You may put me at the end of the host list. I do have another setup in mind...

Bavarian Creme are my favorite doughnuts - what do you think?

I'll defer to veterans on content/spirit, but as someone who works with data I'd say you'd want to change your naming convention.

The leisurely game (a) would tend to run longer than the (b) version so even though you'd start out in sync it would quickly become disconnected and you'd have game 45b running alongside 40a.

There are a number of minor tweaks that would make it more clear, at least.

While I see where you are coming from, I think you could have phrased it a little better as it does come across as suggesting that everyone who doesn't play how you like should go play another game...

But on a different note, having sat in for ideas and balancing on Bookwyrm's set up I doubt we have enough players to run another game alongside that one as I think he was aiming for the 14 - 16 range if I remember correctly.

Interesting idea, though would it split the player base too much?

Also, can I have the whole group first, since my initial concept was for 17 players, and I lied about finishing it up (including making smaller alternates) during RW's game?
Speaking of which, I'm going to need to call on your time again soon-ish, Adalia.

No problem, just drop me a PM :)

Put me on a watchlist please! I assume others already have... ;)

Question, what do you mean by "fast-paced" and "posting often"?

I will try again, as my previous request seems to have been missed.

@Gogfather - Please add me to the hosting list. I have some setups that I'd like to try.

About your suggestion, yogsloth, I would enjoy if I could know just how quick and flavorful a game would be, and two games might be a good idea, but I'm not sure that we have enough players yet.
Also, that's an excellent point about the names un-syncing quickly. A different nomenclature would be better.

I hope I'm a Serial Killer the next game.

To be honest, I think a different solution might be required... thought I don't know how well it would work in practice.

I was thinking a minimum and maximum number of posts per game day. If you fail to reach the minimum or go over the maximum you get penalised (similar to RWarehall's editing punishments but also things like chances of your Night Action failing or something)

That way everyone is forced to think more about their input, there is never quite so much to catch up on, so if your away for a few days you don't become stuck in a catch up loop days responding to things that happened days ago (I seem to recall this has happened to HijacK at least in one game) but no one can skate by not saying anything...

It may not actually work, but the fact is you clearly can't force everyone to post more or run days that last 24 hours and hope everyone will be able to contribute...

I have a setup ready to run and I would love to run it, but I'm quite busy at the moment, so I couldn't start the new game before end of next week. But I'm not at the top of the list anyhow.

And I think the shorter deadlines helped to keep the game active. I won't allow 14 day Days any more in my next game! :-)

Moderator's choice. I do believe that the proper length for a game day is 7 days + 1/living player, but that may be because the majority of players have shifted continents.

Yes. It is. Especially when you consider that a discussion between two people in similar time zones (see me and Vitek for example) can have 20+ posts in the span of one hour, while for the same number of posts between people in opposite time zones it would take ~7 days. Same discussion, different people. For your suggestion, the same person would be eligible for both games, depending on who he plays with.

And no, a maximum posting limit would be a bad thing, I think. And a minimum would probably lead to even more 'still alive, will re-read the thread later' kind of posts.

Scratch that, I hope I'm one-half of a Serial Killer duo. Bonnie and Clyde! Thelma and Louise! Those two from that hilariously bad Peter Jackson movie!