Re: Characters w/out their players (was: Rougtero Vivocefo)

[Kris Ames <kris@cioe.com>]

I agree, I thought that was a given.  I mean, I know of few people who take jobs
without getting atleast a verbal job discription.

-Kris
Lyle H Janney wrote:

> Quite true, Kris.  However, to avoid complications, I have learned
> by experience that it might be a good idea to inform the affected
> _player_ that their adventurer now has certain _obligations_, and
> failure to meet those obligations could very likely result in their loss
> of that position of power.  If the player is not so informed before-
> hand (though it should be obvious that power has the price of
> responsibility), then complications may arise where players start
> to take the consequences of their adventurer's actions personally.
>
> Lyle
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Kris Ames [SMTP:kris@cioe.com]
>
> Well,
>
> I agree that something similar would be a good way to handle an absence,
> but if a player character assumes a job/position which inherently
> requires them to almost always be in X place, going adventuring or not
> being there a large portion of the time would severely impact their job
> performance.  I mean just imagine if the Pope decided that he was going
> to reguarly make unannounced trips across the globe (I am not talking
> schedualed PR type things or official tours).  Certain jobs require
> attendance.  That is also (IMO) a good way to balance out the power that
> would come with a high position with the "cost" to the character.
>
> -Kris