> The people opposing change in g1 made the same charge, and it
> was wrong then too.
I didn't play g1, but I midly aware of the problem. If I were to be playing
I would prolly have opposed it to. Rich, in my opinion made the right choice in
making g2 instead of changing g1. I've seen a lot of good games being spoiled by
gm intervention. I used to play BSE (a science fiction game) where, after a
small and tiny (as the gm called it) change to the rules, there was a massive
drop out (I didn't drop out at the time) because the more affected players
decided it wasn't worth their time to cope with the new rules which had changed
their views towards the game. IMO the game got better, but the drop out had so
drastically affected the game that it eventually slowed into oblivion (that was
when I quit). I think the game still runs btw and with more ppl than it used to,
but there are very few players from the start still playing.
I am a long-term plan (most of my plans never come true, but thats another
story) and as some of my friends say I like to see the grass growing. If Rich
changed the rules I am sure I would be able to adapt to the situation and plan
all over again, but what insurance do I have that in 50 turns things haven't all
changed again...
Best Regards,
--
Lord Ralek Arkham
Speaker for the House of Lords
Kingdom of Cragstan
http://www.telenet.pt/~dl0363/HoL.htm