Whererp off by default

[Dice]

You're brilliant. I can't believe I never realized this before, but yeah, whererp is a blunt, insufficient tool for an incredibly critical game mechanic. We have so many other systems that improve on stock concepts - why have we never looked to improving whererp?

I wholeheartedly endorse this idea - I LOVE the invitation with a clause setting. I've so often sat in a weird room with a specific scene in mind, whereRP on, hoping and waiting but people don't show up (because why would they?) But if they can see "impromptu dance party" at the Crow's Nest, or "fancy dinner party" at the Bluebird...

Oh, I really love this. +1000

[Rothgar]

I know that in Shadowgate we had an invite flag. Basically you raise the flag, and a global alert goes out to invite folks to come RP with you.

Raise RP
>>Rothgar has raised the RP Flag at the Bluebird!<<

Options were given to remove the alert and/or auto ignore it, obviously. Just a quick $0.02!

[Zeita]

I'm a big fan of invitations and would love to see them implemented!

Otherwise, I'm content with whererp remaining as it is currently, defaulting on.

[Kinaed]

I like that idea. Let me ruminate a bit.

[Ava]

Okay, maybe this is from a misunderstanding of what where is, but if there's a distinction between "invitation" and "non-invitation but on" and off... what does non-invitation but on mean? What purpose does it serve at that point?

I really like the idea of making something passive and uninformative by nature of defaulting with a premise of self-policing to something that is active and declarative, and having those scenes have a means of describing what is going down for people who are looking for scenes is an idea I really like.

I guess I don't understand what the intermediary is, save for an OOC awareness of where players are on the map. I know that you've said that it's player's responsibility to mind their status, and that you're not intending on making a private space for players, but what does it indicate? Is it a good system if its meaningfulness relies on players remembering/knowing/caring to make their whererp communicate their correct state?

[BattleJenkins]

In the case of adding an active 'invitation' state, I think the default state would mean something along the lines of 'not actively avoiding being found on the grid, but not actively seeking RP either'.

[Rabek]

Personally think that, whatever goes on with the flag itself, private areas should probably just be marked private for free instead of costing money. If you want your house to show up on where, that should be requested, not the default. Have it be like temperature. Free to set public/private when you create the room, but default to private. Default to public for shops. That'd solve a lot of the problem with people showing up as open to RP without actually being available.

[Kinaed]

Rabek is right that defaulting houses to private and toggling them public upon request would probably resolve a huge portion of the problem.

I think I still want people to perceive being whereRP on as an invitation rather than giving this passive 'you can see me, but I might not be inviting you' vibe about it. I don't really see a point to that view - in fact, it seems a bit bad to have people on where who aren't inviting others.

I wonder if the behaviors around it would change if we just reformatted whereRP to hightlight the fact that having it on is an invitation in itself...

[BattleJenkins]

WhereRP can't be treated as an active invitation unless it's an active decision, unfortunately!

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

WhereRP can't be treated as an active invitation unless it's an active decision, unfortunately!

+1