Posted by An Immortal(IMM) on August 27, 2000 at 10:59:28:
In Reply to: It comes down to notice. posted by Graatch(VIP) on August 25, 2000 at 13:07:22:
If you want x behavior producing y result at all times, you should probably play a game like Zork where if you do x, y always happens. One of the great things about a game lik CF is that it constantly changes and evolves so that each experience is fresh and new. Also, there is a distinct difference between "player knowledge" and "character knowledge." It's the same question as why an evil character shouldn't do the quest to get the travel boots. Your CHARACTER is interacting with Masters and learning for the first time. I applaud efforts to make people do new things to redefine the actions it takes to do more advanced RP things like getting into cabals. I know we can't ever really separate "player knowledge" from "character knowledge" entirely, but to complain that your personal definitions as a player aren't being upheld, so your character is suffering is not consistant with the idea that your character is on a learning curve as to what magic/Masters/anything else really has to do. To have your whole character planned out to hero when you role them up is IMHO ludicrous and sets you up for disappointment. If you want to predict everything that might happen in your life, then you really can't ever interact with any other players, because they will inherantly be unpredictable. This includes religions, cabals, groups, everything. Also, as for Imperial Imms being wrong about how they do/don't anathematize, it can fall under similar things. The things you can and can't do should change as the political climate of Empire changes. It should not soley be based on "my last character did this so its safe." It should be based on the role of your current character, and if Empire changes and rejects your character, then you should roleplay that as well. > People want forseeability. They want to know that in general, x behavior will produce y result. Yes, there is lattitude and wide parameters for what defines x, but it is not the micromanagment of empire that upsets people, it is more specifically the belief that something will be done that produces anathema'ing which before did not, and so as a player they feel they have been screwed. > As a player, which I was for almost five years, I know that one of the most important things to me was being able to in basic terms lay out some of the foundations of the character I was rolling. I doubt there is anyone at all out there who has no concept of where to to with their char when it is created. While I think it is the mid-life changes that add spice, there is a need to understand, and be able to foresee, that you can rely on continuing in what you've chosen as long as you don't break one of the given guidelines.
> That is the same philosophy here. The example of Hruptek demonstrates that what was proper doctrine a few weeks ago no longer suffices, and not just that, but is deemed wrong enough to result in uninduction. That hardly seems fair.
> Lets think about it in an rp sense. Pretend for the moment that you really are these people/characters. You are a mage, have been for years, and have been part of this group for years. There is no way that all of a sudden, out of the blue, a new system of beliefs and doctrine will just crop up and replace everything you have believed and been taught, literally overnight. You have known these people for all these years, and they you. You have all studied together, fought together, died together, etcetera. Your leader, and sub-leaders, have all espoused similar beliefs -- similar because I agree that there should be creativity and theorizing and 'space' given to those that want to come up with interesting tangents -- and you were admitted and worked on those precepts.
> To be held to a different standard, midway through your tenure as a master, and without any roleplaying justification for why there is this sea-change, seems ill-advised to me.