Also, would anyone mind if I abandoned this? I think I screwed up the game system far too much to be enjoyable...
I would mind, because I have put some effort behind my character, but I wouldn't blame you.
I've run these kinds of things before and they can become extremely tedious if you're not absolutely happy with what you have.
I've also tried to create a game using a very open world as you have, with many players, and distant places... If you can manage it all, its a great game, but it's very easy for it to become a confused mess with little story that exists only to eat hours from your day on a regular basis.
I will say I'm enjoying this little game however, though I've noticed one blaring oddity with it:
There is no unified concept of time.
In one turn one character might perform a simple action within a few seconds, while another might do some serious cross country traveling, or fight an entire battle, or do something that requires hours or days.
Given the spread of the characters, this hasn't had much of an effect yet, but as more come together, this could prove to be a problem.
Not that having no unified concept of time cant be a good thing. It gives us more freedom in what we do.
The problem lies in that each of your players
have different play styles And you have no structure at all.Take Azkul for example. He typically posts a single, simple, action.
This play style is good for games updated every day, or more even, but this one averages at a week. Just how long has he been in this fight with Tarran?
Now lets shift to the other end of the spectrum. Look how I post. I try to make my turns as complex as possible because of the slow update speed, that way the story keeps moving. I Got through a number of encounters in very few turns, Albeit Schketz ran, But even if I had her Fight, I would have given you enough information to finish that fight within 1-2 turns. My turn would be like a little program, with If's, Then's, and Else's.
But consider this... What if I was fighting Azkul?
How would you handle our two styles?
I would would have a turn full of tactics and conditions, Azkul would have his simple, perhaps somewhat reactive turn.
It wouldn't be fair to Azkul to run the entire fight using my conditionals if he didn't have any to match, because I'd have a meta advantage from play style. But I as a player certainly don't want to be ignored, nor do I want to be locked in combat for over a month.
You could force me to write short turns, or Azkul to write long ones, but suddenly changing the rules of play for a single occasion would be jarring to us both.
What you need is some sort of... standard, for turns, be it something as complex as an enforcement of time, or something as simple as recommending a style of play.
However, this brings me to another folly of your turn construction:
The way you End turns is Erratic at Best.What Do I mean this?
Look at a few of the turns, Look at how many decisions each of the players have at the end of each of their turns.
You'll note that sometimes, a players choice is completely open, with or without a plot for them to explore, But other times, They only have have a limited decision to make, and then still other times
They have only one obvious action available.When you Started Schketz, You said There's a guy in the forest surrounded by unfriendly things. My only choice is to try to save the guy.
Yes, I could Technically ignore him, but I wont, because doing that wouldn't move the game along, or be fun for that matter.
A few turns back you stopped me at a door.
My only choice to go through the door.
Did you expect me to not go through the door? My character had no motivation not to.
You even knew how Schketz would enter the door, because I mentioned her decision to try and be sneaky.
But you stopped me at the door.
Effectively costing me a turn, slowing the game down.
And I'm not the only one who this has been done to.
One of the biggest challenges of writing an RTD is putting your players in open or decision making positions
Every Turn.
I can think of only two exceptions to this, When your getting exposition out of the way, or when a player has somehow been incapacitated, and when that happens, it should be dramatic and fun.
If you can do that, the game will be more fun for both you and the players. If you cant, this will become a chore for you, and a bore to the players.
The fun for you isn't in writing a story or creating a world, it's seeing
what your players do with it, and the fun for them is seeing what they
Can do.
In my Honest opinion, it doesn't matter that your system has been largely ignored up to this point.
This game doesn't need more numbers to be fun.
If you want my advice...
Try to get people to post more than simple actions. The more time the characters are in the hands of the dice each turn the better. Why is it better? Well my next piece of advice is to...
-Kill some people. 3 Sounds like a good number. Based on your comments about many turns, you seem to have difficulty running so many at once. I honestly HATE it every time I read "Shortened Turns". I can understand why you do, but if you have to do that, you have too many people playing. Don't do it arbitrarily, but you cant be afraid to be lethal.
And finally...
Put some more effort into the turns. Even if that means delaying the turn a few days. (This will be easier with fewer people obviously)
If you don't put a little love into this kind of thing, it will feel like you have to drag everything along, But if you do it right, we'll write the story for you, and all you'll have to do is give us a nudge here or there. But We'll never be able to do that with constantly "Shortened Turns", and if we cant, then this wont be much fun for you.