MOB
>Erasing the already widely-understood, resonant and entertaining GA version
>as you go.
Answer me this, if you will. In what article, precisely, done by the RMM is there a detailed description of the Imperial succesion? This "GA" model is largely being crafted by Nick and put on this digest as he clarifies his ideas, which has had for a long time, for sure, but still not in print. I challenge you to actually find the model in any product you have in print. If there is a model with even half the detail that Nick has commented on out there, then I'd like to know where it is, because I can't find it in any RMM product I have. Occasional snippets, hints and sound bytes perhaps, but no serious step by step essay as Nick has produced.
For me or Greg or anyone to be going against GAG as you call it, surely there has to be something there in print to be GA in the first place?
>An *intensely irritating* approach,
I find this GA approach irritating when there is plainly a whole wad of _opinion_ and very little indeed in print to be GA in the first place! You argue as if everyone knows your postion and yes, many, many people dislike the model _I've_ discussed, but many of those same people have picked quibble and have not fully agreed or understood some of the points put forward by you or Nick either. This debate has proved to me that these ideas, even the RMM ideas were not fully formed or written and that this debate has provoked a solid set of concepts from people. Nick has done a nice job defining his position, which is great, but outside of GD posts and personal emails, I've seen nothing from anyone in print that gave a concrete statement of this.
>particularly when the existing model could easily be made to fit the desired
effect >of "maximum imperial breakdown". *And* (hells bells!) when you also
seem to >believe the replacement version isn't as interesting:
Personally I don't think that Gregs version will contradict yours very much, perhaps in detail and perhaps in succession methods, but in terms of actual stuff in print, he will really contradict you very little indeed.
As for me, for my own games, my version would be best. However, if I ran a game in the Empire now, I'd run it in the HW period as I can have my wars and I can have all sorts of possibilities which just don't happen much in the Empire pre-HW, even with Nicks model.
>Martin to Keith:
>You say it looks unexciting.
>Well, not just Keith, just about bloody everyone.
As I said, it matters little because the HW timeline has it all and more when it comes to excitement. If Greg wishes to clarify the RE as being one dude, changing, but singular, to enhance the HW shock effect, then that is fine by me. It works, it makes sense. It is a different model to yours and perhaps makes things les interesting in earlier time periods, but it still doesn't contradict much stuff in print.
>Perhaps.
>Even you???
Hell yes. I'm less interested as a GM in the RE mythic succession and far
more interested in the realpolitik consequences of Imperial breakdown. To me
the Machiavellian intrigue in the chambers of the palace is less interesting
to me than the open war it brings. My Empire is not dominated by
Bureaucratic
schemers, in the end, in my world, they get a sword through the head from the
heroic warrior type.
So I'm less mythically concerned with things than Greg and less politically (at least in a backroom sense) with things than Nick. However, it doesn't stop me writing either type of concept. I'm equally at home with Patanjalli, Machiavelli or Clausewitz.
>This is what Greg wants. This is what I will write for him at the relevant
>time...
>...I can see Gregs requirement. From his perspective it is valid and I can
>write it for him if he wishes.
>Ah, the Nuremburg Defense.
Bit of a pointless remark. What am I supposed to say? I suppose the valiant MOB would simply refuse to do the work. I suppose that every time you are told to do something at work you disagree with, you just quit. Or do you do it because you are told to and you have a vested interest in staying on? If its the latter, you would have to plead the Nuremburg defence too...
Me, I look at it this way. Greg is human, so am I. No way in hell can we agree on everything, this is not dream land, its the really real world and its business. If Greg wants a certain piece to go one way, and I don't, he can simply write it himself or get someone else to do it and cut me out of the picture on things I really _do_ care about. That, I don't want.
In SGU, I care about writing something my players can use. Before I started the Gwandor campaign, I was going to do a game in the Empire. I realised that the amount of work I'd have to do to give the players the depth the Empire deserves would be huge and so I went for an "easier" Orlanthi game instead. I want SGU to cut that work out for the GM and the Player.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail