Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Renfield" data-source="post: 1449099" data-attributes="member: 13493">I have an opinion loosely based on this,As far as the guy trying to play in every game that does have to be stopped. I believe that. However I'm not too sure I agree on the geographic region area. Now it could be that particular rule was discussed during one of my many stints trying to endure life on my own, or I quite simply never noticed it, regardless I don't see a point in restricting players to different regions while we're still trying to attract them.Before I get a bunch of B.S. about balance and the like I'm going to state my case. This rule is painfully reminiscent of some of the anal retentive qualities of Living Web in my mind at least. I understand the need for spreading players out and about the 13 kingdoms but what good is that if we have no players. I feel that it's best to hold off on a rule like that until our player base grows, especially considering there aren't that many games being run to begin with. I've been in and out of here since it's founding. I joined up while attending college in my home town but after I left and moved to a different city (never mind the why's of that) things sort of slipped. I lost regular acces to the internet and my access to T13K was limited to my visiting the local library. When I recieved internet all I could afford at the time was dial up which still limited my running games as openrpg is hell on a dial up connection. After that I hopped around to three living arrangements numerous jobs and all sorts of wonderful things. Suffice to say while I probably could have focused a little more on T13K I had other priorities. Now I'm relatively settled. I'll have one move to go before I settled as far as living arrangements go and can focus a little more on T13K. However it's somewhat annoying (and hopefully understandably so) finding that my first game will likely be canceled by a rule stating two of three players can't play two characters in the same region. I understand two characters in the same crossover adventure series and two characters in the same kingdom, but regions are relatively broad and chances of it interfeering with games or characters running into one another are very unlikely.I know this is a long rant, as I said I'm a little annoyed. The previous paragraph was rather chaotic so I'll try to clarify in this one my opinion on the regional rule: I agree with it to an extent. That extent is this; it is a good idea for when we get a nice chunk of players and we want to avoid certain regions getting bogged down and give other regions a chance. However that I believe would be difficult to do if we have a restriction like that on players and DM's. The restriction may be focused on Players however considering (this is looking at the 'questing for adventure' thread) there seem to be about three different games being run (including my own) that sort of narrows down the playing field. Any existing players can't really run a game if it falls into their region. New players sure, but we're still trying to get them in and one can't ride solely on that. Then restrictions such as time windows the games are run in narrows the selection field down considerably.Suffice to say DM's and Player's alike shouldn't be forced run or play in games that are in a certain region just because their character is already in a game in another kingdom of that region even if that adventure has absolutely nothing to do with the other kingdom. Besides, isn't the fun of a Living Kingdom based on the fact that the actions of your players shape and change the world, considering the taverns are regional it kind of sucks that one can't grin when another character here's of the exploits of their other characters adventuring party two kingdoms away.Anyway, that's my lovely little frustrated rant, probably should have waited to cool down before I started but ah well. Hope people take it into consideration at the least.Renfield</blockquote>

Verification