ccs007@ucdavis.UUCP (Cionex) (12/06/85)
Peter...Now that you've taken the juiciest quotes out of my mail out of context, and posted my private correspondence to the net without my permission, I figure I might as well get equal time. As for my snobbishness, I'll not deny that. I admittedly have a relatively closed mind regarding changes to AD&D for several reasons. But first, allow me to confront a question upon which I thought all people were in agreement - The concept that AD&D works best when played with one, and only one, player character per person. I still believe this is the ONLY way to play the game, and here's why: 1) It requires all of a player's attention to play ONE character to the best of their ability. When faculties of a player are divided, the quality of play, particularly in the very important area of role-playing inevitably goes down. It is a simple matter of the ability to focus one's attention - they will be able to do so better on one character than two. 2) In an ongoing campaign, knowledge is often more valuable than riches, magic, and can open a lot of doors for the players if used properly. No matter what the intentions of the player, knowledge seems to 'seep' from the brain of one character to the other, which can lead to nearly inconquerable problems of who knew what when. This is particularly dangerous if the main players of the campaign are of varying alignments, churches, families, and power. 3) Favoritism always rears its ugly head. I have yet to see a player who is running two (or, in truly sick cases, more) pcs consider them both equals. Invariably, one character acts considerably more than the other, and the neglected pc becomes a waste of time and energy. Dundracon X...Feb. 14-17th, Oakland Ca. (MGC's 75th convention! Long may they reign!) As for my hatred of AD&D expansion, particularly the additions of Arduin rules, and the squeezing of the loyal players by TSR (Could be a long post), look forward to a post after Xmas. Until then, this is... The Fugitive Guy...A Quinn Martin Production. This week's episode: Dead Ringer. Wwishing you a happy holiday... Gary Huckabay !ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb!ccs007
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (12/06/85)
In article <440@ucdavis.UUCP> ccs007@ucdavis.UUCP (Cionex) writes: > >Peter...Now that you've taken the juiciest quotes out of my mail out of >context, and posted my private correspondence to the net without my permission, >I figure I might as well get equal time. > Several people (besides the principles) have made remarks of varying intensity about the posting of (excerpts from?) mail received, without getting permission from the sender of the mail. My question is this: Is this merely an impolite thing to do, or is there some "legal" basis for the objections? I mean, usually when I give something to somebody, be it a letter or a cookie, I expect the object to no longer be mine. The person can do with it whatever he/she wants. Carrying this thought into the realm of E-mail and the Net, I would think that if one is going to be embarassed (or whatever) by the posting that will be seen by 3000 strangers, they would be embarassed by the same words seen by a single stranger, and perhaps should have thought twice before sending the mail in the first place. Now, my opinion on the *subject* of the postings... As long the the DM (GM, if you prefer) states in advance what rules they will be playing by (if any), and impartially follows those rules (or lack thereof), it would be fine with me. However, the DM in question seems a bit too strict for my tastes, and I don't think I'd be comfortable with his games. So it goes. - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster)
ccohesh001@ucdavis.UUCP (Peter Costantinidis, Jr.) (12/06/85)
Gary Huckabay (ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb!ccs007) writes: > > Peter...Now that you've taken the juiciest quotes out of my mail out of > context, and posted my private correspondence to the net without my permission, > I figure I might as well get equal time. First of all, Mr. Arrogant, I did not "take the juciest quotes out of" your "mail out of context". I posted EXACTLY (minus some mail header garbage) what was sent and received. Second of all (flames welcome) I do not see the problem with making public something such as mail. Is e-mail to be treated any different than postal mail? If I want to show a letter I received in the postal mail to someone else I go ahead and do it, without first asking permission. After all, isn't that letter now mine???? I do have enough sense not to show a letter to someone whom I know the writer would not like to see it. I had assumed that Gary, being the expert that he says he is, would have no objections to sharing his wisdom with the net. Someone suggested (via usenet) that if I was going to post mail from Gary that I should first delete references to the source. I consider this to be a form of plagiarism. Perhaps `private correspondences' shouldn't be mentioned on usenet. After all, how can one avoid charges of misrepresentation without direct quotes? And, how do you avoid plagiarism without mentioning the source? Maybe I'm just ignorant to the `customs' of usenet. If so, perhaps someone could publish a set of `customs' to some appropriate newsgroup. > As for my snobbishness, I'll not deny that. I admittedly have a relatively > closed mind regarding changes to AD&D for several reasons. But first, allow > me to confront a question upon which I thought all people were in agreement - > The concept that AD&D works best when played with one, and only one, player > character per person. I still believe this is the ONLY way to play the game, > and here's why: > > 1) It requires all of a player's attention to play ONE character to the best > of their ability. When faculties of a player are divided, the quality of > play, particularly in the very important area of role-playing inevitably > goes down. It is a simple matter of the ability to focus one's attention - > they will be able to do so better on one character than two. Nothing like stating the obvious. We do, however, seem to differ on one important view here. When I play, I want to maximize my enjoyment of the game. The quality of the game always comes in second to the enjoyment of the game. > 2) In an ongoing campaign, knowledge is often more valuable than riches, > magic, and can open a lot of doors for the players if used properly. > No matter what the intentions of the player, knowledge seems to 'seep' > from the brain of one character to the other, which can lead to nearly > inconquerable problems of who knew what when. This is particularly > dangerous if the main players of the campaign are of varying alignments, > churches, families, and power. What if the two PC's are played as friends and companions (with similar, if not the same, alignments)? If they are always adven- turing together, wouldn't it only be natural for them to acquire and share similar, if not the same, knowledge? As to "inconquerable problems", I guess that I just haven't run into them yet. > 3) Favoritism always rears its ugly head. I have yet to see a player who is > running two (or, in truly sick cases, more) pcs consider them both equals. > Invariably, one character acts considerably more than the other, and the > neglected pc becomes a waste of time and energy. You obviously haven't ever seen the two PC's I've been running together for a couple of years now. They differ so much in abilities that when one is seeing a lot of action the other probably isn't. I'd say they compliment eachother quite well. I don't consider either one to be a waste of time or energy and I doubt the the DM would consider either to be neglected. In conclusion, it would seem that your "relatively closed mind" regarding changes to AD&D has blinded you to the fact that the game is commonly played with such changes and still "works" to the satisfication of those who play with them. -- -- Peter Costantinidis, Jr. -- ucdavis!deneb!ccohesh001@ucb-vax.arpa (ARPA) -- ...!{ucbvax,lll-crg,dual}!ucdavis!deneb!ccohesh001 (UUCP)
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) (12/09/85)
Legally, mail sent to you is yours to do with as you will. Socially,
however, making it public without implicit or explicit permission is rude,
and should always be carefully considered. It is justified, in my opinion,
if the person was ruder to you than your posting the mail would make you
rude to him, or if the mail contains information (not including information
protected by non-disclosure agreement, etc., of course) that many people
would be worse off without, such as evidence that blatantly lying to
employees is a routine practice at some organization.
These criteria do not appear to have been met in this particular case.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Software Designer, CMU Center for Art and Technology
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu | uucp: {seismo,decwrl,ucbvax,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 | This is at least as funny as my other signatures.franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/10/85)
In article <440@ucdavis.UUCP> ccs007@ucdavis.UUCP (Cionex) writes: >1) It requires all of a player's attention to play ONE character to the best > of their ability. > >2) No matter what the intentions of the player, knowledge seems to 'seep' > from the brain of one character to the other, which can lead to nearly > inconquerable problems of who knew what when. > >3) Favoritism always rears its ugly head. All these objections apply equally to the NPCs run by the GM. If the GM can run dozens of NPCs impartially, and keep track of what each knows while himself knowing everything, surely the players can deal with two or three. The players I generally play with do so quite well. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108