Can I jumpstart Shared World Interest?

[Atgxtg]

That said if you're going to do that why bother with a shared world ? In effect you've got several worlds. My idea of a shared world is something that has a common base or start line with different people tackling different parts of the same world, not lots of different worlds.

I see your point. It is one of the reasons why I don;'t think the "each GM make his own area" approach is a good one. I think for it to be a shared world the countries (technology, religion, etc.) would need to be worked out by committee so that we could have the lands interacting with each other.

I like Sky Mountain, it's very RQ2/Glorantha-ish. But it isn't going to work out well if every other land is completely different. At least it won't be much of a "shared world" if everyone just goes off into a corner, makes something up and just tacks it onto the project.

A Worlds of Wonder/multiverse concept can also work, but again there is very little "shared" about it. Unless we make it shared.

Whatever concept we go with, I'd like to see it become a truly shared setting with a lot of interaction between the various sub-settings, rather than a bunch of setting that have nothing to do with each other.

[frogspawner]

I still see there being two approaches (that are not at all incompatible mind you) - a shared world where the participants work together on pieces of one setting, and a common universe where contributors can link their worlds together. The latest posts seem to have a strong preference for the later approach. ... I also like the idea of collaborating with others, the exchange of ideas is exciting, and already the ideas others have put forth have given me ideas I would never have come up with on my own.

... I don;'t think the "each GM make his own area" approach is a good one. I think for it to be a shared world the countries (technology, religion, etc.) would need to be worked out by committee so that we could have the lands interacting with each other. ... Whatever concept we go with, I'd like to see it become a truly shared setting with a lot of interaction between the various sub-settings, rather than a bunch of setting that have nothing to do with each other.

Absolutely. We want both the freedom of multiple worlds AND the synergy of collaboration.

What I suggest is multiple worlds which are virtually identical. The idea of parallel worlds with only slight differences is well-known. By default, all contributions would go into the main SharedWorld. So in the main we'd have collaboration. Ideas that didn't gain widespread acceptance would not be wasted - they would effectively just be on a parallel, otherwise-similar world. We wouldn't need a 'Committee of Ideas' telling people their stuff was bad, or deciding what would be 'exiled' to a parallel: later contributions would decide. All contributions would be included - and either built-upon by later contributors, or not. No idea is wasted. Everything is true.

[Agentorange]

I agree, I own some of the original stuff as well as the version updated a couple years ago. It's a massive setting with enough detail to keep it interesting and vast amounts of area for the individual gamemaster to make it his own.

Rod

So then, the 'Wilderlands' setting licensed for use with Classic Fantasy, mmmm......

Anybody got Judges Guild phone number ?

Ah well, it's a nice idea.