Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucdavis.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb!ccohesh001 From: ccohesh001@ucdavis.UUCP (Peter Costantinidis, Jr.) Newsgroups: net.games.frp Subject: Re: Soliciting opinions? How the *&^* did my mail get in here? Message-ID: <442@ucdavis.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Dec-85 14:59:23 EST Article-I.D.: ucdavis.442 Posted: Fri Dec 6 14:59:23 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 7-Dec-85 20:20:28 EST References: <440@ucdavis.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: University of California, Davis Lines: 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)