RE: Nexus-remove

[Steven Ames <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>]

Couple of quick comments if no one minds. I've been pretty impressed 
that so far a majoe event has occured without a (lot of) name calling.
Excellent!

> A)  As to the "game never happened ruling," in the past when Termie got up 
> from one of my games he went to Dan and complained for a week.  Dan then 
> ruled that the game never happened.  I personally was in the party that 
> stopped the sea wall from being destroyed and negotiated peace with the 
> T'orites of Gairntown.  Dan also ruled that that adventure never happened 
> and destroyed the sea wall.  Other than that, I don't know know how many 
> times Dan had made that ruling.  But it has happened to me twice once as a 
> player and once as a GM.  I know it has happened in the past.

Can't argue with your history lesson. I can however ask the rather obvious
followup question of "just because its happened before, does that mean that
it _SHOULD_ happen"? I'm sure most of us would say that it shouldn't. "It
never happened" rulings are weak. Very weak. We operate in a multi-GM setting.
We deal with it when people make rulings that we might not agree with. We
creatively adjust our plotlines accordning and move on. Adversity actually
creates more plot lines than it destroys.

> C)  Once in every six months is the rule but out of courtesy of other GMs 
> you should not make earth-shattering changes without consulting them.  And 
> consulting Dan who has not GMs or played games in the last six months other 
> than the newby games may have been faulty.  I understand that you might not 
> have realized you made a mistake in consulting Dan.  Lyle would have been a 
> much better choice.

The Nexus was dan's plot line. Consulting Dan on it was entirely appropriate.
Lyle doesn't run the Nexus. *shrug* Enough of us griped about its existance
that you'd think there would be rejoycing with its destruction...

> E)  As for old PC as actors, I apologize. Lyle has given permission for 
> that to happen as long as they stay actors.  I was misinformed so  you can 
> see how I misinterpreted it.  The only information I had to go on was that 
> you used him in your game.

Its bad form. Always. As a GM we always have to set a higher standard
than we expect from players. Playing your dead adventurer as an actor
removes some of your credibility. Actually... that applies to your
retired adventurer as well. Or hell, your adventurrer period. You, as
a GM, should never use your own adventurer in a game.

If for some reasons that other adventurers bring your adventurer into
it (in circumstances where "you can't find him/her" don't work)... its
best to play your role and get someone else to GM that piece. If thats
not possible then do what you must but downplay the hell out of your
adventurer less you risk credibility.

Just my $.02. Thanks for listening (reading?)

-Steve