Using Actors (Re: Rougtero Vivocefo)

[Steve Ames <steve>]

Gotta agree with just about everything Wright said here. Every setting
has Actors that are just too visible for one GM to control (unless that
GM is _ALWAYS_ GM-ing). So there are some public actors (as Wright says).
But then every GM has actors that only s/he should run in order to
maintain consistent behavior.

This does create a few problems. If a player approaches this actor
then the current GM only has a few options:

1) track down the correct GM (hence slowing down your game);
2) wing it. Usually a bad idea because the GM might not have any real
   idea of the nature of the actor/adventurer relationship from the
   actor's standpoint, let along a real grasp of what the actors 
   motivations and resources are.
3) Uh... sorry. They don't appear to be in. They're busy. Come back
   later.

None of these are great solutions. In general if an adventure wants
to talk to a specific actor it should happen during town actions where
they can track down the correct GM themselves. If it _MUST_ happen
during a game you are forced to go with one of the above options. The
best option really depends on circumstances.

#2 will always exist. Too many GMs are also players. Full writeups
would start ruining the game for everyone.

						-Steve

> I disagree with most the part of making an actor into general use if
> it is an important one.  Actors should be run only by those who
> create them, unless they are specifically created for general use.
> Several Gm's won't even bother to read the writeup on the actor and
> will do things the actor would or could never do.  That is crap.  
> Important actors (including retired players) should be run by folks
> who have a good idea what that actor can do.  It makes the actor
> consistant and prevents stuff of the actor suddenly tossing around
> black beams of death or handing out dozens of magical items to
> players.  Note: I've seen both of these done on more than one
> occasion.
>
> Wright