>of injustice. If I had to work so hard to get what I have, what gives Mr.
>Twinkee the right to get everything handed to him? Actually, now that I
>think about it, it is the sense of injustice. Jealousy is just a mitigating
>factor :)
Man, that's life. That's part of a free market economy. There are some
people
that have a lot and some people that don't. What gives the Kennedies the
right
to have a lot of money and all the benefits that go along with that while
Joe Blow
is working the counter at Mcdonalds?
I beleive this to be the most insightful statement yet regarding the position of
twinking vs. nontwinking. As much as I've appreciated most of your candor and am
somewhat put off by EvilJohn's approach, I believe he has a valid point. I believe
the crux of his premise ( and John, correct me if I'm wrong) for gameplay rests on
the fact that he plays within the context of the game without violating any rules.
If your main problem with his actions are that he should not "twink" because of game
ethics, then I would say you are incorrect. EvilJohn, in fact, is acting very much
within the ethics of the game as set out by Verant; namely, he is using whatever
means he finds most desirable to achieve satisfaction in gaming without breaking the
rules.
If, however, you are saying that Verant should themselves reconsider their current
position on twinking and set more stringent regulations, that is another matter
entirely. I would also have to agree with John on this point, but for another
reasoning as this is a separate question. In order to explain my opposition to
banning PC twinking, I must first remind ourselves the framework for the issue we
are all discussing. We are, in effect, all participating in a computer assisted
role-playing game. Because of this, I believe we should analyze the problem of
twinking through these lenses. In a standard, run of the mill fantasy RPG, there is
a framework of rules that are used to guide players and GM in play, not unlike EQ.
In a standard RPG, the players are allowed to do whatever they will so long as it
fits within the reality (i.e. the rules) of the game, AND it is in character for
them to do so.
My question, therefore, to you all is this: would twinking be a conceivable
possiblity in most standard fantasy RPGs? Yes, it would. OF course it would be, in
fact. In fact, this whole argument reminds me of a similar debate many years ago I
had the pleasure of being involved with at GenCon. It was concerning GMs and
players who would make EXTREMELY powerful characters out of thin air, rather than
starting them from scratch at Lvl 1. It also concerned GMs giving away magic items
and powers like candy to players. My position was simply, that's just bad
roleplaying, not rule violation.
And so it is also with twinking. In any RPG, standard or computer assisted, there
are two things we must weigh: one is rule integrity. The other is character
integrity. As a GM, I personally made my players fight to get everything they
earned, only by my personal preference to the way i like to play the most. I would
almost never put players together with characters of vastly different levels in
order to balance gameplay and make campaigns easier to formulate. HOWEVER, if my
players were resourceful enough to connive, coerce, entice, seduce, or otherwise
persuade someone to relinquish either favors or items to them, well, that was well
within their rights. In fact, they would usually get xp for such resourcefulness.
I see the real difference here is that EQ has several hundred PCs at one time while
a standard RPG has much fewer. Thus, the opportunity to be exposed to other PCs of
high level are significantly increased. The GMs in EQ (ie the designers) wanted
the world to be like this; that's why they made it this way. Since EQ is a
simulated reality, let's lok at it this way--- is it POSSIBLE that there would be
characters, NPC and/or PC alike, who were of the benevolent sort, preferring to give
much of their items away to those less fortunate? Of course there would be; in
fact, there is already. The problem I believe we must all wrestle with here is:
DOES EITHER TWINKING MYSELF OR TWINKING OTHERS FIT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE
DISPOSITION OF MY CHARACTER? Personally, my monk Kilsan is a very friendly and
generous sort. If he has copper on him and runs into a beggar, he will most likely
stop and give him some to help with the beggar's food. He also likes to chat,
especially with strange new beings to him. He also believes in work incentives and
discipline (he is, after all, a monk), so I believe he would not be prone to random
twinking just because. Frugality is a virtue to him. Poor stewardship is not.
Let me conclude by giving one more example. A is a 35th lvl shadowknight with some
serious gear. His offline friend B has just started playing and really likes
Paladins, so he starts out and makes his way up, slowly but sure, to lvl 3. Since
A and B are real life buddies, A decides to help B out and gives him 500 pp to help
him get outfitted. Does A violate any rules? No. Does A make a terible choice in
roleplaying his character? I believe so, and I'm sure most of you would agree.
So what is my suggestion for all of this? I believe it would be in Verant's best
interest to approach this situation not from the stance that "twinking" is fair or
unfair. Rather, I believe they need to approace it with the viewpoint: "Let's
reward those who roleplay well." How do we do that? I leave that matter to the
rest of you, and I'd love to hear your thoughts/views!
--Kilsan, Tribunal