Hey, what about we play a little game where we start a game, play a little on it, and then upload the save file for someone else to continue on it? (repeating the cycle)
Maybe every new player should move the hearthlings to a new place and start his own settlement. Filling the map with little villages 
I think it would be fun and will really test the game limit.
In my experience having multiple village is problematic since you have to distribute the goods evenly between them. Or else all heartlings will go to the first villages to eat and sleep. If you have an idea for that it would be great. personnaly I would go for specialized warehouse.
The new player could deativate (without destroying) farms and stockpiles from the old city and activate on his own.
At the very few minutes hearthlings would indeed go to old stocks and beds for resources and sleep. But as soon as the new village gets a few houses and stocks, they should settle on it
That could work. I think they still tend to the fields even if you put it to soil so that could help in developping further villages. Do you think it would be a good idea to do specialized villages? For example a farming one, a mining one ectā¦
You also could just work in the same city but each one make a part of it, the mine, the market, the farms, the stablesā¦ Looking at how good is the work we can see here the team work could be great.
Yes, those are good too, maybe we could just let the current player do whatever he wants (as long as he doesnāt destroy previous players works)
With the iron doors we can even lock a few settlers in their correct village.
A sort of melting pot of architecture and ideas ā¦ I like that!
I came up with a few thoughts, and a few questions. Warning: Wall of text ahead.
With bed assignment and enough Hearthlings you could probably get something that sort of worked like multiple tiny interconnected villages. I havenāt seen fireplaces for sale for a while, but we could spawn one in with debug tools for each village center.
If weāre doing this, how long should these turns be? A day might be too short for some of us busy people, but a week would go too slowly. Do we just want to pass it back when we feel done, or should there be some amount of time in real life, or should we go off of in-game time?
I think this would be most fun if we somewhat keep the function of each village different. A mining town here, a large farmland there, a fortress there, a port full of merchantsā¦ We could let players decide as they build, or we could assign these to each player.
Scattered tiny villages would be a disaster when it comes to combat. Net worth would be high and trigger the more difficult encounters, but the forces in one place would be too low to deal with them, and there wouldnāt be many defenses. We could always play on peaceful, I supposeā¦ Or someone could try to mod in an easy mode.
We might want to share a few blueprints so that all our villages look somewhat related - lamp posts, watch-towers, etc. I still want plenty of creativity, but I think this could make the world feel more like an actual world than a bunch of completely different villages plopped into the same map.
The fireplaces are a rare drop from big chests I think. (I got a few, but not sure from where) ā Oh, just remembered, they are craftable now! (level 6 mason)
The time to each player should not be more than a day I guess (release early if you are done). I think the fun in it would be seeing the city rotate through all the players quickly. If one is busy, maybe just grab it on a free day. Not sure how we should do it though, like, should we have an order, or maybe whoever gets it first is the owner for that periodā¦
True, I forgot about it. So maybe it should be played on peaceful, I mean, this is focused on building anyway. And the quests would end up done by a single playerā¦ I have a mod for easy mode, but it would be better to not have any mods, to offer 100% compatibility with all players.
Whatever is decided Iām ok with, My personal preference though was to see little villages scattered. I imagined each player being a mayor from a different city, all connected in the same map. 
Do we set a limit for the size of the village? personally I could go for that as it would make us more focused on the decoration and architeture of our village while making us have more on saving spaces too.
though iām a terrible builder, i absolutely love this idea! yet another way to bring the community together
i agree that a time limit for each persons āturnā would definitely be needed, perhaps 1-2 IRL days. the idea of each person making their own small village is best imo, and a town size limit is also a good idea if we did separate villages, i would think that a maximum of 20 houses would be good. (though that still seems large to meā¦)
loving the brainstorming thatās happening here 
Yo. If Yāall decide to go ahead on this, let me know pls. Iām quite interested in this. Perhaps it wonāt be Boatmurdered: Stonehearth Edition, but Iāve always loved succession games.
I think we play the most standard game possible, to make it good for everyone. This means ascendancy in temperate, peaceful.
For the seed we should go for a place that have both a big lake and mountain, cause we have players that play on both these areas.
Then someone starts a game, and the next day he posts the save file, plus a screenshot, so we can record later how the game progressed.
Maybe the next player should be whoever first claims it. Once the save is claimed, we need to wait for that player turn to end and the cycle repeats. Some limits should be placed, like not claiming the save if you already played it recently (maybe you need to wait around 10 other players?)
Aside from that, we should not destroy previous players works (but maybe improve?)
I think those are a good set of rules.
Might be fun to not touch other playersā work, since it might come back around to them eventually, and it could be fun to continue working on your town after others have had the map and done their own thing for a while.
True, good point.
Maybe an exception would be just the furniture. I know most players build āshellā houses, that offer just beds and some storage or workbenches (Iām on this group). But others are really good in adding life into it, with desks, carpets, etcā¦ So I would not see a problem in the next players making the houses into homes 
Since youāre going for a mountain and a lake in the same map, why not a mountain, lake and desert? You should use @BrunoSupremoās temperate-desert transition mod, that way if somebody wants to invest in a potter and desert living, they can do that too.
I would love to participate, I think temperate is the best due to the abundance of wood and easily accessible materials
while the idea is cool, as was said earlier itās best to keep away from mods, that way anyone can play without having to install a mod.
I guess if this works we could later do a second round, with RC in desert. And then the third we create some kind of mod pack to go with it and do all kind of caos 
(Unless we get NA and snow biome)
Should I start this? Should a new topic be created to host the game?
Yes! lets do this! Bruno you have to start the world though and create the rules for us on that page and the time length.