[Discuss] The New Message System must die...

[Simon Baker]

psymann wrote:
> Tom Vogt wrote:
>   
>> Alex Davies schrieb:
>>     
>>>> So make the general the marshal and the marshal the second. Where's 
>>>> the problem?
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> I'd refer you to your earlier post:
>>>   
>>>       
>> Geez, get the context and don't take everything 100% literal.
>>
>> The multiple positions posting was about positions such as region lords 
>> and rulers.
>>
>>     
>
> Why let a General be a Marshal though?  If you have one player who 
> really wants to run all the tactics, then make him the Marshal.  Then 
> appoint someone as a General who just basks in the glory.
>
> Making the General into the Marshal and the Marshal into the Second 
> doesn't stop you from turning a simple Knight into the General and 
> letting someone else have a go.  It makes no sense to me to allow a 
> character to be both General and Marshal at the same time.
>
> psymann
>
>
>   
-----------------------------
It makes perfect sense to me.  General is a government position, while 
marshal is one given by the sponsor of an army. 

I really don't see a reason why game mechanics should limit roleplay, at 
least not in this case.


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss