Interesting but more than a little worrying. I have noticed a bias toward the more experience players be recommended in the past but never considered it might be taken as far as outright deception as Ovatha suggests. The idea that the rule book is not only fuzzy by intent but contains deliberate falsehoods goes far from the concept of a level playing field. I would be interested to hear what Client and co have to say about this.
On the question of design concept Ovatha makes some interesting points. I'm more of a limited horizons man myself, probably getting more cautious in my declining years. No longer confident enough to feel that happy without bounds but hopefully still flexible enough to attempt the challenege. If there was a major rewrite [although resources may well make that a long term task] I would definately prefer something with more feel of both Middle Earth and the real world. However have some idea of the task of doing this.
Steve
Message: 2
···
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:52:02 +0000
From: "Ovatha Easterling"
Subject: Game construction and design
Re: Game construction and design.
Firstly, my experience with game construction and design is modest. But
there has been talk of further changes to this game, so I will wade into
deep water. Perhaps a useful discussion will result.
Let it be postulated that intellectual games (as opposed to physical
ones) can be placed on a linear scale. One end of this spectrum we will
call "constrained" while the other end of the scale we will label
"horizonless".
An example of a "constrained" game would be chess. It has infinite depth
but is highly formalized and the four corners are well established. It
is rook to QB4 check. The rook neither operates off the table nor jumps
other pieces.
An example of a "horizonless" game might be Myst. More shallow than
chess but with fewer boundries. An unending series of puzzles with a
decision matrix as broad as the imagination of the designer.
Many people have difficulty operating in a "horizonless" environment.
Some remind me of Persian King Darius in the Ukraine. Everywhere the>king
looks he sees only grass and sky. Oh yes, there is that cloud of
horse archers. No matter what the king does they neither come closer nor
get further away. Persons unable to operate without horizons either quit
in frustration or demand boundries and reference markers.
My belief is that GOOD simulations of human conflict edge more towards
the "horizonless" side of the scale. Be this combat or the
prevention/supression of prison disturbances. Military thinkers, such as
Saxe and Vegetius, have stressed the uncertainty and imponderables of
war.
If the above is accepted as a point of discussion, let us look at the GSI
roots of this game. The player received a 124 page rulebook. Contained
within are the two ways to win the game, the one thological commandment
(no player shall play more than one position in a game), lots of color
and some useful guidelines. Myst -like the player blunders through the
game relying on common sense, a knowledge of Tolkien and an expanding
experience base. Eventually, the laws of this particular universe take
shape.
The rulebook also deliberately contains errors, omissions and
ambiguities. The rulebook contains two understated and often overlooked
items. These are: Espionage is specifically allowed and players may
misrepresent themselves. The rook not only operates on the 64 tiles, butmay
operate off the table and under the table.
So, if this is worth discussion, perhaps some insights might be obtained.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]