People who left and what rule discussions have to do with it

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

Hmm.. Entertaining. 

One point I would like to make here is that one person's definition
of munchkinism, power-gaming, and rules-torqueing could be very
different.  For example,  Let's say (i.e. this is hypothetical) I
have a warrior who is rate 50.  I strictly try and follow the rules
in the book and even try to follow the perceived spirit of the rules
(i.e. don't "rule torque" and use blatant loop holes that exist).  I
build my character by buying all the necessary things DP, Weapon
Skill, Wrestling, etc.  Let's even say I roll play.  My warrior has
a fetish for scarves and believes animals are Osirus' gift to man
kind and shouldn't be killed or harmed for any reason.  Because a
rate 50 character with the right attributes can and is down right
deadly and because I am vocal and role-play, I would be labeled a
"Power Gamer" by some.

My point here is that all of the things Lyle is saying people have
left for are true.  They all happen at some point by any person's
definition, but if everyone stopped doing "Kris' definition" or
"Lyle's definition" of all of these actions many people would still
feel these things were going on by "their definition".

I really feel that most of the discussions going on here about
adjusting how some of the rules of AQ were played and listing some
standard rulings on topics that constantly get adjudicated different
ways was positive. And really isn't related to why some people left.
These discussions do not equal power gaming, munchkinism, or
rules-torching.  They are about getting rid of inconsistencies by
coming up with standard rulings that hopefully most/all GM's agree
with and thing make sense (i.e. if it makes since then, I will
remember it and run it that way) .  If loop holes exist or there is
perceived ambiguity on a spell or something, then one GM runs it one
way another does it another and THAT leads to claims of GM
favoritism, power gaming, munchkinism etc.

As an example lets take the discussion we were having on move
through.  This came up because some creatures can do it (Dragoons). 
The next logical question a player asks is "Why can't I if I can
move as fast"...He asks GM number 1 if he can.  That GM things well
the creature can do it, but there is no book rule to allow it..He
can fly as fast as one.. GM #1's reply sure, but you only get one
attack.  Now it is the next week, GM # 2 says "no not in the book". 
Now it is the next week..GM #3 says sure and get all your attacks. 
The next week a player with a sword wants to do it and he is speed
up so he can move the right speed..., or a normal player wants to do
it and a GM lets him move 5 feet for every Multi Attack he
sacrifices.  The end result of all this mess is that some GM's
appear to be jerks because they won't let a player character do
something his actors (AKA monsters) can, some GM's look like they
are playing favorites, and no one is ruling the same.

I can think of many, many more examples of these types of
ambiguities (bludgeon, lightening bolt, etc.).

Consistent GMing leads to better players, less rule torquing
(because everyone knows the standard ruling, not just the book), and
in my mind more fun.

What isn't fun is when people take things too personally (I
definitely do on some things, generally relating to what I feel are
personal slurs) and feelings get hurt.  Local rulings are just that,
ways the majority of the GMs who are actively involved in the club
believe are the fair and constant way to rule things.   AQ as a game
and a manual are always 100% the perview of Dan, but I really don't
see how a side reference packet of Standard Rulings is a bad thing. 
It would stop Dan from having to tailor his creation to one small
(in the scheme of things) group of people, but also allow for quick,
consistent group guidelines.  Basically I guess that once the GM
group voted on something and it was passed, it is the responsibility
of the person who brought the topic up to write up and pass out for
the local rulings pamphlet.  That way Dan would not feel that he had
to show up all the time (he is so very busy of late), many people
could share the burden, and best of all get some consistency that
the majority of GM's can agree upon.  Once the majority has spoken,
everyone abides by the ruling.  If the minority can find enough
people to over rule then it gets overturned, but I don't think many
issues, once they have been hammered out would need to be changed.

-Kris
----------
> From: Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>
> To: AQ Moderators List (orig) (E-mail) <gmlist@cioe.com>
> Subject: RE: A note from your friendly neighborhood Devil's
Advocate
> Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 3:30 PM
> 
> Well, I figured someone would ask eventually.  I just expected the
question
> would come from one of the more skeptical members of the list.
> 
> In response, I wrote up a list of those people whom I know either
no longer,
> or seldom, show up due, primarily, to the behaviors of certain
club members.
> Some of these people have simply found 'better' things to do with
their Sat.
> nights, and I can't say that I blame them.  The list currently has
_15_ people
> on it and I'm certain I'm missing a few because I just jotted down
the people
> who popped into my head during the first 5 minutes I thought about
it.
> 
> To confirm my list, I spoke with one of the people on the list to
get their view
> and they concurred.  The majority of the people listed left with
very a bad taste
> in their mouth and those that return from time to time tend to do
so because
> they have little else to do and are hoping that they will actually
have a decent
> gaming experience that night.
> 
> I do not currently intend to publish the list because of my own
personal
> convictions regarding decorum.  That, and I fully expect that
various members
> of the GMLIST would run down the list of names and give their own
comments
> regarding certain people on the list (e.g., 'glad they left', 'no,
they work now', 
> no, they still show up', etc.).  I'm not out to start another
argument, I just want
> you folks to realize that there are a lot of people who no longer
find AQ to be
> as much fun as it used to be.  To quote someone from the list of
names, "if it
> came down to a choice between AQ and a root canal, well, I'd have
to think
> about it."  The reasons they cite for it not being as much fun are
the very
> reasons I mentioned earlier; munchkinism, power-gaming, and
rules-torqueing.
> 
> I realize that this leaves you guys thinking that I am unable to
substantiate my
> claims.  I assert that I am correct nonetheless.  If you really
want to _prove_
> me wrong, then find 15 people who no longer show up, rarely show
up, or only
> show up to GM and ask them why they rarely, if ever, come to play
anymore.
> Actually, you'd better make that 19 people, I thought of 4 more a
couple minutes
> ago.
> 
> Lyle
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Wright Frazier [SMTP:khelek@ns1.cioe.com]
> 
> Who has left because of this 'attitude' that you bring up?  Not
that
> I pay huge amounts of attention to who shows and who doesn't show,
but
> from what I've heard, the majority of people who no longer show up
are
> because of work related responsiblities.
> 
> Wright
>