Well, aside from the obvious that Allsorts haven't run the game for over
a year :-),
That'll teach me to type in a hurry...
to suggest that an additional payment of seventeen pounds
fifty is not expensive just isn't living in the real world.
Oh give me a break... That same argument has been used against deposits
since at least 1979, when I first saw it and the proposed deposit was five
pounds (a far higher sum in real terms than the twenty or so I would
propose today). You pay the sum once and you get it back at the end of the
game. If paying such a sum would cause you such great financial problems
then maybe, to be frank, paying for a game is the least of your worries.
2) Who is to decide when a position is unplayable?
The software already does this, if we are to believe the fronsheet.
3) All of this makes more work for Clint!
No more than the current system. It's a small programming change in the
accounts software.
1) If your position is wrecked and you drop, do you lose the deposit?
No. See point 2 above. If the software says the position is not viable,
you're OK. Otherwise, kiss the cash goodbye.
Deposits are, in my view, an ill-thought out, short-termist solution to
a problem that would end up costing Harlequin more business than it
gained.
S'funny, they worked really well for Chris Harvey. But then he ran his
games as a business not a charity. So, what would you suggest, holding
player's firstborn as hostages...? <g>
Gavin