Originally posted by Nimdraug The proposed character-naming tweaks will be implemented in future Gunboat games (my prediction) for the simple reason that it closes a loophole that otherwise permits Gunboat players to perform un-Gunboat-like actions. (I, for one, voluntarily refrain from doing that sort of thing when naming new characters.)
Why is it a loophole?
Do you remember the original gunboat proposal? Wasn’t it purely to play the standard 1650 scenario as a dual nation game with no communication with other players. That communication meant phone calls, emails, letters, in person. It didn’t mean tweek the game rules.
Is this correct?
Each new tweek moves us away from what is basically a 2 nation, no communication game to a 2 nation, no communication, plus varient rules game.
Now, as I said earlier, I have no problem with varients… for some they add the spice needed to keep the game interesting. However, I’d really like to play 1 varient for a while before we knee jerk another rule into place.
The suggestion for not allowing players to rename characters was, not a knee jerk reaction, rather something that was brought up at the FTF and discussed over a period of time and I thought ready to bring to the players as a whole.
The problem is this for Gunboat: If you, as a DS name a character Elrond, then any other player has to assume that character is a FP and hence cannot take action against that character if a FP. (Exceptions being at a pc you own or an accurate information gathering report). Hence you gain an advantage where maybe one should not be possible to have.
I’ve personally done it to see if an enemy character was killed - I don’t think it is a big issue but a small one that we can make the game slightly better if we all agree on the rules. GB is not a finished product, it’s been modified with experience from the games we have run so far and like all projects developed and hopefully improved over time.
For normal game name away as far as I am concerned.
Gunboat players are required to have a certain code of ethics in their games. You are expected to do certain things and not do certain other things in this type of game. Can ME Games police all of your communication to make sure you haven’t tried to contact other players? Of course not. It is up to each individual to follow the rules so that the game is fair to everyone.
In my opinion, giving a character the same name as a dead starting character is a very cheesy way to try and take advantage of the current GB rules and goes against the “spirit of the game”.
I would like to see this added as an official rule. Even though i think that most players would not take advantage of this loophole, a clear set of rules is the best way to avoid confusion.
I don’t really think there should be a rule against naming characters after starting characters even in gunboat and the reason I say this is first if your enemies don’t know it’s your character well neither do your friends and you’re asking to get hurt by friendly fire so it isn’t really that great of an idea to begin with…second it is most likely that the using of the same name would most likely benefit the dark servants <ie an agent named elrond> but that is also the side most likely to get hurt by doing so also…imagine the poor bs mage tracking elrond for 5 turns only to find out later he tracked and cursed to death a dog lord back up commander and because the first 5 letters can be used even if the name can’t the tracking of the character is disadvantage the dark servants already have…now once you start to worry about starting names then you have to worry about the first 5 letters of the name…next it would be using the randomly generated names provided by the computer…and the first 5 letters of those names…I say let those that would use a starting characters name take their chances and if an orc pretending to be elrond fools you just pretend he had a really good disguise
I vote yes on the ban on recycling names. I feel it is more an abuse of the spirit of the current rule to do such a thing. Yes it can be done by rules now, but that doesn’t make it right and I argue it doesn’t even make it “clever”.
I see no legitimate argument about how the game suffers for all the players by implementing this rule. What it means is now someone cannot pretend to be someone else (who they aren’t and never were) and force their opponents to expend orders or give them a free pass from normal actions just because they named their char a certain name? One could even argue from the story standpoint that, could anyone truly pass themselves off as such a recognizable personality as Elrond in a city allied with him to the point where the populace would have to interrogate or spy on him to find out it was an imposter?
Or even from a rules lawyer’ish standpoint: the original rule is meant to protect original characters with the known names. Thereby naming your char that name when you are not the original char allows you to use the rule improperly for your benefit.
My point was there really isn’t a benefit from naming your character after an enemy because your allies would kill you off so why worry about it…but now if we want to talk historical perspective…I doubt hardly anyone in middle earth has ever seen elrond because all the mountains made tv reception really cruddy back in those days …actually I’d be willing to bet most people couldn’t even find the city where he lived without a guide lol…anyway I don’t care if there is a rule prohibiting naming characters after dead enemies since I don’t do it anyway…I just don’t think it’s worth having a rule against
So, as another “old-timer”, i must respectfully also disagree with Noldo88. I find the variants, including BOFA & GB, to be quite fun.
I also vehemently disagree with “tweaking someone else’s creation is not creative”. Tell that to the 10s of thousands of engineers working in silicon valley. I’m sure it can be argued that all of silicon valley (whether semiconductor, software, biotech, nanotech or whatever) is now busy “tweaking someone else’s creation”. Yet the combined creativity you find here has created quite a lot of value since the “original creation” and continues to do so. And a lot of that tweaking is pretty darn creative.
Finally, wrt rules tweaking on GB - I think healthy discussion as to whether or not a particular rule instantiation is a good addition or not to the GB special rules is to be applauded. Clint does a good job of asking people using this forum what they think. My own $0.02 on this name reuse issue is that it’s a don’t care. I don’t see it as desirable (for reasons already stated by several commentors), and i don’t care if you prohibit it.
So, Clint - keep at it! the variants are mighty interesting! And for the purists, the original formats (1650, 2950, & FA) are available.
A number of you have talked about the Spirit of GB as if that means something.
The whole point of GB was to not have to deal with communication with other players and not to try and communicate other than through game mechanics (like moving armies or doubling<no longer allowed> or spells or uncover etc).
This naming after dead characters idea is being discussed becuase we’ve allowed other rules to be introduced into GB games… namely offensive actions against only known enemy or anyone on your own pop centres.
I don’t accept that any of these additional rules are part of the Spirit of GB… they are variant additions that players have allowed.
So when you try to convince people of the merit of a rule amendment, please don’t use Spirit to me. As far as I can tell (and this is a FANTASY game) Nazgul were sneaky and underhanded and were prepared to do anything their master ordered. Why wouldn’t Sauron, on a whim, order one of his minions to kill another? However, since that rule has been brought in, there’s no point going over it again. BUT, should we keep adding rules to correct the perceived advantages left by other rule changes?
We keep using ELRON as the example, bu it could just as easily be JI IN. Why couldn’t the FP be just as sneaky in their persuit of bringing down the DS?
Are we playing different games here? Isn’t the objective (other than personal have fun objectives) to win as either FP or DS? Where in the rulebook does it talk about only using honourable tactics? - and I’m not talking about breaking/bending rules to win.
Originally posted by Xax I vote yes on the ban on recycling names. I feel it is more an abuse of the spirit of the current rule to do such a thing. Yes it can be done by rules now, but that doesn’t make it right and I argue it doesn’t even make it “clever”.
-Corbin
Originally posted by Clint The suggestion for not allowing players to rename characters was, not a knee jerk reaction, rather something that was brought up at the FTF and discussed over a period of time and I thought ready to bring to the players as a whole.
Clint (GM)
Ah, timing…
In the company I work, we talk about Wing-to-wing approach to customer satisfaction.
It’s not the amount of time you’ve been discussing the order change that’s important… it’s the amount of time that the customer has been privy to this (well, I’ve tweeked it but the meaning is the same).
As far as I can tell, this thread was started on 29th Jan… so for me, and presumably everyone that wasn’t at the FTF (so take ~20 people off the total player base) we have only been discussing this for 2-3 days.
Apologies if my refering to this potential rule change as a knee jerk reaction upset you, but hopefully you can see why it feels like that to me.
Why I think it’s slightly abusive is that you can gain an advantage that in normal play is not available. If Ji Indur dies, usually the team knows about it. In GB game very few players know. So if the FP (say the player who killed Ji) then name a character called Ji Indur they could pretty safely go to a hotly contested battle zone and be safe from recriminations in some cases. Personally I am not pro this (nor characters names Agent1 or a^%3V’'s either!)
I agree it’s not a big deal - a minor problem at best and for some an opportunity.
The GB game was designed for those with minimal time for major diplomacy but wanted to play more Middle Earth. One nation isn’t really viable for that so we settled on two (I think the more nation format of GB is not so good but that’s my own personal opinion and if players want to play it they can).
The spirit of the GB game is that players do honour the fact that they do NOT talk to others in the same game (or pass information on or receive it ANY manner). Rightly said we can’t police this easily (we can do a little - we occasionally check turns for example and GB more than most and have caught a few transgressors).
Well lots of interesting points in this one which generated quite a bit of interest. Perhaps enough interest to try this rule in one game of gunboat in the near future ? We can think of it as a play-test in the same way that the 20 word diplo is currently being tested in G92.
we could playtest the proposed rule, but when does the playtest end and the rule become norm? or do we go back and re-open the debate, only this time with a game as precedent for saying, it worked in this game… let’s use it all the time.
I’m not against introducing rules per se… only I’d rather play GB the way it was designed.
I agree with Clint’s summarising the Spirit of GB… it’s all about communication to and from allies and oponents.
Why not playtest GB with no additional rules? Didn’t that work the first few times? Why were the additional rules added? And was it a vocal minority or the majority of those that played.
don’t worry, I wasn’t directing any question to you.
Anyway, how do I know you’re really Clint? and which Clint at that?
What if the real GM called Clint has never even looked at this list so doesn’t know there’s an imposter making up all sorts of rules in his name!!! Better ring Harley and tell Clint.
Sc0rp10
GB14 (that narrows it down to 11 players… unless Sc0rp10 and Clint are the same person)
@ scorp - apart from other reasons Clint might have, it is common among adult people to tell each other their names when discussing. I understand that people use pseudonyms when posting for ingame reasons - one can easily create another profile for that - but I can’t undertstand why you should want to stay hidden when debating game mechanics
besides, I really don’t believe that any player thinks of “honouring” a fallen enemy by giving his character that name - he wants him to be taken for that character and gain advantage of it, nothing else. think about the difference.
I think we can end this debate since it is obvious that the majority of posters has welcomed the idea of not using dead character names. so if we apply something like democratic ideas here, the minority should accept that decision. we could post a poll to be sure, but I think we would get similar results.
So to what extent can we take rumors into account when determining enemies…if I get a rumor that sowhat and elrond <assuming elrond is really elrond> were involved in an assassination attempt can I assume sowhat to be a dark servant…and if so how about rumors of thefts from pop centers…can they be used to determine alliance?
