Re: Here it Comes

[John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

>From mooch@ns1.cioe.com Fri Sep  4 13:49 EST 1998
Received: from ns1.cioe.com (ns1.cioe.com [204.120.165.37])
	by expert.cc.purdue.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA18134
	for <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:49:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mooch@localhost)
	by ns1.cioe.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id NAA26384
	for johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:46:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 13:46:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Greg Mowczko <mooch@ns1.cioe.com>
Message-Id: <199809041846.NAA26384@ns1.cioe.com>
To: johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu
Subject: Re: Here it comes (Was Re: New Plan)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980904105856.27187E-100000@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 11423
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Blah. Spew time. First off for those who are questioning the bygone
days of "fun" and what all this argumenting is about. My view.
I've been playing in the Fantasy Club for 10 years now ( started in
August '88 ). Back then it was a D&D derivitive that already had many
D&D things thrown out and better priestly diferentiation. My second
year is when AQ was born ( due to a desire to make a New/Better system
after TSR shirked Dan and Bob Blake at that years GenCon ). We started
making all the rules you see today ( hence why Steve's, Lyle's and my
name appear in the front of the book as designers right after Dan and
Bob's ).

The campaign played by the rules as we made them up quickly. That done
we had a game. There were though actions that players would take that
could not "fit" in the rules and GMs would "wing it" leading to many
precedences. As more players came in some of these precedences were
lost to the new crowd and other decisions were made and doubt amoung
what could and could not be done and accepted by a GM came into play.
The lack of communication that developed also increased this. I felt
that this list was to bring more "standard" rulings into play so ALL
GMs would play the same way and players wouldn't feel like they were
being jerked around in their actions. We didn't need this list years
ago since most GMs were on the same thought plane. But since there 
have been new GMs who would make "bad" decisions something needed to 
be done. Grant you with the odd adventure you can as a player count
on the fact that what worked under 1 GM wont work under another. But
for all the normal cases we needed more consistency. Hence this list.

Now onto comments:

> From: John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
>
> On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Steve Ames wrote:
>
> > Don't Moderate Angry... should be a slogan. I've stated for years if
> > anyone has a problem with me, approach me and talk about it. A few
>
> > pathetic groups ever assembled. I've had self righteous GMs shut down
> > entire plot lines of mine based on player rumor (Dan, Lyle?). I've had 
>
> Isn't Dan the Campaign Moderator? i.e. he CAN

Even with Dan being the campaign coordinator he should not be able to
shoot down a plot line based on heresay. If he heres something screwy
is going on with a plot of Steve's he should ask Steve why he might be
doing what is being claimed to be done. Lyle I believe shut down a whole
plotline that Steve was developing with the Kurago on an ( apparent ) whim.
( Not being privy to more of these details this is a perceptional comment. )

> Did you approach him and talk about it? as suggested above?

Talk should be done before the damage not after.

> > accusations of cheating, GM impartiality, etc... Not once has anyone b
>
> You have/had a HIRUDO ... you know, the character in the book prefaced by
> (paraphrased) PLAYERS CAN'T PLAY THESE!  Regardless of legitimacy behind
> your playing it, to all appearances you appear to be
> bending/torquing/breaking the rules because they expressly say NO.

Dan made Karl into the Hirudo. He also made Sean's Gustav into one when he was
going by the name of Psamm. Eric Starky was also one ( the first player
hirudo ). There have been a few others as well ALL of which were made
either by Dan or ( in Preston's case ) allowed it to happen at which point
he made the declaration that any Hirudo a player makes will be auto-retired
into actordom.

> Add to it the "local rules" that are added to the Centralia setting or the
> "Hirudo write ups," or "special defensive skill" that fairly regularly pop
> up in non Centralia games, and you wonder WHY people may have issue.

The "local rules" you spew about were only things to make Hirudo less of
ultimate killer hence curbing Steve's own strength. The "special defensive
skill" was long before Centralia and is a "magic" item possesed by few.
What Rob has is a variation of it.

> If you want to have localized rules for your setting
> If you have the permission of the campaign moderator (regardless of WHO it
> is)
> If you keep the local rules LOCAL ie NOT SPILLING INTO OTHER GM's GAMES
>
> I got no problem with that.  It's not my cup of tea, but it's not a
> problem.
>
> HERE'S the problem:
>
> Those most visible Torquing the existing rules are among the most vocal of
> the advocates on this group calling for rule consistancy through finalized
> modification.
>
> This concerns me.
>
> The cynic in me wants to believe this is so the torqued rulings may stand
> as cannon.
>
> The rest of the person hopes this is not true.
>
> > A few of us try to rise above this mold and confront stuff headon and
> > are branded troublemakers and negative voices. That is the voice of
> > fear. No one likes being wrong. 
>
> Hey, more compliments ... Thanks!  Happy to be part of your Noble Elite!
>
> > Dan feels attacked by every statement. Lyle maybe is attacked by
> > every statement. 
>
> Gee, I wonder why they feel that way ...

As he said Dan "feels" attacked when he isn't ( in all cases ) while Lyle
might deserve any feelings of attack, not a feeling.

> > We create hierarchies of GMs and set one of us higher than others. This
> > is insanity.
>
> I'll ignore the jab here and field the hierarchy issue.
>
> Dan is campaign manager because the club voted him into that postion.
> Allah did not rule it so, he did not part the Red Sea, He did not inherit
> the throne.

Actually he created the throne and sat down upon it. He didn't part a sea
he caused it to exist. It was not really ever voted upon nor do I feel it
needs to be.

> THE CLUB voted Dan into a postion that THE CLUB understood involved being
> in AUTHORITY over the GMs
>
> If we do not want him in that postion, there are provisions within the
> club's consititution to take care of that.  These provisions I am sure do
> not include a group of GMs suddenly saying they want to change the way the
> CLUB works without having the members vote on it.
>
> Ironic that there are problems understanding that, as those proposing
> change are doing it in the name of democracy. 
>
> > Someone explains there belief
> > behind a rule and are accused of being a munchkin instead of a role
> > player. Is this the way to remove hard feelings and acheive progress?
>
> There exist differences between discussing rulings outside the game, and
> flat out verbal fights between PLAYERS and the GM.  IMHO nothing discussed
> in this group, a forum for such discussion, is munchkinism.  However, the
> ends to the discussions may be. Munchkinism does not involve what you
> COULD DO with the rules, rather what you ACTUALLY DO with the rules.

I reserve the right to call a GM on anything that does not fit with the
real rules or known consitency rulings if it means the death of my
adventurer due to me putting myself in what I believe is safety and the
GM getting me as well. I also expect to be called on any "crap" I as I
a GM pull. I know I am not a perfect GM but if I do something and a
player stops me to say that can't happen. I will listen to what they
say ( as long as it is quick and pertinent ) and either go with what I
said or say "my bad I forgot that you had moved". Usually I would hope
this only happens when I "accidently" kill someone. If a GM gets me in
in an effect that causes my death and there is no way it could have gotten
me I will speak up. And if I still die and was not given a reasonable
answer to why I was killed and not the 2 or three others who were closer
to the center of the effect and got away without a scratch I might just
never play under that GM again. The list of these GMs is pretty short
since I will always play at least once more if the situation was unique.
The top two on my list of "nope won't go there" don't even GM anymore.

> > I think this thread should be dropped. No good will come of it.
>
> Then why are you continuing it with this post?
>
> > If people don't want to discuss rules, that's cool. Personally I'd
> > rather discuss stuff in private anyway. Then maybe just bring up
> > suggestions and not allow for debate. Bring them up in meetings
> > where people can't hide smugly behind electrons. 
>
> I don't mind the list as a forum for discussion ... for time constraints,
> I rather like it. I think your assumption of annonymity by "hiding smugly
> behind electrons" is invalid, I know who you guys are ... the group's just
> too small.  It's not like I'm going to come in on Saturday and say "I
> never posted that"

Ah but being able to say something online IS different that what people
will say face to face. Expression is lost and anger is hidden. It is
just typing. Ask Dan about replying to posts. He in the past used to write
highly emotional replys to email and scrap it and start over with a more
sedate reply. I haven't touched this thread until now since I wanted to
get my thoughts lined up and maybe not miss a reply before I'm done. I
know that while typing this Steve has already responded to you and will
possibly respond to this make threads as this hard to kill.

> If I have a serious problem ... I doubt anyone on the list thinks I would
> not let whomever the problem was with not know about it.
>  
> > I would suggest that we cannot bring up a topic and vote on it
> > in the same meeting. No railroading, no fasttrack. The topics for
> > voting should be sent out a few days ahead of the meetings and
> > anything to be voted on should be distributed on paper the
> > meeting before hand. A GM is someone who GMs at least once per
> > semester. Lets track that. This encourages people to GM and
> > cuts off some people who just want to argue. The GM schedule for
> > the next two weeks should be determined at these meetings which
> > I suggest we hold every two weeks starting with this coming
> > saturday. Anyone who wants to can bring anything in (in writing
> > with enough copies for all present) and request it be voted on
> > the following meeting.
> >
> > I think these are simple guidelines and will let us operate in
> > a more structured environment. The semester just started lets
> > start taking attendance. Until we nomintate and vote someone
> > else in, I'll keep track of who has moderated. Since this is
> > the first semester of tracking we'll remember back to last 
> > week and anyone else who wants to stay for the meeting will
> > put themselves on this semester's GM schedule. I'll post the
> > schedule at http://www.aquest.com/~steve/sched.html
> > 
> > The quickest way to get things neatened up is to put in some guidelines 
> > for us, as GMs, to follow. Is this agreeable? If so we just schedule
> > GM meetings so that we have:
> > 
> > 1) Discussion on voting topics
> > 2) Voting
> > 3) Handing out proposals for next meeting discussion/voting
> > 4) Discussion of ongoing plotlines.
> > 
> > Number four is a biggie. I think it'll help to ease tension if
> > everyone knows where things are and were they're going.
> > 
> > See everyone Saturday at 6PM?
> > 
> > 						-Steve
>
> Shouldn't the club officers be involved (read as RUNNING) a big portion of
> this, especially the administration stuff?
>
> John

Club officials were as Dan stated originally created just to make sure we have
rooms. Administration of the campaign is not withing their sphere of influence
unless they volenteer it. That said hopefully I won't have to feel obliged to
comment more on this thread I would like gone.
						Greg