I'm glad you brought that up.
For some reason, when people said, "1200 was too soon, you should have had
it be longer," that really made me think, "Oh crap, did I screw that up?"
Another reason people gave for longer-is-better is that it would be more
realistic for those sort of legends/mystery things like in James
Maliszewsi's adventure, divergence of language, etc., which I think had a
point.
The reason I gravitated to 1200 was, I think, it was a nice, round number
(I know that sounds stupid) for a new beginning, and the fact that I was
REALLY trying to make it as easy as possible for existing campaigns to
somehow bridge the gap. I know that probably sounds stupid too, "Hey
butthead, you broke the whole Imperium, but you claim you're trying to make
it easier?" But really, I was always trying to think of entry points for
players: new players in the RC or pocket empires or not in the official
background at all, old players in the Regency or as remnants in the RC or
Wilds or pocket empires. To me, given the fact that we decided we "had" to
go with the full break, it was really a moral requirement on me to somehow
give as much of a fighting chance to existing players to bring their
characters forward.
But, like I said, wondering, "Man, should I have gone with 1300 or 1400?"
really did make me think.
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:42:01 -0500, "Mike West" <>
wrote:
> In regards to the question, "What could have been done differently?