RE: Rougtero Vivocefo

["Brandon Stenger" <bh010296@prodigy.net>]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not just appointing my character the
Vivocefo out of fiat. When I posted to the list asking about
the Rougtero Vivocefo, I got mail (not on the list) to the
effect of, "I thought Warrick was the Vivocefo" and "Why worry
about an actor, just make Warrick the Vivocefo."

To cut debate short, I'll just use the actor I have created, and
will make the writeup publicly available so that she may be used
by all Rougtero GM's. High priest is really not that much of an
achievement unless I'm around often to play, which I won't be.

Brandon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wright Frazier [mailto:khelek@vic.cioe.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 6:25 PM
> To: Rick Myers
> Cc: jedi@ecn.purdue.edu; khelek@ns1.cioe.com; gmlist@cioe.com
> Subject: Re: Rougtero Vivocefo
>
>
>
> I like B as well, I just don't think people should slip into it, less
> circumstances come out that way.  I guess the jist is, if ya wanna
> be the high priest, get the setting coordinator(centralia = steve,
> geleia = me, rougtero = ?) to GM it.  I'm sure my requirements for it
> will be different from those of Steve's, and who ever is the one for
> Rougtero will be different from ours.  Requirements as in many
> adventures/signing off on another GM doing it.  That way there is
> central acknowledgement and the setting coordinator can say that
> "yes, Bingy is the Vivocefo" and know why Bingy has such a lofty
> title.
>
> Re: BJ's comments on players as actors, thought thats what I said?  If
> 	you are given the writeup by said player you can run them.
> Otherwise
> 	no.  Don't cheese them out or give them these mysterious powers
> 	suddenly.  Also if the character IS used in some way, then it
> 	is the GM's obligation to let the owning player know what
> 	happened.
>
> Wright
>
>
> i There seems to be two possible solutions to this issue.
> >
> > A) Players can't be High Priests.
> >
> > or
> >
> > B) If a player is in a position of Power, there needs to be an
> immediate
> > second in command who is not a player character that a GM may use.
> >
> >
> > I prefer B, but it requires more work.  If a player isn't there, then
> > his character shouldn't be used.  But if the player is in charge of
> > something important, and immediate events demand a descision then there
> > needs to be someone who can act and do so under GM control.
> >
> > Rick
> > >
> > >
> > >> My personal view is that if you aren't there for people to consult
> > >> you about your characters actions on a regular basis then folks
> > shouldn't
> > >> be using you as an actor.  This can be SOMEWHAT alieviated by 1 GM
> > >> running the character who has a detailed writeup on the character
> > >> from the owning player.  But still, generally a bad idea all in all.
> > >>
> > >> Wright
> > >>
> > >
> > >Actually, I feel that it should be a step above this and say that we
> > >should not use player charactrers as actors at all unless we have been
> > >given express and specific permission to do so.
> > >
> > >While inconvienent, it is by far safer this way.  And,
> afterall, try as
> > we
> > >may, we cannot play the character as well or in accordance with the
> > >character's beliefs/feelings as well as the player whose character it
> > is.
> > >
> > >BJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
>