| Purestrain |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
(primarch @ Dec. 20 2007,02:30)
QUOTE Hi!
Does it make things more difficult having so many different epic A groups basically autonomous one from the other?
Will each of their versions drift apart and down the line be very different from one another, besides the core mechanics?
I find this topic most interesting since in netepic, its one unified set of rules. Basically we have no parallel group that develops rules for the SM2/TL system.
Granted it looks like the groups are more along language lines (which is good for each languages proper support), but is there any agreement for making/adopting the same rules/amendments or tweaks?
Also, do these groups have solid groups of people that can lead their efforts for time to come? The more responsibility that falls on one individual the less likely such a group will survive that ones person abandoning it due to changes in interests or other life happenstances.
In netepic there is a whole cadre of people who make netepic go. I am pretty much long since been a figurehead and coordinator, making sure things move along, but I hardly decide what goes where or even what rules to change/tweak/amend.
So, for example Markconz, if you for whatever reason could no longer pursue epic A and keep things updated, is there someone with your zeal to bear the torch?
I ask these things because even I have had to take a hiatus from running netepic in the last 11 years, there are those who would make sure things get done.
Food for thought, since such endevours require backup plans for the inevitable bumps in the road of life.
Primarch
Actually there are not that many explicitly autonomous groups, bar the French (and in fact it's not all French really). While I can't speak for the French, amongst the rest of the international community I've consistently heard that there is a strong desire for international consensus on the rules used. I can understand why the French do not want to disregard the changes they had already come up with earlier, and I think they have language issues also. It's just easier for them to have everything in-house and in French. Also I'm aware of at least one active Finnish group who are using a slightly more restricted set of change proposals than that in the Handbook, though they share many commonalities otherwise.
My impression thus far is that the Handbook with rules changes has been accepted for playtesting purposes by a good number of groups. I believe others are still using the core rules and old experimental rules, and whether they will adopt the Handbook for playtesting is uncertain - as version 1.0 of the Handbook was only released 5 days ago. Hopefully in another year or so's time, a better consensus about what should remain in the way of rule changes will have occurred, and the Handbook can be updated again.
Nonetheless the threat of schism is a constant challenge. It's the reason I didn't make the handbook master copies widely available, as I strongly believed that an international effort with as many people involved as possible would produce the best set of rules. Also in that regard, I'm glad Neal Hunt took over as the one making the final call on rule change proposals. I'm happy being the scribe, though I will contribute my opinion in debates on the various issues.
Regarding what would happen if I should disappear or take a break (which is likely like you say), well I've given master copies of the Handbook to British, German, and American sources, and I would certainly expect that active interested parties would be able carry on the work. There has been some talk of procedure and committee and due process etc, but there remain complications to any decisions because of SG involvement, as noted.
Also in the above, I'm just talking about the core rules and lists contained in the Handbook. In addition to the Handbook, there are dozens of fan lists accumulating out there, and some superb work amongst that. I actually think that's quite a good thing, it was always Jervis's intention to have hundreds of themed lists available for EA, and he cited DBM with its 400+ lists in that regard. I don't think some overall consensus about the state of many of these is possible or even desired. In addition to a solid set of rules and lists for tournament gaming (which is the focus of the Handbook, and also some other supplements and lists being produced by others), Jervis always intended EA to be for mature players who are capable of doing their own thing and deciding what sort of game they want to play. The proliferation of fan lists and ideas is evidence of just that process occurring IMO.
|
|
