Alternate eeps/buying habits

[Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>]

Ummm... I think we lose cite of the goal (anyone know what it is?)
The only people affected (really) by any of these changes is low
rating people. Check the math. Your running into a problem that
while AQ has a linear buying system it works on the diminishing
returns concept (the next two graphs illustrate this):

s 12                      .
k 11                    .
i 10                  .
l  9                .
l  8              .
   7            .
r  6          .
a  5        .
n  4      .
k  3    .
   2  .
   1.
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1
                      0 1 2
   
        cost/point (* base)

s 12                      
k 11                    
i 10                  
l  9                
l  8                                                                      .
   7                                                      .
r  6                                        .
a  5                            .
n  4                  .
k  3          .
   2    .
   1.
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
                      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

                                    eeps spent (* base)

Lowering the number of eeps/adventure only causes the same progression
to take longer in weeks (want those charts?). This is most notable at
midlevels. At higher levels you pretty much stop buying stuff, how
fast eeps come in just determine when this motivational cap comes in.

Saying that you have the eeps but limiting how they can be spent has
pretty much the same affect as lowering the number of eeps except that
you end up with (in lyle's proposal since it calls for 25%) a four 
legged adventurer who is capped at the same point (height wise) as
the specialized adventurer getting a 625 eep base. (model it)

And in the end, nothing gets accomplished except people get unhappy
because there is stuff that they can no longer reach. Unhappy = bad.
We _ARE_ here to have fun. I like modelling and rule pondering, its
part of my fun. I don't like adventurers who are lower than about
rate 14. They just aren't flexible enough. At rate 14 (current eep
endowment) they have already started having to wait an adventure per
point of skill (except DP, that hasn't capped yet). I don't find
anything frightening about rating 300 adventurers because I understand
that they deal with the above curve. At that level they really aren't
much more than a rate 100. They've had to spend a hell of a lot of
eeps for little gain. 

This is all pretty basic. You want people to become more diversified,
lead them on adventures where this diversification will help them
(or its lack will hurt them). Stop holding killerama's and hold a
skill contest. Probably no one will show up... that gives an indication
of player mentality. But really adventuring comes down to combat and
bits of esoteric knowledge.

Doh, I'm babbling again. I, like everyone else for years past, say
that the best way to make this change is to start adventuring the
way it should be. Have a lot of hack-n-slash, but also force a lot
of roleplaying. Spit out actors and force conversations. If a player
spends the whole night saying 'i do blah' they are not roleplaying.
We, that is to say GMs, determine the flavor of the game. If it is
not to our liking who do we blame? The rules are convenient, but they
are only a crutch. Rules are the framework. We work within them to
create our illusions. If we seep through the gaps in the framework
to easily or often, then we fix the rules... at all other times we
are in control.

Hey speaking of control... am I the only one who finds it funny
when a GM says he can't 'handle' high rating players? What the
hell does that mean? Are you the GM or aren't you?

						-Steve