[quote=BladeLakem]I'd suggest that it be explicit that the core setting is more a default than a canon. I think that both technically and creatively, people need to be able to go off on their own without fear of being dogpiled on for doing so. So if someone decides to run their own continuity, then more power to 'em. Also, there should be a lot of room in the setting for variation.[/quote]I agree with this 100%, and couldn't have said it better. I'd much rather that there be many "shards" each with their own continuity, and that those who want to explore an Uru-like setting with whatever rules they desire can do so.
People need to be able to communicate, privately, locally and in 'channels'. That's a reality in the MMO genre. You can either handwave the non-local stuff ('there are no PMs in the IC world') or you include an IC mechanism. Something like a KI is the ideal for this - especially if you take the 'swiss army KI' approach to the concept. Whether you lead up to interage communication or not is a different issue - the thematic infrastructure (and corresponding game code) should be there from day 1. Include mass communciation (broadcasting, bulletin boards, email, etc) in this concept. Also, consider non-game methods of communication (maybe you can send email from the game to Internet email accounts - maybe these relays connect up to a server in our Age that acts as a gateway to D'nay.net?)
Yes, yes, yes. The infrastructure should be robust enough to allow whatever sorts of communication systems we can think of, but we should leave the actual implementation of that system (e.g. is inter-age communication accessible from day 1?) up to the tastes of the different shard owners. My preference would be to have inter-age communication working from the start, but with plausible methods that work with the sorts of linking rules we know and love.
Everyone seems to hate instancing, but it's a very powerful concept. It just needs to be handled in a more consistent way, designed up front in the setting. Call sets of instances "branches" and the instances themselves "leaves" . There is a default 'public' branch which has one of everything that everyone can get to if they have the right books. But instead of a haphazard cross linking of instances, make it so that you have to do something conscious to switch branches. A special machine or linking book takes you to the root of a different branch, in which you have access to your own instance of Ages. Maybe Writers can designate an age to be un-instanceable if they want.
So a "branch" would be like all Ages of the form "Owehn's *"? That makes sense (and would make Gira/Kemo much more manageable. What I imagine is a system where any individual or group can be provided with an Age instance by the Age's author. (The author could have options of automatically giving everyone access to an Age instance, or reserving the right to distribute instances to individuals or groups on a case-by-case basis, or instances could conceivably be automatically generated by in-game actions. Which options are available would, again, depend on the shard.)
I find the panic linking an extremely valuable mechanic. it allows you to try all sorts of stuff without worry of dying, both in a game sense and in an IC sense. I'd strongly suggest a similar mechanic. Me, I like Relto books. I think they are a cool concept, but others might not. The standard rules of linking don't really allow for it, however. One option would be, instead of a book, you have a one-use 'linking paper' or such. You panic link and the paper is left behind (and vaporizes). When you link back to whereever that leads to, there is a machine there that creates these panic links. Your avvie automatically grabs a new one. In theory, you could have multiple of these machines and have them as sort of 'save points'. You carry a linking paper with you until you click on a new machine. It gives you a new one and then you link back to THAT point when you panic link. Alternatives to a linking paper could be a one-shot bracelet or even a linking symbol painted on the back of your hand (a la Esher's linking symbol from the Bahro).
Yeah, I hope the game mechanics allow for different shards to explore different ways of achieving their own panic-link-like mechanism. I favor the one-shot linking paper, personally. It wouldn't be
too far-fetched to claim that we have special, thin linking books with no covers and made of a quickly-degrading material that is carefully preserved until the moment of linking. And that these are mass-produced and distributed.
The rules of linking need to be established. The default rules are you need descriptive books, and that linking books refer to them. When you write a linking book, it links to where you wrote it. When you link through, the linking book is left behind, Etc. Some of these rules have been broken in Uru with bahro stones, Relto books and linking portals. So I think that we could modify them a bit to reflect the new Writer's skills and dispositions. Does it always have to be a book? Do the books have to be made in the D'ni way (note that in Riven, Gehn 'powered' his books, and Catherine used a funcky screen to sidestep the need for power, whatever it powered)? Can there be linking screens on imagers, for instance? Linking tattoos? Does it have to be in D'ni? Or can it be in other languages? Specialized formuae instead? Does it have to be something written? Can a machine or artifact link you? Etc. Can you not link to the same Age in all cases? That could mess up panic linking unless the destination of it was somewhere where no panic links ever took place (a building like Nexus, for instance).
I'd prefer that this left up to the individual shards. If there's a shard that wants to stick to the ultra-conservative d'ni linking rules, they'd be able to enforce that in the Ages they allow (this should be something the Maintainers look for), while if there's a shard that wants a more lax view of linking rules with portals and stuff, they could do that, and if a shard wants to forgo standard linking rules altogether, they could do so.
You can probably tell that I'm in favor of there being independent shards.
I think this is actually essential to the success of the contingency plan, since the only way I can imagine Cyan Legal allowing an Uru-like game to form independently of Cyan is if the game isn't inherently set in the d'niverse, but a bunch of its players have all agreed to abide by d'ni linking rules etc.
. If you think about phpBB, it's a great thing but, if it's un-skinned it is not YOURS it's just a piece of software that you installed on your server--simple is better than complicated and not yours. 
