HoME General Discussion Thread

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by Shiftrex

Question for the group. Regardless of what we decide here. Is there still going to be an overarching group/person/position that ensures a design does stall out? I really dont want that to happen with this project.

Last time the project stalled out because we had an overarching group.


Obviously we need some kind of direction (which figures to work on etc...). But I'm happy having it democratic for now. All contributing members can help keep things going. We keep each other accountable. Anyone can suggest a vote (which will then be open for discussion).

[Shiftrex]

Originally Posted by Splash

What if we worked in pairs, with each pair handling two designs. One person can be lead designer for one, the other can be lead designer for the other, with each in turn serving as co-designer to serve as a sort of check, but mostly for collaboration and all the good that comes with that.
If someone wants to be very active they could perhaps work in another pair, as well with either someone who also is more active or someone who does not a hive a pair.

This idea has appeal to me as well.

[Splash]

And we might focus on finishing basic designs on the Fellowship before we run play-testing or really finish any one card, just as a gauge to see if they all feel right together and everyone is generally happy/satisfied with how they all together have turned out. I feel this is important to have done, so we don't see designs deviate too much going in and can get a baseline of what HoME designs should be, before working on any more.

[Splash]

Polls look good, nice job cap!

Also, I think all our answers will be closer than might be expected, but I appreciate that all ground is covered.

[caps]

Originally Posted by White Knight

Last time the project stalled out because we had an overarching group.

Whoa whoa. Hold up. This is not true. The project stalled out because we made bad decisions about process (only one design at a time) and then made bad decisions as we went along after that (Gandalf as our first design, insisting on too many playtests, etc.). You can blame the people in the "overarching group" for that, but the existence of the overarching group was not the problem.


EDIT: When the other ERB members stopped being active we should have replaced them with White Knight (and someone else) and we should have "forced the issue" with some votes instead of hemming and hawing and trying to find consensus.

[caps]

Originally Posted by Shiftrex

This idea has appeal to me as well.

So what happens when the two people disagree on something? Shouldn't there be a third person as a tiebreaker?

Originally Posted by Splash

And we might focus on finishing basic designs on the Fellowship before we run play-testing or really finish any one card, just as a gauge to see if they all feel right together and everyone is generally happy/satisfied with how they all together have turned out. I feel this is important to have done, so we don't see designs deviate too much going in and can get a baseline of what HoME designs should be, before working on any more.

I'm concerned trying to do 9 at once that all work together may be too many. Doing that many cards at once + making them all work together + balancing them together are each hard enough on their own. Doing all three at once is too ambitious for a project just starting out. I would stick to about half of the fellowship at a time. Do the non-hobbits first, then do the four hobbits next. The four hobbits will be more like filler, at least in the Fellowship, so they won't be as much work to balance.

[Shiftrex]

@capsocrates

Good point! Maybe minimum group of 3 is best. As for the idea if breaking things into "chunks" for design. (Tall people in the fellowship, then hobbits next). I like that timeline, it's similar to how I did my personal customs.

[caps]

First poll has been posted here.

[caps]

Originally Posted by Shiftrex

As for the idea if breaking things into "chunks" for design. (Tall people in the fellowship, then hobbits next). I like that timeline, it's similar to how I did my personal customs.

Counterpoint to my own idea would be to split the hobbits between two groups to make the balancing overall a little easier. So maybe do Boromir, Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, then Gandalf, Aragorn, Merry, Pippen?

[caps]

Second poll has been posted here.

I will post the other two later tonight, then link them all together and publicize them.

[Splash]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

So what happens when the two people disagree on something? Shouldn't there be a third person as a tiebreaker?

I feel two is a good halfway between a possibly off-balance solo design and the possible overwhelming input of a larger team, especially to more cautious creators. I would expect two people working together can agree on more than five people, but if there are any disagreements that can't be resolved, I would suggest allowing for 1 point of contention to be offered to and voted on by HoME members for the end design, whether it be as significant as one whole power or another, or just a decision between two small wording changes.
Otherwise, bringing in a third for tie-breakers, preferably someone not currently working on a design could work or perhaps if there is that much disagreement, teams might be better. Or solo designs, submitted to a public design space.

Originally Posted by capsocrates

I'm concerned trying to do 9 at once that all work together may be too many. Doing that many cards at once + making them all work together + balancing them together are each hard enough on their own. Doing all three at once is too ambitious for a project just starting out. I would stick to about half of the fellowship at a time. Do the non-hobbits first, then do the four hobbits next. The four hobbits will be more like filler, at least in the Fellowship, so they won't be as much work to balance.

That's fair. Not all at once, but in close enough succession, however, that we can really pin down what a HoME design should look like (aside from the old designs which I also think serve as pretty good examples of what we should go for), as we are currently deciding how complex they should be, etc. Also, even if we fully playtest and pass/officialize one or two, while the last one or two are still in design, moreso what I'm saying is I think we should get the initial 9 done or in line before people might want to design, Tom Bombadil, Shelob, or a bartender at The Prancing Pony. Essentially, big important characters (The Fellowship having most of them) should be done so we have something to compare to when we do lesser knowns.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

EDIT: When the other ERB members stopped being active we should have replaced them with White Knight (and someone else) and we should have "forced the issue" with some votes instead of hemming and hawing and trying to find consensus.

Yes, we had an ERB where two out of three effectively disappeared--leaving a one person ERB with full veto power over the design process and calling for a vote.

And we had no contingencies to replace the ERB members.