Authority, Power and Crap

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

Just because I can not resist, I will throw in my two cents worth. 
Please feel free to attack, chastise anything I say (Unless I get
accused of cheating, I promise not to act hot and overly hostile to
what anyone has to say :)  )

*********************************************************************
***************

The Fantasy club has in many ways enjoyed a unique situation over
the past couple of decades.  The creator of the gaming system which
we play has been available to answer questions, take suggestions,
make rulings etc.  Most gaming groups never have this luxury and
therefore come up with other ways to cope with the inevitable
problems and questions that a good (i.e. inventive) group of players
will create.  Dan used the fantasy club as test bed for his game and
defiantly needed a lot of control over what was going on in order to
successfully try out his ideas.  The end result of course being
Adventure Quest (you know the fun of D and D without as much bull
shit).  The AQ system has been finished for the most part at least
from Dan's point of view for over a year (Correct me if I am wrong
please, Dan) and Dan really does not have as much time to devote to
what amounts to a game.  Yes, Dan is in the really real world with
paychecks and deadlines and a lot of serious responsibilities and
doesn't have enough time to have fun, much less argue.

Because of this and the fact that some GM's have felt that they do
not have enough say in how things are run.  A proposal was made for
a set of "local rules" where applicable.  A large number a big
gaming groups adopt a similar philosophy (my group in high school
which generally met every other week and has a total membership of
about 30 people) since they do not have the luxury of having the
game creator available.   As a group (yes, that evil democracy word)
they interpret rules, throw out some rules and basically just decide
how they want to play.  The beauty of this system is that it is
flexible and can change instead of remaining static and the
personality of those most involved have the power to influence their
situation.  This tactic is not as easy as a one person making all
the decisions, but in this scenario one person does not have to be
the bad guy.  If someone feels something sucks, chances are they are
partially to blame by either 1. not speaking up 2. voting for the
sucking thing in question 3. not voting at all.  Dan has had to play
the role of BAD GUY for way to long.  I mean really the majority of
us are in college or older, we should be grown up enough to discuss
possibilities without getting personal and without needing a
parental figure to blame when things don't go well.

I really feel that it would be a good idea for standard rulings,
local rule changes/additions to be discussed on this list until a
near consensus is reached on each topic (Steve keeps track of these
on a rulings page that anyone can go to and see what is in progress,
already ruled on etc.).  Once a near consensus is reached, the topic
should be voted on by all current GM's (i.e. GM at least once a
semester, this will also encourage people to be GMs more so that
they too can have their say!).  Settings are under the perview of
the setting coordinator and that setting's GMs.  Setting stuff means
actors, buildings, etc.  Not rules, skills, or precedents that could
effect the entire gaming group.  This system would be good for years
to come.  As the next generation of AQ players comes into existence,
if they think a rule sucks, all they have to do is get enough people
to agree and then change it (local rules of course).  If Dan likes
any of the ideas, he can change the manual as well since he is the
ultimate and only authority on that issue.

Yes, democracy is hard, but I feel it is eminently more satisfying. 
Besides, if it really will be just bickering and nothing decided
than it will go nowhere and a problem doesn't exist.  If a group
really can reach a consensus and agree...well many minds can think
of more and better stuff than just one alone.

I really feel we came a long long way over the past week, just look
at what all was discussed and had almost gotten a consensus (move
through, dice pooling, etc.).  If there are several people out their
who haven't agreed with the apparent growing consensus on these
topics, then please speak up (Can't say you won't be summarily
"jumped on" etc, or you might be listened to because you had an idea
or point no one else has thought of).

It is my hope that in the end this will make change a little easier
on Dan as well.  As creator of something, he had to take the long
view (i.e. what would be fun for the majority of the English
speaking world to play), not the short view of what a small group of
obviously disturbed and screwy individual like (i.e. us).  By
separating the campaign from the role playing game, maybe Dan will
not need to feel as conflicted when changes are proposed (i.e.
sacrificing the integrity of the game to satisfy his friends
needs/wants).

Sincerely,

Kris Ames