"Wrightquest", or, What's up with Geleia

["Patrick C. Collins" <drunsen@ecicnet.org>]

Hey guys (and Kris),

I know I'm not on the list but I decided to open my
mouth again.

Over the last three weeks I've heard some joking
and some frustration with some of Wright's
choices about campaign coordination.  I asked
Wright about this in a sort-of off the wall
manner yesterday.  One of his biggest complaints
was that there is a lot of complaining and not enough
suggestions or constructive criticism.

I'll try to interpret a couple of the problems with
the Geleia campaign as I see them from what I've
heard....

1)  "It's become Wrightquest".

I think this "Wrightquest" stems from the large global
scale Wright is trying to take the game.  Wright is/was
a military history major and is a history fanatic.  He
likes to have large scale wars in his fantasy games, and
he likes the actions of players to be world-saving
instead of town-saving or single-pricess saving, etc.
The first three skills Wright introduced were dedicated
to large scale warfare....if I recall correctly....a naval
warfare skill, a land warfare skill, and a military tactics
skill.  To fix this problem and vision of "Wrightquest"...
keep in mind that Adventure Quest tends to be
dedicated to single lives on a small scale.  It isn't
very often that the players led a 500-man army (500 orcs,
undead, vassagos, whatever) to go conquest the
neighboring 100-square-met islands.  I don't think
Land Warfare would have developed on a high
scale on Jaern simply because "there just ain't much
land there".  Picture Great Britain being the largest
land mass on our globe.  If it were, there would be a lot
more hi-tech ships and not too many tanks.
So, the problem is, too much of the current game
development may be dedicated to large-scale schemes
that are larger than most adventurers wish to undertake.


2)  "Wrightquest" weapons and armour.

I have heard complaints about some of the new combat
additions.  One common one is that a lot of the new fighting

rules are dedicated to Wright's personal adventurers in
the game.  I think this is a "which came first, chicken or
egg" question.  The scenario above dictates that
"My characters want sabres, better fencing skills, and
main gauche skills to accomodate my character's new
weapons".  We need to look at the reverse, which, in
Wright's defense, would suggest "I think we need
more fencing, sabre, and main gauche skills in the
game, therefore my characters are going to strive
to get these weapons and research the skills".

Therefore, one view is that many of the skills have only
Wright's interests in mind and beef up Wright's characters.

Wright, my suggestion to you is to look at the campaign
as Dan looks at his...with no attachment to players of any
kind.  Dan never played much in the last 10 years (you
can ask him why) and I believe is the only person that
has made big GM decisions with no character in the
game as a basis for the decision (well..there IS the
incident with the fat orc and a castle..but....).

Now, as far as weapons are concerned, I think all
human-sized weapons (from fist up to
greatsword/axe/mace/great-x)
should have one of the following damage ratings:

1d2
1d3
1d4
1d6
1d8
1d10
1d12

Giant-sized weapons can stem into the 1d16, 1d20, or 1d30
range...these
weapons would be the 12-foot long flamberge or the oak
tree/club that
giants and drakos can use.  For players to use any weapon
beyond 1d12
range, have exceptional STR plus a normal STR rating
required
(Example, 10-foot-long great-flamberge:  STR 15 + 1
exceptional).

This scenario would keep with Dan's original "one die for
damage to
preserve the dice curve" idea...and avoid 2d4, 3d6, etc, for
damage.
Although, if ya think about it.....weapons with more
damaging
surface area (large swords, staves, etc) have more
opportunity
to strike true than axes, maces, and other weapons with a
small
damage/impact area...this would be one thought for
introducing
damages such as 2d4, 2d6, etc.  Missing with the last 6
inches
of a greatsword means you probably hit them with the 6
inches
below that....missing with 6 inches of a hand axe means a
miss.

Also, clubs should do more damage than generic kicks because
that's the
reason clubs were developed.  (Ugh, me no think foot hurts
Gronk as much,
me hit with stick instead.  Hey wait, tie tough rock to
stick)

If I am wrong on this and Wright has the interest of
all players and all game mechanics in mind, I apologize.
And, the rest of the players can look for additions Wright
has made that do not reflect one of his characters' personal

interests.

I haven't seen a newest weapons/armor table yet, so I can't
comment fully.  Wright says in the next couple weeks he
will send out a list of several erratas for the geleian
campaign.

3)  "Wrightquest" because Wright never listens and simply
pouts

I can picture this scenario.  Come to Wright with
constructive
comments and suggestions for the game.  Constructive
comments
don't usually start with (Hey dumbass, why the fuck don't
you...).
I know this sounds like some paternal instinct kicking
in...but hey,
maybe it IS Kicking in.  Either that, or my first kid might
look
like the mailman...hrrmmmm....

If thoughts are presented to Wright in a well-worded thought
and
pleasant manner, he will most likely listen.  If it is a
problem with
the game, do the following:

i)  state the problem
ii)  state why it is a problem
iii)  state a way or ways to possibly fix the problem,
or ask for ideas on how to fix the problem

It is then up to this list, in my opinion, to choose the
best way to fix the problem.

And, in defense of those who complain about
"Wrightquest".....
Wright, "seek to understand and then seek to be understood".

Make sure you understand clearly the point someone is
presenting
to you before deciding to accept or dismiss it.

"So, if I hear you correctly you're saying weapons should
not
do more than a 1d12 damage".  "If I understand you clearly,
you're saying that people should be allowed to make
"move-through"
attacks".

I have heard a couple cases of Wright flat out denying an
idea and then going away from the scene in order to avoid
further conflict...with no explanation.

I think when discussing which rules to adopt and not to
adopt, explanation is needed.

4)  Finally, the new semester starts up pretty damned
fast, if I recall correctly.  There should be some erratas
in place for the Saturday after classes start for
all the people who have been gone.  It's crunch time
now.  *grin*.

I hope this "Wrightquest" beast can continue to be
Adventure Quest.  With some helpful encouragement
from everyone on this list, it can be.  And, provided
some clear, concise idea suppliers come forward
with clearly presented ideas, it is in Wright's best
interest to listen with an open mind...especially
when said speaker speaks the majority.  If
14 people decide jello armor is not a good idea
and shouldn't provide 8/8/8 DVs...then it probably
isn't a good idea.

That's all I care to say for now.
-Pat


--
============================================
Patrick C. Collins      Purdue University
Food Process Engineer   Class of 1997
Biochemist              drunsen@ecicnet.org