I played in a "prompt-claiming" game once, but in that case the moderator pre-selected all the prompts from the writings of famous historical women. I believe that you're the only one of us who often plays in "battles." May I ask you to explain a little more?
It sounds like such a scenario would be very much like an exchange game, except that (1) the matches would be public all along, and (2) the normal exchange expectation that a story should strive to please its prompter would be dropped. (That is, for example, PJ would claim your prompt, you would claim mine, Greer would therefore be obliged to take PJ's regardless, and I would be obliged to take Greer's regardless. Or would it be, say, that PJ, Greer and I would all choose yours, while you chose PJ's?)
I'd previously proposed to have every player to submit three prompts (confidentially), and then every player to vote on the full slate of submissions to elect three prompts in common from which to choose (forbidding voting for only your own). But with only four players, I'd think three prompts is too many for the spirit of a "challenge" game and too few for an "exchange." People wouldn't be playing with each other.
One prompt in common was the FKFic-L method (as in the "Forever Not" challenge and the MBIAV card challenge), and it was imported to the HL lists from there (as in the 15-minute challenge). But the single-prompt challenge, for all it bridged the zine and email list eras, never did seem to make the transition to the social journaling era. I wonder if it's because the single-prompt challenge is so much like the "call for papers" for a themed zine (for example, like Forever Cat Stories, Celeste's Sydney zine).
(I've tallied the poll, btw! I just don't yet know exactly what to say and do about the results.)
Re: "Birth of a notion, kids."
It sounds like such a scenario would be very much like an exchange game, except that (1) the matches would be public all along, and (2) the normal exchange expectation that a story should strive to please its prompter would be dropped. (That is, for example, PJ would claim your prompt, you would claim mine, Greer would therefore be obliged to take PJ's regardless, and I would be obliged to take Greer's regardless. Or would it be, say, that PJ, Greer and I would all choose yours, while you chose PJ's?)
I'd previously proposed to have every player to submit three prompts (confidentially), and then every player to vote on the full slate of submissions to elect three prompts in common from which to choose (forbidding voting for only your own). But with only four players, I'd think three prompts is too many for the spirit of a "challenge" game and too few for an "exchange." People wouldn't be playing with each other.
One prompt in common was the FKFic-L method (as in the "Forever Not" challenge and the MBIAV card challenge), and it was imported to the HL lists from there (as in the 15-minute challenge). But the single-prompt challenge, for all it bridged the zine and email list eras, never did seem to make the transition to the social journaling era. I wonder if it's because the single-prompt challenge is so much like the "call for papers" for a themed zine (for example, like Forever Cat Stories, Celeste's Sydney zine).
(I've tallied the poll, btw! I just don't yet know exactly what to say and do about the results.)