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

["Kris Ames" <kris@cioe.com>]

Pat,

You bring up interesting points.  As one of the people involved in
the Geleia campaign and as someone who really isn't combat
orientated (either as a player or a GM)  I have to say I really
don't have a problem with the Geleia has been going.  Having the
skills and mechanics in place for combats with extra/different
armor, weapons, fighting styles really does not effect anything
unless one of these things is unbalanced.  I mean does anyone really
care that their are 15 (example not real number) different type of
weapons which all amount to being a sword as long as one of them
isn't SERIOUSLY damage or defense wise different than the others. 
Having firm mechanics for things (full scale war) that don't happen
often is a good idea if only for consistency and to make sure a
player does not pull something out of their ass which would then be
GMed different ways by different people.  Take the War leader type
skills.  Having to buy this skill will prevent a rich playing from
hiring and directing their own personal army at no EXP cost (don't
laugh, its been done).

I mean lets suppose Wright draws up all these War skills, unless a
GM has the energy to actually draw up a War campaign and run it week
after week (lots of work) and has players excited about playing in
such (i.e. consistently show up).  The existence of these skills
will have no effect on the campaign and will only add flavor and a
way to rule a situation if it comes up.

Now as long as the majority of the GMs in Geleia agree (by Geleia GM
should we define that as someone who GMs at least once a semester? 
Anyone else think of a different good criteria?) that a
skill/weapon/rule is balanced and playable then does it really mater
if Wright's characters use it.  Most often the best way to get used
to new rules and stuff is to use them consistently and frequently. 
Using them in play is a great way to do this.  Wright's characters
pay for these skills, so what is the problem?

Maybe I am just missing something here, but I haven't really seen a
big problem with Wright as Geleia campaign coordinator.  He is
willing to and does by far the majority of the Work (I am not
willing to put in that much time :) ), but has encouraged people do
take very active roles (look at the high orcs or Sean's Northam). 
They volunteered to do something, told Wright they were doing it,
and he let them go at it 100%.  I guess I question people calling it
Wright's world if they haven't done anything themselves.  If they
want to Geleia to be more like their vision then DO SOMETHING
(Create a city, island, etc)

Just my two cents.  Since I haven't personally heard a lot a griping
(I am out of touch with may of you), I have no clue who I may or may
not be offending, so there is no way anyone can take my remarks
personally.

-Kris
----------
> From: Patrick C. Collins <drunsen@ecicnet.org>
> To: AQ Moderator List <GMlist@cioe.com>
> Subject: "Wrightquest", or, What's up with Geleia
> Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 10:39 AM
> 
> 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
> 
>