I'v no problem with GMs playing in games as long as they don't have access
to the orders input by the other side. From experience in game 22 the 2 GMs
we had on our side gave no indication of having any "inside" knowledge. If
anything the reverse may have been the case - I can certainly remember at
one point Sam asking for advice from other players on what to do next.
To those who object to any GMs playing in a game I would say that if you
really don't trust them to do this fairly what makes you think you can trust
them to do anything else fairly?
"I've always felt the lack of decent nation hints for the 2950 game is a
reason for the high drop out rate for 2950. Maybe getting bobbin to take
time off from 1650 g34 and making some nation hints will help people
survive
in a 2950 setting."
I doubt it. If you're an expreienced player you only need get hold of the
start up details, which are reasonably widely available, to be able to guage
the kind of things a 2950 nation should be doing. The stats are different in
2950 but it should be clear that e.g. N Gondor is going to be playing a
similar game to 1650. If you're not experienced then whilst you may not have
much idea what to do the same will presumably be true of any 1650 nation you
play.
I think there are 2 main reasons for the drop outs. Firstly, most people
start by playing1650. 2950 is much smaller; fewer settlements and smaller
armies. To many players this is clearly something of a disappointment. I've
heard many a 1650 player whinging about how it takes ages before you're
strong enough to do anything in 2950 'cos you have to build up - not that I
agree with this view but it does seem that a number of people hold it. I
suspect therefore that some players may start a 2950 game then drop because
they feel that there isn't much to do, or maybe because they feel they
aren't getting much for their �3.90 a turn.
Secondly, since 2950 is less popular it is much more difficult to get a team
of people you know together. When you play in a team with friends there is
generaly less drop out because people will usually do whatever they can to
keep friends in the game. Also, when people play on a team where they know
everyone else on the team they usually feel more of an obligation not to
drop just because a position isn't doing so well. With strangers this is not
always the case. Also, whilst I enjoy playing with new people I find that
there is always a danger in this situation of poor communication, which is
often a cause of drop outs. I'm not really sure that there's much you can do
about either of the above other than try to encourage people who know each
other to join together. Possibly more games where people control 2 positions
might help as it reduces the numbers you need to make a team.
Anyway, that's what I think.
Adam Mitchell
Heather Taylor wrote:
To those who object to any GMs playing in a game I would say that if you
really don't trust them to do this fairly what makes you think you can trust
them to do anything else fairly?
It's a case of perception and human nature. I don't know the layout of their
offices, but there's only one fax number, so presumably only one fax
machine. So let's take a theoretical example. I'm in a game and they have a
suspicion my nation is going to drop. Then the GM/player sees, albeit
briefly, my fax with my turn orders, which he dutifully ignores and lets the
game GM pick up. No matter how hard he tries, his mind has seized the
information that my nation is still in play. Then there's the problem
players in another game encountered at the PBM con, trying to speak to the
GM without also passing info to the player/GM.
There's a lot more, but I no longer can be bothered banging my head against
this particular wall.
Gavin
It all depends on whether or not you trust us. I am more than capable of
"partitioning" my mind should such information get to me. And we make
stringent efforts not. We get so many emails/faxes a turn that we really
don't notice. As for conventions - well they are a rare event - I guess
this was something do with Rob?
> To those who object to any GMs playing in a game I would say that if you
> really don't trust them to do this fairly what makes you think you can
trust
> them to do anything else fairly?
It's a case of perception and human nature. I don't know the layout of
their
offices, but there's only one fax number, so presumably only one fax
machine. So let's take a theoretical example. I'm in a game and they have
a
suspicion my nation is going to drop. Then the GM/player sees, albeit
briefly, my fax with my turn orders, which he dutifully ignores and lets
the
game GM pick up. No matter how hard he tries, his mind has seized the
information that my nation is still in play. Then there's the problem
players in another game encountered at the PBM con, trying to speak to the
GM without also passing info to the player/GM.
There's a lot more, but I no longer can be bothered banging my head
against
···
this particular wall.
Gavin
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
To those who object to any GMs playing in a game I would say that if you
really don't trust them to do this fairly what makes you think you can
trust
them to do anything else fairly?
Very true. Some players barely trust us to do anything though... 
I think there are 2 main reasons for the drop outs. Firstly, most people
start by playing1650. 2950 is much smaller; fewer settlements and smaller
armies. To many players this is clearly something of a disappointment.
I've
heard many a 1650 player whinging about how it takes ages before you're
strong enough to do anything in 2950 'cos you have to build up - not that
I
agree with this view but it does seem that a number of people hold it. I
suspect therefore that some players may start a 2950 game then drop
because
they feel that there isn't much to do, or maybe because they feel they
aren't getting much for their �3.90 a turn.
For some reason I think the less skillful players (less team orientated,
just out for a fun game sort of thing) play 2950 games in preference.
That's where I think the higher drop out rate comes in.
Secondly, since 2950 is less popular it is much more difficult to get a
team
of people you know together.
We have a surprising amount of the games. There is a similar quantity of FA
as 2950 games started up since we took over, but as FA is faster than 1650
and 2950 slower to finish then we have less of them running.
Also, whilst I enjoy playing with new people I find that
there is always a danger in this situation of poor communication, which is
often a cause of drop outs.
I try to put experienced players into each side and encourage them to
communicate with their team and offer help, especially the less experienced
players (or new ones).
I'm not really sure that there's much you can do
about either of the above other than try to encourage people who know each
other to join together. Possibly more games where people control 2
positions
might help as it reduces the numbers you need to make a team.
Just put one up for players.
···
Anyway, that's what I think.
Adam Mitchell
Way back (1996), two guys (David Rossell and Mark Jaede) wrote a very good
article entitled "Learniong to 'Think 2950': Some observations for 1650
players" on one of the MEPBM websites. I still have a copy and it really
ought to be compulsory reading for new players as it sets expectation levels
correctly in the player's mind right from the start. If you can find a copy,
it's well worth downloading.
Gavin
