Login

**Avack**

So I'd like to firstly begin with answering the questions presented to try and illustrate my future points:
So, as for the rules themselves:
I have a few minor issues to pick. For instance, the reiteration of points from the main rules: It's unnecessary and bloating, and I think we want to be succinct and to the point to minimize confusion. I also think we could benefit from an addition to the rule that requires you do your job ("you will be expected to try and do your jobs, [...]") that attempts to enforce higher standards heads of staff, particularly the captain, as I've found in the past that it can be difficult to respect authority if they, more often than not, goof off and do their own thing instead of their job.
However, there is one part I think absolutely needs rewriting: The section on antagonists. Or, rather, the section on traitors - that may seem like petty semantics, but I fear it may be important. In general, disputes of antagonists, whether their actions or actions directed towards them, seems to make up the largest part of the arguments that constantly rock RP1. Based on that, I suggest the following:

The antagonist rules should be stricter in relation to rampages in particular, and, perhaps, bombings. Normally I'm against strict rules for RP1 - that's not what we're here for! - but on this occasion they can really impact a round. It should be clear that these should come as a dramatic dénouement, if at all, rather than a first effort, and that they should always come with an attempt on the antagonist of getting the crew involved with words and, generally speaking, making it exciting. Perhaps, of course, it may be easier to ban it altogether. I'm keen to try and discuss this point.
The antagonist rules should stress that they apply to all antagonists. Many antagonist types have mechanics or lore that are murder-oriented, and I fear confusion arises.
Clarify objectives. As it is, the rules only imply that objectives should be followed, while the given information from the admins, and, I think, the preferred approach of many of the players is that they are purely optional. Particularly difficult is that the current rules allow you to rampage if you think your objectives would benefit; the problem therein is that random rampages are forbidden because they aren't fun, and they do not become fun if the person performing them has been assigned a random number by the game. It would be better if the rules indicated that objectives are optional and can be ignored.
Finally, and I think this is important: Antagonists don't play in fun ways if they can't expect the crew to play along; at the moment, however, and throughout my time playing, there seem to have been many cases of antagonists simply getting killed or otherwise shut down without any adequate reason. I suggest the rules should say that the crew should generally attempt to play along with antagonists when possible rather then killing them (edit: more strongly; it's already mentioned, but off-hand in another rule rather than being a major point). More specific wording - for instance, to solve the problem of people reacting to the first sign of weird alien-ness with yelling "ling!" and getting out the blood tests - may also be advisable, but this is another point I'd like to discuss.

That's most of what I have to say. Really, any change is very welcome at this point; it's been three years since these were written, and I think we all now have the experience to do better. I would be very much willing to see a full rewrite that includes what I've outlined above; these are simply the changes I consider most important.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me