(Message wick:181)
Subj: Re: Complaints...
From: ork@lightside.com (John Wick)

  To: l5rrpginfo@frpg.com
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 17:37:27 PDT
-- /blue/homes/cowell/Mail/mhl.format --

>1.  ATTITUDE
>
>Obviously, I game differenly than Mr. Wick and the majority of the list.
>I've attempted to share a different viewpoint.  My examples are
>illustrations, not insults.  It's true I've been frustrated by some
>responses.  Being told your problems are meaningless has that effect.

Your problems with the game are not meaningless. I want _everyone_ to have
fun with the game. If you aren't having fun with the game, then I need to
know _exactly_ why.

>If the game works fine for you, that's great.  If you never run into
>major problems with your players, that's great, too.  If you can
>convince me that what I want out of the rules will ruin your enjoyment,
>I'll concede the point.

Well said.
_Everyone_ hear that?


>
>2.  NON-ANSWERS
>
>I don't accept "Whatever" as an answer.  I'm not asking "What should I
>do?" but "Why was this done?" and "What was meant?"  If I understand
>what Mr. Wick was trying to accomplish, I may learn why I have a problem
>and how I may better work with the system.  At the very least, I'd like
>to try to keep in-step with future game releases.
>
>If I've failed to convey this, I apologize.

The main problem I've had with most of the complaints on the list is that
most of them were rather ambiguous themselves.

"The Honor rules are ambiguous" is a good example.
I don't think they are. I think I've covered just about every situtation
that I could think of, and provided enough examples to show the players and
the GM how to wing it if things came up that I didn't think of.


>4.  NO SUGGESTIONS / "CRITICISM CONSTRUCTION"
>
>I didn't know the list had rules specific to criticism.  Perhaps
>someone could post them for me.

That's just . . . well, saying it's "common sense" isn't right. That would
intimate that you don't have common sense, which obviously isn't the case.
If you've got a problem with the game - or anybody else, for that matter -
spell it out. I can't fix it if I don't know what's broken.
Which leads to a whole new can of worms for another post . . .


>5.  AMBIGUOUS HONOR
>
>Special sore point for me.  I'm very jealous of my PCs and expect the
>same of other players.  Whenever a rule (or a GM) attempts to dictate my
>PC's behavior (which the Honor rules do), I become extremely exacting.
>I don't want arguments over how I perceive my PC vs. how my GM perceives
>him.  IMO, and IME, the ambiguity of the Honor rules leads to this sort
>of problem.

I addressed this a bit before.
How do you feel they are ambiguous? What's missing?

>Further, I feel that Honor is a major element of the game.  No one has
>told me otherwise.  I feel it isn't obvious to Westerners.  Again, I've
>seen no argument.  I feel it needs more than two pages of text.
>Suddenly, I've struck a nerve.  Why?  A gamer should not have to consult
>references to figure out how to apply a major rule.

Then how would you solve the situation?
In other words, what kind of Honor mechanic would you employ that would
solve the problem you have with the current one?
I don't know what problem you have with it - other than it's ambiguous - so
I don't know how to solve your problem.

>
>6.  STORY VS. GAME
>
>Different viewpoint time.  I don't buy games for their story; making
>stories is _my_ job as GM.  I buy games to get tools for use in story
>creation.  Letting me make my own tools (rules) isn't very helpful.
>Leaving me to interpret text isn't very helpful.

I think we do.
However, Rokugan is a changing and evolving environment. We have to keep up
with the changes. Things are happening, things are building toward the
Scorpion Coup. Just keeping folks informed.

>7.  WHY I'M HERE
>
>I'm here to better my understanding of the game.  I'm not here to play
>cheerleader; I'm not good at it, anyway.

Neither is anyone else.
Okay, here's a complaint from me.
If someone agrees with me, or gives me a compliment for the Scorpion book
or some other thing we've done for the RPG, it doesn't mean they are
kissing my ass. It means they are saying, "Hey, job well done."
If you disagree with this, that is _your problem_.
Trust me, after reading 299 e-mails a day of "Your game system is broken,"
"Your card game is broken," "You sold out to WoTC," and "You're an
arrogant, stuck-up wanna-be game designer," it's nice to hear, "You did a
good job" every once in a while.


>8.  CONCLUSION
>
>Part of communication is sharing different viewpoints.  A disagreement
>isn't a condemnation.  Responses, not reactions, are welcome.

Agreed.
Just need a little clarification so I can "fix" things, ya know?


John W.
(www.7thsea.com)

"You never learn to laugh 'till you learn to laugh at yourself."
- Shinsei, stealing almost directly from Mark Twain



For help with this listserver, send a message with no subject or
message to majordomo@frpg.com

Contents Copyright (C) 1997 by FIVE RINGS PUBLISHING GROUP, INC