Author Topic: What do you think of flavor documentation?  (Read 1388 times)

Taven

  • Helper
  • Posts: 2185
What do you think of flavor documentation?
« on: November 22, 2010, 10:18:36 PM »
What do players think of having "flavor" documentation in the documentation original submissions area? By flavor documentation, I mean documentation that isn't the only view on something, and someone else may have an interpretation on. Arguably, the articles already represented there are. There is no one way to make a PC, play a leader, or get involved in plots. I mean something different when I say "flavor documentation," however. I mean something about the same that hasn't been detailed and is open to explination by players. Now, I know somethings aren't. Staff has final say, yes. But for somethings, PCs can and do make up their own explinations, right or wrong. What do we think of documentation in the submissions section that has some possible options or explinations for this?
    
An example of this is what I'm trying to do over HERE.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2010, 10:21:42 PM by Taven »
As of February 2017, I no longer play Armageddon.

lordcooper

  • Posts: 7932
Re: What do you think of flavor documentation?
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2010, 01:47:13 AM »
It's all good :)

Fake edit: That's meant to be enthusiastic and encouraging rather than apathetic.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

fuck authority smoke weed erryday

oh and here's a free videogame.

Aaron Goulet

  • Posts: 2228
    • Goulet Online
Re: What do you think of flavor documentation?
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2010, 02:41:48 AM »
I find the curses and superstitions documentation kind of "meh" sometimes, though there are parts of it that I occasionally use.

I LOVE the fighting styles documentation, and I wish more people didn't yell at me for not using a shield/wearing light armor in the South.  Still, sometimes I wonder if the code supports these fighting styles being different but roughly equal (as I had assumed them to be).

I LOVE the documentation on games (and the many uses of Kruth cards), subguild RP, pregnancy (giggity giggity), etc.  I also love the guidlines for racial roleplay, but I sometimes find the elementalist descriptions to be a little outdated and misleading in the sense that they urge players toward cliche lifestyles and personalities based on element.  They even mention Vivaduans being openly employable.  :-\
Quote from: Zoltan
When in doubt, play dangerous, awkward or intense situations to the hilt, every time.

The Official GDB Hate Cycle

Cutthroat

  • Helper
  • Posts: 4372
Re: What do you think of flavor documentation?
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2010, 12:33:02 PM »
I like the flavor documentation. Some of the older stuff has been contributed by players (the docs on clothing for example, you can scroll to the bottom and see that players contributed to parts of it). I think we could do with more players contributing stuff like that. Since players can only really use player-written docs as guides, it's important to focus on the smaller, more niche things when writing, I think. But it's a good way to put effort into writing for Arm.

perfecto

  • Posts: 885
Re: What do you think of flavor documentation?
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2010, 03:02:03 AM »
I wonder if the code supports these fighting styles being different but roughly equal (as I had assumed them to be).

I would hope so also, training within your native domain should count for something.  Double-fisted, light armor in the south and Stick and Stone deffence in the north, tough armor with a sharp wooden stick.

Please tell me if I'm out of line here?
The glowing Nessalin Nebula flickers eternally overhead.
This Angers The Shade of Nessalin.