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.

···

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

Nice piece Ed. Might be a little subtle, though? :wink:

Mind you, if I snuck my rook under the table, my 3 year old would find it
and demand it for herself. I'd be out a rook AND my opponent's esteem. You
want the No Kids rule AND all the mirrors peeking around the corners, etc,
taken down, correct?

Brad

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ovatha Easterling" <ovatha88@hotmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 8:52 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] 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.

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

Haven't posted here in a long while; but in reading Ed's post and
your comments I believe that Ed is saying there are supposed to be
dirty tricks in this game. Not a formalized use of agents in some
kind of ritualized stalking and killing of enemy or neutral or
even "friendly" characters. After all in Middle Earth while the free
did eventually stand together, there was a lot of mistrust and even
bad blood between the eventual allies. It is more a case of the enemy
of my enemy is my friend at least for awhile kind of thing.

I think what Ed is saying is that it is the use of orders in an
unexpected way to acheive goals that is not wrong. In other words if
an action is not specifically forbidden by the rule book it is a
legal action and that the gray area to operate in was deliberately
left in the rules to allow that. This is not a level playing field
issue as Steve wrote. There are clearly nations that are stronger in
almost everyway to other nations. This game is not and never has been
about a level playing field. It was originally designed so that there
could be only one winner. We have now evolved to playing for team
wins but that was not the intent of the game designers.

I am currently on the receiving end of the devious mind of Ovatha
Easterling and his allies. It is the process of trying to out think
them that makes this game exciting. I don't want the game to lose
that gray area and become too mechanical or too defined it would lose
the challenge that way in my opinion.

Brad

--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Brunet" <bbrunec296@r...>
wrote:

Nice piece Ed. Might be a little subtle, though? :wink:

Mind you, if I snuck my rook under the table, my 3 year old would

find it

and demand it for herself. I'd be out a rook AND my opponent's

esteem. You

want the No Kids rule AND all the mirrors peeking around the

corners, etc,

taken down, correct?

Brad

From: "Ovatha Easterling" <ovatha88@h...>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 8:52 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] 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
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.

>
> _________________________________________________________________
> On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice

on how to

···

----- Original Message -----
> get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
>
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think you've got that right. As for the multiple interpretations of Ed's
thought, I don't think any of us should have the audacity to say.

I'll try to be more fair: In My Opinion...

- Ed isn't troubled by the "fuzziness" of the rules and doesn't want Clint
to save him from them. He supports the rules as they are in these respects.
He also believes the game was designed as such in order to be horizonless.
Our overwhelming selflessness in favour of the Team is what is limiting that
horizon. Certain actions taken or supported by the company also play parts
in limiting that horizon, ie, Palantir, Automagic/MEOW, providing a list of
your allies at the beginning of the game, etc. In other words, the company
is providing binoculars. -

Brad

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "kingoftherill" <kingoftherill@yahoo.com>

This game is not and never has been
about a level playing field. It was originally designed so that there
could be only one winner. We have now evolved to playing for
team wins but that was not the intent of the game designers.