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

[Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>]

> 1)  "It's become Wrightquest".
> 
Global scale?  no..I'm just writing up geleia and Dan and Steve(the
heads of Rougtero and Centralia) are more than free to say screw off
to anything I propose for Geleia for use in those settings.  Hell
if they do take that view on something, then I want to know why so
it can be reevaluated for Geleia.

Re:Warfare.  What? Its a pure mechanic so you don't have to sit
	down and run a minatures battle for armies and so we don't
	have to come up with AQ:Battles for running massed combats.
	A gm looks at the various skill ratings of the commanders,
	troops, troop experience, etc.. and pulls something out of
	his bumb.  This is purely and simply a mechanic and there
	for consistency, and for a roleplaying skill for those warriors
	and marines to buy up.

	I won't go into refuting your claims that no land based strategy
	or tactics skill would evolved beyond saying that even the 
	stone age people in Java and Polyneisia had generals(call chiefs)
	who knew how to lead a fight.

	Also note, 500 people is a _HUGE_ army in Geleia or hell anywhere
	else on the planet to have in the field.

> 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.

And every step of the way I've asked repeatedly for people's imputs
on this stuff.  I didn't even come up with the armor stats, I asked for
Kevin to write this up, and thats what I used, I made a couple of
additions to it, pricing, availability, and difficulty to make, but
thats it for armor.

As far as weapons go, I posted at least once, I think twice or more 
a complete list of the weaponry so people could look at it and make
comments and suggestions.  I don't have omniscience, though it would
be cool to have, so I need imput on this.

After the brief talk we had yesterday about weapons Pat, I thought
about it and proposed to folks lastnight if they'd mind the removal
of the d20 weapon infavor of the d12. I'm still waiting to see how
others feel before doing so, though the two who have responded don't
see a problem with this.

re: me doing things for my player?  cute, but I think I can see
where this is coming from.  Fencing has long been a skill that bugs
me with its utteruselessness.  So over a year ago I rewrote it including
a list of fencing weapons and gave it to dan.  These weapons were _NOT_
standard weapons that were already covered, they were the Sabre, Rapier,
Main-Gauche, Estoc, and Epee.  None did more than a d8 damage and
I based it on RL where the above weapons are used in fencing.  Then because
these weapons are used in fencing, I placed their 'weapon skills' in
the Marine background's list because Marines have the "Fencing" skill.
If that is in error, then I want to hear about it, and why.

I've also heard the arguement that only 'underwater capable' weapons
should be marine weapons.  *shrug* okay, but noone has yet to come up
with a counter argument to mine of the Fencing skill making these
weapons marine weapons.  If you want'em to be warrior weapons, thats
fine with me, but lets move fencing to warrior as well.  *shrug* where
is the problem here?  I don't see one with that, just means I'll need
to by down fencing, rapier, and sabre.  Also about the underwater weapons
as well, does that include crossbows, spears, short swords, stilletos,
and all other long thin weapons that are used for thrusting and there
for easily useable underwater?  Also Rob's test of swinging a sword
underwater has shown that a sword can be used underwater with little
added difficulty to hit.  So does that mean that the long sword should
become a warrior weapon?  *shrug*  

Oh, and about doing things that effect my character.  It may seem that
way because when a person is writing things, they generally think of
what they are most experienced with and what comes to mind first is
what they have been dealing with.  Hince why Einstein didn't write
a lot of books on cooking Chitlins, but did a good deal of work on
nuclear physics. =)


> 
> 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....).

I consider Steve to be very objective as well, and he plays in the
Centralia setting regularly.  *shrug* I don't consider it a problem, and
to my knowledge has not been a problem to date, but then again since
its me looking at me, I probably wouldn't be the first to notice.  But
I will attempt to keep a look at my actions.  If it will make people
more comfortable, I will post to the geleia list, or even the GMlist
every action my character takes and why.  *shrug*  It'll take a bit, but
if people are that worried about it, then let me know, but frankly,
I'm _NOT_ going to stop playin in Geleia and not enjoy the fruits of
my labor and th labor of others.

Also Dan and I agreed, as did everyone else during the 1st GM's meeting
and then later during the Senior GM meeting that people who wrote
up an area could not have characters who rise to prominence in
that area.  i.e. I cannot have a character that becomes a bigshot
in Kieron's Watch, Southham, Liston, Devon, Aelran, Brinshire, or Grahmshire.
Why? I wrote'em and know them too well, and frankly, I have 0 problem
with this.  It might change if someone else writes a pile of stuff for
thata area, but frankly, I don't really care either way.  I'm not
out for Jander, Baran, or Gerard to become king, to become a noble, to
become a shipping magnate, etc...  And besides, even if I was, I'd
need to do it in Kraelthon or Northham.

This is the only part I take offense at, suggesting that this is
purely for personal gain.  yeah..I'm spending multiple hrs a day
and documenting all of this as well as I can for my own personal
benefit. =)  *shrug* but still it is a legit arguement, and if people
who do think I have a problem with this, then _PLEASE_ say something.

> 
> 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.


re:erratas for sat after classes begin. amen, already in the works. =)

I do have a few little pet peaves of my own.  The only real one is that
people will sit in the background and snipe and be hypocritical but will
offer no suggestions.  My refusal of an idea may be abrupt or curt,
and if so, I'm sorry, but please, sell me on the idea.  And as Pat
suggested, don't attack me about it.

Pat also eluded to a case of me simply walking out on a conversation.
The only time I can think of this happening was when the person making
the suggestion was being pretty abusive in their tone.  *shrug*  I'm
not gonna put up with that.  I might still amend my opinion on their
arguments, as in this case I did, but I'm not going to put up with
the crap of children.

Wright