Originally posted by Brooke
snip
We tried some of this back in the late 1990's with the Scenario Masters' Guild (SMG)-- an organization I helped to found that was devoted to regular running of high-quality Air Warrior scenarios.
Great job, that. After a period of time during which scenario play had declined almost to the point its very existence was at risk, SMG made critical efforts that resulted in the successful resurgence of scenario play at Air Warrior. I am still grateful for that. ~S~
Originally posted by Brooke
snip
The SMG eventually died out, unable to maintain a critical mass of volunteer effort and as a result of the not-uncommon clash of salamanderly personalities. In its day, though, it put out some good scenarios.
"salamanderly personalities?" LMAO! What a diplomatic understatement
Yanno, salamanderly or not, it'd be great to see some of those guys back "in". RM, Cookie, DD, GE, LW, etc....lotsa talent there.
Originally posted by Brooke
snip
Being able to play in regular, good scenarios is an important thing in my life. I'd love it if there were Aces High scenarios running 4-6 times a year (one every 2-3 months).
Brooke, give me an opinion about a brain fart I'm having, please (it kinda ties in with that last remark of yours).
One of the things I've noted about Aces High scenarios is the relatively short duration compared to what we're used to from Air Warrior.
It occurs to me that perhaps this may affect scenario community development in terms of relationship building. I remember the days when 6 frames was a minimum, with some events longer. One of the things I remember from those days is the coherence and solidarity that would develop amongst team members, with the result that relationships were forged that then could be drawn upon as future events developed.
I'm thinking we might want to consider how to put together something here that will attempt to build some longer-living teams, to see if perhaps we can't experience some community-building benefit from that.
Given the attention-span problems that have been cited in explanation of shorter frame duration, perhaps a scenario that is structured like a campaign? That way we could assemble a couple of teams for the duration of a 2 or even 3 month long event, who would play "phases" of the event that each only consist of 1-3 frames.
Think about this in terms of its implications.
We could get multiple designers/teams involved, each of which would be responsible for its own "phase" in order to split workload and add diversity to the talent pool involved.
But we'd have teams of players who, instead of forming for a short time and then disbanding, would sign up "for the duration". They'd stick together from phase to phase, giving them the opportunity to bond and become more effective organizationally over time.
Perhaps having a constantly changing set of conditions and objectives would help to avoid the ennui that we see set in for the later frames of events now. Even if a team gets blown out in a 1 or 2 frame phase, they can look forward to an entirely different battle for the next phase.
I'm thinking something ETO-centric. Rocketman's old Operation Longbow concept where the 8thAF bombing campaigns develop over time is perhaps a great possibility. Think how many MA squads/players already have skills and interests that would tie right into that - the "Luftweenies" would be able to "defend the Fatherland" through the evolution of the various 109/190 types we have, the "bomber dweeb" crowd could do what they do well in an immersive setting.
My concept is that if we get it going then KEEP it going for 2 or 3 months, maybe we could work on community building during its course by using the MA "buzz" between frames to encourage more walkons to show for each frame.
Maybe even have an ongoing registration between phases? Make the orders of battle flexible, so that group sizes are increased and even new groups added to allow new registrants to join as it builds?
culero (just brainstorming here)
