On 26 Feb 97 at 9:54, Keith Zanardi wrote:
>
> >>
> >>United we stand!
> >
> >
> > we ???
> >^^^^
> >
> >My two cents would be about the lack of "we" that seems to be going into
> >this whole thing, but if I am the only one with a problem, then I guess it
> >must be just me...
> >
> >Agro
>
>
> You DON"T have a problem dude! I thought that "we" were going to
> move this
> "development" to the EpiCentre where "we"?/ "all"? Epic players could have
> some
> input. This list is NOT the place for such an "in depth discussion" A far as
> I have seen, there have been maybe 20? "people"? involved with a
> "CONSENSUS ACHIEVED"!
>
> Just MY nickle.
>
> Xenofobe
Gently, gently, Keith. I understand your beef, but there are a few
technical problems associated with what you are suggesting. How would
we move this discussion to a web page? I'm not even close to being an
expert on web page construction, but that doesn't seem to be something
that can be done easily (especially not on a free web page). I have
looked at the NetEpic section on the EPICentre, which so far lists the
rationale for doing so and the rules that have been hashed out so far.
I seem to recall that it states that nothing is official (or as
official as house rules get) until they have been playtested.
Moreover, it includes both Peter's and Doddsy's email so that anyone
can add their own comments. There are also instructions on how to
subscribe to this list, so that anyone who wants can subcribe and
participate. I'm not sure what more can be done. Maybe another
mailing list would be a good idea. However, I don't have the
technical wherewithal to set one up, nor do I know if any of the rest
of us do. I'm not trying to be insulting, for anyone who does know
how to do some of this stuff. All I'm saying is that not all of us
know how to set something like that up and this is a convenient forum.
Also, remember that NONE of this is official. Those of us who are
involved with NetEpic are trying to redesign the game in the way we
would like to see it run. Obviously we're not always going to agree.
So far I feel that Peter has done a good job of staying in touch with
the opinions of those on the list and has done well in his tabulation.
As far as I can tell, he has never ENFORCED any rulings of his own in
the face of an opposing majority opinion. The point system, which
seems to have sparked this discussion, was designed by someone else
(Tony Christey, as I recall). And it was only posted after a majority
of people stated that they would like to see a point-based system.
What if you don't like it, but want to use NetEpic? Just don't use
that section of the rules. In most (all?) rolepalying games, the
designers state that the rules can be changed/discarded at the Game
Master's discretion. The same applies to NetEpic. As long as both
players agree by what rules they are playing and have a good time,
everything is fine. No one is going to go out and hunt down players
who aren't using gospel NetEpic rules. That would contradict the
entire spirit of the NetEpic discussion. However, in order to have a
complete rule system, SOMETHING must be said about each topic. I, for
one, am willing to abide by the majority decision as far as "official"
NetEpic rules go. However, that doesn't mean that I will necessarily
use all those rules. (Just as an example, I probably won't use the
limitations on the number of a given type of card per army) These
rules are intended to be an alternative to Epic 40K. If you like Epic
40K, then by all means, play it! I won't look down on you because
you're playing some supposedly inferior game. If you like the second
edition Epic rules the way they stand, then play that! The whole
point is to have fun. Some of us would have more fun with the
developing NetEpic rules. Others wouldn't. Either is okay.
Personally, I'm looking forward to using these new rules, but others
may not be so thrilled about it. Please don't feel that you will be
forced to use these rules and will be stigmatized if you don't. That
would be the last thing that any of us would want to see.
As for more practical issues, if anyone has any suggestions as to how
to move this discussion elsewhere, please say something to Peter or
Doddsy. I'm not in favor of hiding away from the majority of Epic
players on the Net and then springing this on them. However, the only
thing that I can think of is more advertising on other Epic web pages
linking to the NetEpic section of the EPICentre. However, as I said,
I don't have the technical wherewithal to know if something more can
be done.
I apologize for the long post. It just seemed to me that I should
defend the way things have been going so far but also to allow for
constructive criticism. I would hate to see this project fall apart
because we get too caught up in bickering amongst ourselves. If we
can keep this in perspective, remember that it's only a game, and that
no one is bound to use all the NetEpic rules, but can steal what he
wants, we should do well.
Good gaming to all.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
Received on Wed Feb 26 1997 - 17:46:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:10 UTC