Perhaps a lesson to be learned from this is NOT to make this game a military one exclusively. It was not designed or intended to be an exclusively military game. Your Frank enemy is exploiting an inherent weakness in all this tweeking.
> > We clearly won, and everyone of the enemy (except one) seems
>to see
> > it that way.
>
>And that is his choice. I understand that you don't like it but
>it doesn't remove his right to obstinately continue if he so
>wishes. What if he thought he could get a couple of stand-by
>players involved?
>
>Gavin
>(Clint's never going to leave the office again. Every time he
>goes away, the list sprouts a talkfest! <g>)
And that is the point of the conversation. For the greater good, changing
the rules to prevent a lone hold-out from keeping a boring game going
another 5-10 turns.
As you say, at this time it is the lone hold-out's right to annoy the hell
out of 12 people. However, I'm not convinced it should be their right. The
question was posed to get other's opinions. Should a game be automatically
ended by GSI once it has clearly become a bug hunt?
Frankly, you saying "it is his right", does not add to this conversation.
We know what the current rules are. We are trying to discuss what the rule
"should be".
SHOULD IT be the right of a lone hold-out, to continue a game that has
clearly been dominated by a given team.
The game was an experiment in a number of ways, some of which worked,
some of which didn't (and probably never will) and some of which
didn't but might in the future if critical holes are plugged. So,
perhaps a better lesson to remember is to close holes opened by rule
tweaking. Like by including an auto-termination condition (one of the
original reasons for this discussion thread, by the way). You can be
absolutely sure I'll be doing that next time I organize a variant game.
Perhaps a lesson to be learned from this is NOT to make this game a
military
one exclusively. It was not designed or intended to be an exclusively
military game. Your Frank enemy is exploiting an inherent weakness
in all
this tweeking.
>From: "corsairs game 101" <corsairs101@h...>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: 2-1 Let the game end
>Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:03:25 -0600
>
>
> > > We clearly won, and everyone of the enemy (except one) seems
> >to see
> > > it that way.
> >
> >And that is his choice. I understand that you don't like it but
> >it doesn't remove his right to obstinately continue if he so
> >wishes. What if he thought he could get a couple of stand-by
> >players involved?
> >
> >Gavin
> >(Clint's never going to leave the office again. Every time he
> >goes away, the list sprouts a talkfest! <g>)
>
>And that is the point of the conversation. For the greater good,
changing
>the rules to prevent a lone hold-out from keeping a boring game going
>another 5-10 turns.
>
>As you say, at this time it is the lone hold-out's right to annoy
the hell
>out of 12 people. However, I'm not convinced it should be their
right.
>The
>question was posed to get other's opinions. Should a game be
automatically
>ended by GSI once it has clearly become a bug hunt?
>
>Frankly, you saying "it is his right", does not add to this
conversation.
>We know what the current rules are. We are trying to discuss what
the rule
···
>"should be".
>
>SHOULD IT be the right of a lone hold-out, to continue a game that has
>clearly been dominated by a given team.
>
>Darrell Shimel
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
The game was an experiment in a number of ways, some of which
worked,
some of which didn't (and probably never will) and some of which
didn't but might in the future if critical holes are plugged. So,
perhaps a better lesson to remember is to close holes opened by rule
tweaking. Like by including an auto-termination condition (one of
the
original reasons for this discussion thread, by the way). You can be
absolutely sure I'll be doing that next time I organize a variant
game.
Keith
I think Keith has summed it all up here. They tried a variant game,
tweaked the rules and overlooked some of the possible results. The
resulting failure of the game to end is what is bothering Darrell so
much. Obviously everyone in a variant game needs to agree to the
rules even the auto termination rule before the game starts. To
change the rules in any game once play starts sounds a bit arbitrary
to me. Keith, was auto termination discussed and agreed to by all the
players. What about all these other rules pretty much making agents,
emissaries and mages bystanders? If so then the game should end if
not Darrell has no case. Lesson learned, thanks, I know to avoid
variants in the future.
wrote:
> Perhaps a lesson to be learned from this is NOT to make this game
a
military
> one exclusively. It was not designed or intended to be an
exclusively
> military game. Your Frank enemy is exploiting an inherent
weakness
in all
> this tweeking.
>
> >From: "corsairs game 101" <corsairs101@h...>
> >Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
> >To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: 2-1 Let the game end
> >Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:03:25 -0600
> >
> >
> > > > We clearly won, and everyone of the enemy (except one)
seems
> > >to see
> > > > it that way.
> > >
> > >And that is his choice. I understand that you don't like it but
> > >it doesn't remove his right to obstinately continue if he so
> > >wishes. What if he thought he could get a couple of stand-by
> > >players involved?
> > >
> > >Gavin
> > >(Clint's never going to leave the office again. Every time he
> > >goes away, the list sprouts a talkfest! <g>)
> >
> >And that is the point of the conversation. For the greater good,
changing
> >the rules to prevent a lone hold-out from keeping a boring game
going
> >another 5-10 turns.
> >
> >As you say, at this time it is the lone hold-out's right to annoy
the hell
> >out of 12 people. However, I'm not convinced it should be their
right.
> >The
> >question was posed to get other's opinions. Should a game be
automatically
> >ended by GSI once it has clearly become a bug hunt?
> >
> >Frankly, you saying "it is his right", does not add to this
conversation.
> >We know what the current rules are. We are trying to discuss
what
the rule
> >"should be".
> >
> >SHOULD IT be the right of a lone hold-out, to continue a game
I think Keith has summed it all up here. They tried a variant
game, tweaked the rules and overlooked some of the possible
results.
Same results are possible in normal 4th age, 1650, and 2950 games.
The problem is just a little bit harder to take care of in NKA games
because of the inability to assassinate and in 4th age in general
because you can't have curse squads.
The resulting failure of the game to end is what is bothering
Darrell so much.
Yes, our entire team thinks the game should have ended. Let's let
Clint decide our game...
Obviously everyone in a variant game needs to agree to the
rules even the auto termination rule before the game starts.
Yep
To change the rules in any game once play starts sounds a bit
arbitrary to me.
I agree. We weren't trying to change/add any rules for game 41.
Keith, was auto termination discussed and agreed to by all the
players.
Never discussed.
What about all these other rules pretty much making agents,
emissaries and mages bystanders?
NKA = No kidnapping/assasination. Emissaries were very valuable.
Mages less so because they couldn't cast the curse spell like ALL
4th age games.
If so then the game should end if not Darrell has no case.
The game should end only because the other team's captain declared
our side the victors. This is the only reason why we think the game
should end.
Lesson learned, thanks, I know to avoid variants in the future.
