First of all, I would like to point out that I did read the entire post--all of your posts--many times, and claiming that I did not is completely ignorant and shows that you are not open to criticism of any kind, even if it means bringing your completely dead, unorganized thread to life.
Well then you obviously didn't read this:
[quote]To make it better you have to have to make a decision that could be done with the current state of the area.
[/quote]
Obviously I did, for that passage that you quoted about restrictions was basically a direct response to that statement. The problem with that statement is that it's incredibly vague, and it doesn't specify what decisions you can and can't make. There is no limit to what resources the player has to execute such a decision, which means they can decide to do virtually anything they want to improve the community. Who's to say they can't gather plutonium and build a time machine to go back in time to prevent the community from falling apart in the first place?
It's up to you to place these restrictions, or else people will place their own limits and things will get chaotic.
You move on to the next community.
That isn't a hook. You still never specified why the first community needs saving. Who still inhabits this community? Why does their community need to be fixed? Why is it up to me (the player) to rebuild this community and not just leave it the way it is?
These are questions that would be crucial to keeping people interested.
You could be attacked by a herd of animals or die of starvation.
You could have specified that in your original post. There are no facts that state economic status or what the area is like, other than it's "a torn down community with a small city not too far away". Do you expect us to gather that the character in question is dirt poor and that there are wild herds of animals prowling the area just because that's the way you pictured it in your head?
If you don't provide the details, the players will make them up from what they interpret, and if they choose to interpret themselves as billionaires with abundant resources, there's nothing that specifies that they can't play that way.
They may not have the resources to do that. And in the time it takes to do that, they would be even more vulnerable to really anything.
Again, you should have specified that in your original scenario instead of just leaving it as open as you did. I'll emphasize one last time that you never specified what kind of resources are and are not available to the player.
So in all you didn't read the whole post (or even half for that matter) and you start making assumptions based on what you don't know, even though it is told to you.
You're accusing me of doing exactly what you did rather than what I did, which was analyze every post you made and try to find a way to improve your game. From your responses, however, it seems that you're not open to ways to improve your thread and therefore I have no choice but to conclude that you are not cut out to run a forum game of any type.
and try not to get people mad at you for a post that could have completely wrong facts that, again, are told to you.
None of the facts you specified in your most recent post were told to anyone in the original scenario or in any other post you made up until your most recent post. You can't criticize me for not reading facts that don't exist yet.
I'm trying to help you get your thread started with constructive criticism--might I remind you that you did say we were "free" to leave our criticism in the OP--and all you do is get mad at me for pointing out why your thread isn't going anywhere. If this is your attitude towards people trying to help you, you don't deserve help from anyone.
