RE: stuff and plot

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

I sent a personal response to Jevan where I addressed certain issues not
appropriate for a public forum, but I also commented on his suggestion.  I
will be including the pertinent comments from that response below.

-----Original Message-----
From:	Steve Ames [SMTP:steve@ns1.cioe.com]

> Ahh... game solutions as opposed to rule solutions. *sniff* I'm so
> proud...

Here, Steve, you have hit upon the true crux of many of the issues we are
trying to address; ruling solutions vs. game solutions.

> > On the ep limiting thing, I feel the same about that as on every other
> > subject having to do with limiting players.  I disagree on a fundamental
> > level with the limiting of spending, as opposed to the regulated allotment
> > of it.  It is immature to give out experience, then tell the players that
> > they can't use it as they please.  
> 
> Yep.

The only inclusion from my other note that I will make here is that one should
be careful in making such personal judgements.  Isn't a GM telling a player
that a required teacher, book, or other resource is unavailable the same as
telling that player that they cannot use their eeps as they please?  Would that
be immature of the GM to do such a thing?  Think on this...

> > My previously statement about
> > restricted and nondefaultable and int based skills makes for a common
> > sense approach to the limiting of skills.  The skills that are "hazardous"
> > should be restricted, just like dangerous materials and steel.  If it is
> > in the system, we shouldn't decide that people can't do or try things for
> > game balance, we should restrict hot skills and materials so as to
> > regulate their use and integrate them into the system.  
> 
> Correct. I'd be all for requiring a teacher to go further. As I see it
> lower level stuff is probably very easy to find a teacher. Doesn't
> require a GM. Past rate 12 your options are to hunt down the godlike
> teacher and beg him to teach you (incurring debt probably in the form
> of having to adventure for him)... or... research/practice to do better
> (at the same multiplier as spell research).

At this juncture, I will include my final statements from my note to Jevan.
Steve, take note.

----- Begin inclusion

Now, as specifically regards your ideas, they have merit.  You should
be aware that there is a fundamental difference in the direction from
which you and I are approaching this issue; neither of which can really
be viewed as being 'better' than the other.  I am looking to resolve the
issue from a rules standpoint, reducing the amount of work for GM's
as a group, and placing the final choice of how to spend eeps in the
players' hands (despite the fact that such spending would be at a 
slower rate, it _is_ still up to the player how they spend their eeps).
You, however, are suggesting more work for the GM's and making
the players rely even more on the impartiality of the GM in a given
situation where the player is trying to find someone to train them in
a particular skill/spell group/etc. (thus, it is the GM, ultimately, who
determines how the eeps are to be spent).  Each idea, yours and
mine, results in a slightly more realistic mechanism for increasing
a character's abilities.  I like your ideas, but they make more work
for the GM and take away some control from the player.  Who's idea
is best?  Well, I think that is the same as asking which of the two
major political parties in the US has the best ideas re: government
involvement in private lives.  Again, both have good ideas, but for
different reasons.

----- End inclusion

> This means you can handle it in game, a good GM will provide the 
> teacher because then you become his tool. Or you can just pay the
> eeps. All those eeps your saving up while searching for your teacher
> (the one swordsman in the world who can teach you another point or
> two) might need to get spent on research before you find him. The
> quest to find these mythical teachers are also plot points. *gasp*
> Player driven plot points instead of GMs coming up with lame adventures.

Hmmm, "a good GM ... you become his tool."  Two things bother me about
this statement.  The first is that not all GM's are created equal, and, as is
evidenced by the conflicting ideas we have seen across the list, most GM's
have differing ideas regarding how certain things should be run.  So now,
you're down to a value judgement which is _very_ subjective; a dangerous
thing when you are striving for consistency within a large-scale campaign.
Secondly, you are implying that now the player is completely at the whim
of the GM because he has now become a "tool".  Isn't this counter to your
implied ideal of players having control of their situation?

Don't get me wrong.  I like the idea of handling this within the game, but for
the reasons I pointed out in my note to Jevan (included above) and the fact
that we have a _large-scale_ campaign, I'm not sure I find this to be a very
feasible solution across the board.  Doing such things within a small-group
campaign (i.e., a specific small group of people that meet to game outside
of a large group setting, or even a small-group setting within a large campaign,
like Centralia or the original Sylvan Isles group) is _very_ feasible.  But in
our large campaign, devoting that much extra time to the higher level characters
when they are already overshadowing the lower level characters during game
play... I don't know.  It just seems like a good way to further alienate certain
players.  Everyone is there to have fun; I think we have a consensus regarding
that idea, but when you further increase the attention given to certain players
at a cost to other players, you are defeating the purpose.

[ sorry, but I needed to snip the rest... ]

Lyle