This is fairly accurate. I will now also add, "Your computations of the
relative value of various pastimes are way off," as a reason. I think
that about sums it up.
> Since none of these reasons have anything to do with game design, I
> don't think I'm being unfair in characterizing your motives as being
> concerned with your game position.
This is absolutely false. There is nothing that has *more* to do with
game design, than the subjective evaluations of the players. By
definition, a game is well designed if the players like it. My comment
that I think the payment for common magic is reasonable and appropriate,
therefore goes directly to the question of whether it is a good design.
> If it was my suggestion that you're concerned that changes to Perform
> Common Tasks will adversely affect your game position, then I also
> apologize. I don't think you should have taken offense: obviously you
> should be concerned about how game changes will affect your position.
I said that I thought there was no problem with the game. You then said
that the opponents of change are basing that only on the fact that they
are taking advantage of it, and want to continue to do so. That implies
that all those who say that they honestly don't see a problem, are not
telling the truth.
Since you now admit that I have given at least two (now three) other
arguments as well, I'm satisfied.
I honestly don't see a problem of any sort.
I *also* think it should be completely out of the question to change
something like this, at this point of the game, unless it were a *very*
*major* problem. It makes nonsense of a strategic game to change the
rules out from under people, once they have made strategic decisions
based on them.
David desJardins