RE: Business Setup

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

Okay, I have a couple items I'd like to toss out here at the
beginning of the week.

1)  Moving people to Geleia - Okay, it's cool to run a couple
adventures there to start getting a feel for the place and to
introduce it to the current players a bit.  However, we set the
time of the move for August.  We really _should_ stick to that.
I don't like the idea of giving people, particularly GM's who
might want to capitalize on 'insider information' the opportunity
to set up their power base before 'The Big Move'.  What do
you guys think?

2)  Business Solution - Not done yet, but I've made some notes
and have much more in my head to write down.  Who is this
industrious player?  Are they a GM (if so, see note above re:
'insider information')?  Other than that, if we really want to jump
the gun and say 'to hell with our original plan of moving in August',
have the player see me and we'll figure out what raw materials,
equipment, labor, and other resources their little business will
require and we'll RP the setting up of the first player business
under the new (evolving) business rules.

3)  Firearms - Okay, this is more than a couple, but I got a little
confused when I read the recent posts on this and I felt I needed
to respond.  It was my impression that the vote on firearms was for
whether or not they should be allowed, not whether or not they would
become standard.  If there is confusion here, then perhaps this isn't
a problem with no keeping the minutes, but rather a problem in how
the vote was put forth.  I left that meeting with the understanding that
there would be _no_ new firearms given out and that we would make
sure that any existing firearms would gradually run out of ammo (or
the ammo would go bad from weather/age/water/etc., something I
planned on dealing with if a player ever pulled out a firearm on one
of my adventures).  Was the vote misrepresented?

Lyle

-----Original Message-----
From:	Wright Frazier [SMTP:khelek@ns1.cioe.com]
Sent:	Sunday, July 12, 1998 11:40 PM
To:	Jevan Furmanski
Cc:	steve@ns1.cioe.com; gmlist@ns1.cioe.com
Subject:	Re: settings and time

I have to agree completely with what jevan said.  Also simply by
the nature of the setting, there will be more multi week plotlines
because of distances.  Personally, I find this a very good thing
because you'll get more consistancy out of people(gms and players
alike).  Note: this will _NOT_ always be the case, as the same old
stuff we still do now can still happen. i.e. sail out and 
explore some little island.

Also, I've had one player pestering me over setting up a business in
Southham, how his character got there, or how he got the idea
to setup a business there I'm not sure, but regardless he is.  So,
how far are we from a new business setup solution, Lyle?

Also I've had several characters say they are moving to Geleia
already, some IC(in character) reasons, some OOC(out of character)
reasons.  My view on it is, okay, you hop a boat, you'll get
there in 4-5 months, but when the big jump comes, either Rougtero
and Centralia get to plan and do a buncha stuff, or for a couple
of weeks, we just have adventures that are about relocation to
Southham.  Personally, I don't really care, but I do see how it'll
be a pisser for others.  I don't know if it'd work, but what about
shooting for if not monthly syncronocity(sp?), then bi or tri monthly?
Also, this will lend itself much more to people playing more than
one character at a time.  Character X goes out of town, has
his adventures, it takes a month all said and done, however
game time has only advanced 2 weeks, so his character has to sitout
next week, and he players character Y instead.  *shrug* not that
big of a problem in my mind, but then I also have 2 characters I
like playing, 1 I don't mind playing, and ideas for several more.
This also allows GMs much more leeway in their adventure times.
Geleia is a big place, it takes time to hike places.

Wow..what a spew..heh..okay, summary.  Basically, the adventure length
is not set in stone, and can run over, or under, the campaign
time.  However in the event that the adventure runs over, the character
is out of play for probably a week at the most, or on a multi week
adventure.

Anyways,


Wright

> 
> 
> On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, Steve Ames wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Anyone thought about the time issue? I don't like huge timejumps
> > and since one of the goals of Galeia was to avoid long boat trips,
> > will time between adventures be going down? Days now instead of
> > weeks?
> > 
> > When galeia gets on its feed in August there will be three settings
> > that are being run. Are we going to keep time synchronized between
> > them? That will require a compaign wide edict to keep game durations
> > short. I certainly don't want to have to artificially advance my
> > plotlines 3 weeks just because a GM in rogtero decided to take a 
> > small boat ride.
> > 
> > If times are to become unsynchronized we should consider the impact
> > of that as well.
> > 
> > Just wondering...
> > 
> > 						-Steve
> > 
> 
> All I can say is that I have run a three week campaign that really took
> less than a week.  Given that it is a campaign, the boundary of the group
> is maintained weekly-- by me.  The only way that I see to link two
> campaigns or settings that will require different time streams is by
> communication.  Players will have to ask about moving characters, and
> *gasp* roleplay the change.  I am going to have to come up with a way for
> the group I have been running to catch up now.  I guess that's just part
> of the job.
> 
> Jevan
> 
>