internally. Once all the external ideas are submitted, then the
group goes ahead and prepares their preliminary submission. This goes to
the SC, after which submissions are again called for from other members.
From here the process goes as the original. What does everyone think?

I have had (am having) some quite detailed discussions with a couple of
people about issues regarding the project structure, and I have some very
good ideas. If anyone else wishes to comment on this, please do so.

One of the things that has come out of this is that the SC members are
going to have to set up some kind of structure within their design groups.
At the very least this will involve delegating some duties (like a contact
point for liaison with other groups, someone to collect and collate all the
external ideas at the various stages, editor(s), maybe someone to convert
final submissions into html format, etc.) to other members of the design
group. What does everybody think if this?

Speaking of teams, nobody has really commented on splitting up the design
group into two teams - the structure design team (NPC's & their equipment,
organisation structure, responsibilities/jobs, etc) and the assets design
team (businesses owned, buildings, any assets). Does silence on this issue
mean that everyone likes this idea?

I am still waiting on any submissions of some introductory
story/poem/description/...anything you can think of, for the hompage. So if
you have been thinking about doing this, it doesn't have to be much (200
words or so - a couple of paragraphs). Remember, this is *your* project, so
please contribute.

I also want to express my personal thanks to all those people who have
given offers of help to me (you know who you are). At the moment the best
help I can get is your opinions on both what I am doing/proposing, and
whether I am doing a good job or not.

lastly, and I am probably going to regret saying this, my mailbox has kinda
dryed up lately, so feel free to contact me with questions or comments
about anything at all.

Again, feel free to send posts to this mailing list if you wish to start
any discussions on OCP topics, especially comments on the structure ideas I
have been proposing. See you all next time,

Simon

[HSwiftfoot@aol.co]

In a message dated 98-02-18 21:30:00 EST, you write:

I have still had little feedback on the submission structure which I posted
> to the homepage. It is far from complete, and needs some definite
>refinement.

To be honest, I'm not sure I am totally comfortable with the submission
process. It seems a little weighty and complex to me at this point; I'm
having trouble getting a handle on it. Maybe I'm just dense...(or have been
reading my email too late at night!)...I guess my main sticking point is the
"one idea at a time concept". I can see some benefits, but I think its really
going to slow the process down to a snail's pace. Sorry, consider me the
"loyal opposition", I love this project and don't wanna be a monkey wrench...


> One of the things that has come out of this is that the SC members are
> going to have to set up some kind of structure within their design groups.
> At the very least this will involve delegating some duties (like a contact
> point for liaison with other groups, someone to collect and collate all the
> external ideas at the various stages, editor(s), maybe someone to convert
> final submissions into html format, etc.) to other members of the design
> group. What does everybody think of this?

I think if this is the case it should probably be an internal decision made by
each design group. Different design groups are going to have different needs.
The more complex the topic, the more structured the group will have to be.
But I caution against "over-organizing" this whole process. (see below) I
dunno...upon further reflection, it seems like the role of the group leaders
should be to solicit, edit and organize the submissions for their respective
areas, get whatever feedback is appropriate from the design team, and pass
them on to the steering committee at large. Does it need to be more than
that?

> Speaking of teams, nobody has really commented on splitting up the design
> group into two teams - the structure design team (NPC's & their equipment,
> organisation structure, responsibilities/jobs, etc) and the assets design
> team (businesses owned, buildings, any assets). Does silence on this issue
> mean that everyone likes this idea?

No, it doesn't. I think its a little dangerous to impose an ironclad format
such as this onto each group. (Probably my semi-chaotic nature...) It just
seems like the creative element here is too unpredictable and shouldn't be
pigeonholed. Its like telling the weather, ok, we want you to snow on this
side of the mountain and rain over there...If someone comes up with a really
good idea, who's to say the idea will be limited just structure, or just
assets? I can't speak for others but I know my mind doesn't work like that.
When I get inspired to write something it just kinda all comes out, and stuff
is interconnected in all kinds of weird and unpredictable ways. I think you
might be trying to impose a little too much organization here...not that this
project doesn't need to be organized mind you, lets just not get carried away!
No offense, but if my submissions are going to get dissected by half a dozen
committees, I'm not sure I want to send them in.

My personal philosophy of life is, "simplify, simplify, simplify!" I think
generally speaking the Steering Committee should have a few basic ground
rules, and we should have solid guidelines for submissions. We need SOME
order, after all. But too much bureaucracy can be stifling to creativity.
(Guess that makes me "neutral good", eh?) The best stuff will come out of
this when people are allowed to go crazy (within certain limits) and be
creative.


> I am still waiting on any submissions of some introductory
> story/poem/description/...anything you can think of, for the hompage. So if
> you have been thinking about doing this, it doesn't have to be much (200
> words or so - a couple of paragraphs). Remember, this is *your* project, so
> please contribute.

I was toying with a first person greeting from a city native, speaking to the
reader as if they were knew to the city; its a tried and true format...but
maybe this is something that should wait until the end, when we know what sort
of things the city actually has to offer? Again, speaking as a writer I quite
often write my introductions last; its easier when you know what you are
talking about.

OK, I guess there's some feedback for you. Don't mean to be negative here,
and I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. Its all my opinion of course,
and you may or may not agree with me. But, hey, you asked! =)

Kevin M.

"Life would be much simpler...if only it wasn't so complex."

[simong@mech.uwa.edu.au]

To reply to Kevin's points,

>To be honest, I'm not sure I am totally comfortable with the submission
>process. It seems a little weighty and complex to me at this point; I'm
>having trouble getting a handle on it. Maybe I'm just dense...(or have been
>reading my email too late at night!)...I guess my main sticking point is the
>"one idea at a time concept". I can see some benefits, but I think its really
>going to slow the process down to a snail's pace. Sorry, consider me the
>"loyal opposition", I love this project and don't wanna be a monkey wrench...

reading your email too late at night...hmmmmm...that's probably it. I know
what you mean...the words start to blur; you find 400 lines of a single
character on the screen because you fell asleep on the keyboard (don't
laugh, I've done it)...

Anyway, enough of that. I am going to try and explain the submission
process in words, as well as my thinking behind it.

My main aim with the submission process is not to simplify it, but to make
it as conducive to email communication as possible. I agree with you when
you say that it could be made simpler. It could be cut down to a single
submission to the SC, with an accept/reject for further work vote. But,
imagine the chaotic emails that will fly back-and-forth as people send
messages saying "I have a really good idea for XXX. How about YYY",
followed by emails saying "What has happened to YYY. Have you used it? If
not, then what about ZZZ"...etc...etc...etc. Do you see what I mean. While
the submission process has been simplified, the design process (which is
where the majority of the work will be) has been made infinitely more
complex. The two need to be balanced, so that the optimum is acheived (see,
I'm an engineer, I can't help optimising :-) ). I hope this does not come
across as me lecturing you, because that is not what I mean to do. *I*
think that the greatest problem facing this project is that of
controlling/minimising all of the email traffic. So it is mostly to this
end that I have endorsed ideas which have seemed to acheive this (such as
the idea of having a 'wizardly advisor').

Now, onto the submission process. I am going to set this up by saying that
Group X has decided (be it by the SC member selecting it, vote, etc) to
start work on design Y. For the purposes of an example, I am going to go
with the College of Sorcery, being designed by the Magic group. I do not
have the BoM, so if anything I say contradicts what is in there, just
ignore it. I am only using it as an example.

Allright here is the *proposes* process by which the design comes to
fruition. I will give my reasoning for it afterwards.

The magic group announces to the entire project (through the homepage,
overall coordinator post, etc) that they are going to start work on the
COS. They announce that they will be accepting ideas (for the COS, or some
aspect of it) from members of other groups for, say, 3 days. Someone from
the Magic group is designated to receive and collate these ideas. During
the 3 day period, the Magic group is involved in it's own 'brain-storming'
session (or whatever you want to call it); ie. coming up with their own
concepts/ideas. Once the dealine passes, the ideas which were sent in by
external members are distributed amongst the members of the Magic group.
The Magic group then goes away, and works the COS to the stage where they
can make a preliminary submission to the SC. Think of the preliminary
design as a skeleton on which the final design will be built (I like that
analogy). Once the preliminary submission is given a 'pass', it is then put
up on the homepage. At this stage, members external to the Magic group have
their chance to comment on the ideas. I suppose the easiest way to do this
would be as described above - one person is nominated to receive and
collate the comments/suggestions. Alternatively, some kind of message board
system could be set up on the webpage, where the comments could be seen by
all. Again, some kind of deadline would need to be set up for this.
Following this, the comments are again passed on to all members of the
Magic group for review. The Magic group then goes away to design the final
product. Some of the suggestions may have to be chased up (for example,
where the COS interacts with another design in a different group; eg. one
of the high-ranking COS members may be under the hammer of the Thieves
Guild - in this case there will have to be some liaison with the Guilds
group), some may be discarded, some used etc. This may be a good stage for
adventure hooks to be built into the design by the Magc group. The final
submission for the COS is then presented to the SC, and again will be
accepted/sent back for further work. Once accepted, the COS is then placed
on the web-page in it's final form.

I hope the use of the COS example makes this process a little clearer. Like
I said in one of my previous posts, I am not very experienced at drawing
flow-diagrams. Now to my reasoning/justification for the above.

Firstly, why have all these 'stages' for external
comments/submissions/suggestions (I will call them 'feedback' stages)?
Well, although this makes the process more complex, it keeps all of the
external email 'together' (in time). Also, it allows everyone to give their
ideas (first stage of feedback) and comment on the design (second feedback
stage). In addition, it allows members of other groups to 'join' the ideas,
providing 'threads' which may run through multiple designs. The designs
must, after all, interact with each other. What I do believe this system
does is reduce the email flow, especially that between the (Magic) group
and those members who are external to the (Magic) group.

Secondly, why have both a preliminary and a final submission? Well, to put
it simply, this allows external members to see the basic ideas without
seeing the details. They can then say "but hang on a minute, in our design
of XXX, NPC YYY was linked to the head of the COS" (my mind has gone blank,
but I'm sure you understand what I am trying to say).



>I think if this is the case it should probably be an internal decision made by
>each design group. Different design groups are going to have different needs.
>The more complex the topic, the more structured the group will have to be.

i fully agree on this one. The Other group, in particular, will be
organised completely differently than the rest. *I* feel this should be
left to the SC member to decide, organise, change when needed, etc.

>But I caution against "over-organizing" this whole process. (see below) I
>dunno...upon further reflection, it seems like the role of the group leaders
>should be to solicit, edit and organize the submissions for their respective
>areas, get whatever feedback is appropriate from the design team, and pass
>them on to the steering committee at large. Does it need to be more than
>that?





>No, it doesn't. I think its a little dangerous to impose an ironclad format
>such as this onto each group. (Probably my semi-chaotic nature...) It just
>seems like the creative element here is too unpredictable and shouldn't be
>pigeonholed. Its like telling the weather, ok, we want you to snow on this
>side of the mountain and rain over there...If someone comes up with a really
>good idea, who's to say the idea will be limited just structure, or just
>assets? I can't speak for others but I know my mind doesn't work like that.
>When I get inspired to write something it just kinda all comes out, and stuff
>is interconnected in all kinds of weird and unpredictable ways. I think you
>might be trying to impose a little too much organization here...not that this
>project doesn't need to be organized mind you, lets just not get carried away!
>No offense, but if my submissions are going to get dissected by half a dozen
>committees, I'm not sure I want to send them in.

I have had some time to think about this, and I have come to the conclusion
that the internal structure of each group should be left to the individual
SC members, with maybe some restrictions imposed by the SC (like the Magic
group must have someone who is designated the 'wizardly advisor').

>My personal philosophy of life is, "simplify, simplify, simplify!" I think

yes, as an engineer I cannot agree more. The simplest design are (almost)
always the best. BUT, you must ensure that simplifying one thing does not
complicate another far more. For example, to simplify the design of a car,
we could say "let's make them run in a straight line". This would mean a
simpler internal design, axles, not to mention making driving easier if we
don't have to steer. But, imagine how much this would mean changing the
road system. This is a stupid example, I know, but it serves to emphasise
my point that simplifying one thing may not simplify the entire project.

>generally speaking the Steering Committee should have a few basic ground
>rules, and we should have solid guidelines for submissions. We need SOME
>order, after all. But too much bureaucracy can be stifling to creativity.
>(Guess that makes me "neutral good", eh?) The best stuff will come out of

What does that make me: ultra-lawful neutral? :-)

>this when people are allowed to go crazy (within certain limits) and be
>creative.

I fully agree with you on this one.

>I was toying with a first person greeting from a city native, speaking to the
>reader as if they were knew to the city; its a tried and true format...but
>maybe this is something that should wait until the end, when we know what sort
>of things the city actually has to offer? Again, speaking as a writer I quite
>often write my introductions last; its easier when you know what you are
>talking about.

yes, this would be great, and could be used as a kind of 'player's
introduction to the Imperial City of Anuire', but as you say, it will mean
waiting until later. BTW, I now have received twoi submissions, which I
will give to Darkstar over the weekend.

Well, I hope that answers your comments, or at least clears up some other
issues. Thanks for the feedback. It really is a big help,

Simon

[Simon Graindorge]

Hi again,

I forgot to reply to some of Kevin's points, so here goes:

>I guess my main sticking point is the
>"one idea at a time concept". I can see some benefits, but I think its
really
>going to slow the process down to a snail's pace. Sorry, consider me the
>"loyal opposition", I love this project and don't wanna be a monkey
wrench...


Okay, the "one idea at a time" concept. My main worry with this project all
along has been trying to organise a system whereby the back-and-forth email
traffic is minimised, yet without encumbering the project with a complex,
buerocratic organisation system. Remember that we are not all in an office
where we can talk face to face - the vast majority of communication will be
by email. A quick query can suddenly turn into a 4-day efort, by the time a
response is received and then responded to again.

I think that the "one idea at a time" concept will keep everything moving.
Obviously, there will be times when this is not at all appropriate. For
example, some of the design concepts are too small to be worked on by an
entire group (eg. a single NPC). Also, remember that when I say "one idea"
I am referring to a single concept. A good example is the market place (if
there is to be one). The design group would be working on the *whole*
market place, not "Mrs Flodgett's vegetable stall". Thus, it could well be
that within this concept, each designer is working on a different vendor's
stall, with a few additional designers working on the ancillary details.

The big benefit of working on a single concept at a time is that the volume
of incoming email (from outside the group) will be reduced to a single
subject - the market place, in my above example. All mail from other
project members (external to the group working on the market place -
Guilds) will be limited to ideas and/or comments on the market place.

>dunno...upon further reflection, it seems like the role of the group
leaders
>should be to solicit, edit and organize the submissions for their
respective
>areas, get whatever feedback is appropriate from the design team, and pass
>them on to the steering committee at large. Does it need to be more than
>that?


Yes, it does (unfortunately). I don't think the SC member should be the
editor for their group - they will have enough work as it is (besides
which, the editorial position should go to someone who both wants, and is
able to do, the job). The SC members will be responsible for presenting
(and arguing for) their submissions to the steering committee. I guess
there will be certain amount of liaison involved in this (ie. "one of the
vendors is actually run by the rogue mages organisation, and is a contact
point to them" will require some response from the Magic SC member/group.
This would also work vice-versa, ie. "the rogue mages organisation uses a
stall in the market place as a contact point for them" would require a
response from the Guilds SC member). Likewise the SC member will also be
responsible for commenting on and providing suggestions on other design
submissions (from other groups).

Imagine that each group contains 10 people, which seems a fair number
considering the city vote attracted almost 50 votes, and there are 5
groups. The email traffic will be quite horrendous if there is no
organisation. If they are working on different designs (lets say 2 people
per design = 5 designs), there would be 5 different points of contact with
the group (plus the SC member). Email would get chaotic (much like it did
at the beginning of this project). In short, I see the organisational
aspects as tools for reducing the chaos which will result from this project
being conducted via email.



One last comment on this subject (yeah, right I hear everyone say :-) )

I think we should leave the organisation of the design group to the
individual SC members. they will know what their group needs and what works
will become apparent after a while. Remember that none of this is set in
concrete, so it can be changed if we find it doesn't work. Some groups will
work well with the structure/assets team, others will need something
different.

I will suggest that each group will need the following (or similar) though
some of them can be combined or done by the SC member themself (though I
think they will be busy enough as it is):
1. Someone to work directly with the SC member to communicate the progress
of the project and any problems, concerns, etc. that have arisen. This
person is also responsible for communicating the progress of the project to
his/her team members. This could be done by the SC member, though they my
have enough on their plate.
2. Someone to receive and, if necessary, respond to all external
suggestions, then relate those suggestions to the fellow team members.
3. Someone to act as liaison to the other design groups, primarily
responsible for relating information as to the progress of the current
project and making any type of requests to other groups as needed. Again,
this could be done at the SC level, by the SC members themselves.
4. Someone to edit/format/layout the final product. Whether this means
converting into html format, or whatever, the submissions will have to be
edited before they are submitted.

I'm not trying to force my view on everyone (at least I hope not), but
Kevin is one of a very small handful of people who is providing me with
feedback, and he deserves a response.

Does anyone else have any comments/suggestions on what I have said?

Simon

Simon Graindorge
Coordinator, Birthright Online City Project

E-mail: slg@nw.com.au
Online City Project Homepage:
http://darkstar.cyberserv.com/netbook/city/index.html