Ok so yes I played in game 1 and 3 I thnk it was and won playing dark and good and after many a game had a large break as I had done it all at the time.
But I remember all to well looking at players in other games, years of experience ahead and played listened and learned.
In the end I knocked them out and you plan for a year and take 2 in all to achieve ones aim of knocking a 10 year vet out of an open ended game was worth the effort in the end.
I thought the purpose of a mixed open game was so that the new can learn from the old, its then up to them how they use it.
But thats just my view and others are free to take another view
Oh but dont you get great delight in kicking Clints butt as he is known to lose and that thought and of course the pleasure of knowing he runs from my challanges, and other players to, well even knowing it all does not mean he is invincible!
Such things drive me to want to defeat such players as its a real challange.
Interesting thread, as usual. Knowing there are limits is enough for me, I don’t care for the actual numbers. I can see the knowledge of such combined with very careful accounting can provide players/teams with a minor edge in regards to strategic options. All the power to them. Even if the limit really and truly is that which has been stated here, well, it’s still up to the individual/team to actually track what’s happening in their games to use that power. Some games I work hard at that stuff, other times I don’t care. If I get beaten by “accountants”, well, that’s a part of the game, good on them and shame on my laziness. Similar argument for diplomacy - it’s a part of the game, if you don’t do it, you get jumped by neutrals, shame on you, too bad so sad.
As to great delight in kicking Clint’s butt, well, I do my best to keep you posted in the other thread…
GM’s like Clint and company have all the facts AND play in the games knowing all the facts. Can you honestly tell us that knowing the extra’s you dont actually use that information? Yea right.
I’ve commented on this before - I don’t think that you’ve ever played in a game I’m in Fred but anyone who has can comment on that. Although we have the code in the office we don’t access it ourselves. All the information I’ve picked up has been by play - mostly the FTFs - they’re great for learning some new bits (learnt a lot about cavalry moves in them for example and overall strategy).
If I did know all the bits then you’d see somewhat different moves - say for example in a Grudge game where I’d have moved my navy differently. Like I said in that earlier post I worked it out later but not without some hard thinking. So to assure you I (nor my staff) use the code to find out things, nor run simulations nor anything like that. We enjoy playing the game (I hope that comes across! ) hence the large number of games I personally play in and me and some friends play in two grudge games together for example. Now it all could be a double-bluff where I deliberately hide some of my illicit knowledge (and some will think that regardless) but anyone who knows me personally knows my thoughts on that.
One example is market manipulation - a skill that I think all the best players would have. I’ve played enough games now and you can probably (if you were bothered) do some things but I know that other players (and teams) are better than me - I’ve not worked it out yet but others seem to have done so (at least partially). There’s some basic rules of market manipulation - buy a product at a low cost bumping the price to a higher cost - I might be tempted to write an article for Bree for it but there’s lot more obscure aspects to MM as well. I’ve given my thoughts in an article in Bree for anti-agents (now updated in my own head) so you can get a good grasp of what I thought there and that should give you a baseline of what I know (and by inference my staff) and what I don’t.
I don’t mind being a target to take down - that’s quite fun. Generally our GM team gets around 3 requests to play against and I’ve been personally challenged to a 1-1 game (some sort of macho thing I think - pistols at dawn) on around 5 times.
I take it as a compliment to my skill as a player (cough) :o with the hint of wanting to get your own back or expressing their annoyance on the powers that be (bigger cough)… For some it’s more the latter but heh, each to their own…
So in answer: we don’t know the extras so can’t use it.
New rulebook - presently spending my time replying to emails rather than reading through the last draft I’m afraid.:o Still haven’t done my orders Brad - sorry been busy.
For me the frustration of hidden rules in general comes when also detract from the theming - there are few convincing reasons why there would be a hard kidnap limit or challenge limit in Middle Earth. While the limitations of the program implentation might have made those limits necessary, there isn’t a big game play reason why they couldn’t be published. People have brought up the fact that economic and military rules are not totally known, but there are perfectly valid thematic/ “realism” reasons why they shouldn’t be published.
You can clean up the rulebook without publishing lots of pages of algorithms.
For example Steal Gold is listed as hard though 40A’s can do it. Navy/Armies need to reworded
There are other orders also that should be revaluated and other sections that should be clarified.
Still no valid reason to not have clear concise rules in place. It is a poor business plan that is not friendly to the new player.
There is a limit on the number of characters in the game. Make it unlimited characters, and you get to kidnap them unlimitedly. The game isn’t made that way, for various other reasons, so there you go.
As for a challenge limit, I don’t even know what that means…? Is that the order or deaths via the 210? There should be a limit on 215’s if you ask me…play scaredy cat too long and too bad, no more refusing for you!
Why is it so many older players argue how bad it is on the new players? You survived and possibly thrived in this murky rules environment, no?
It’s somewhat confusing - Ed can help me here I think, but what kind of player would you prefer to play with? Someone who takes some responsibility and initiative, or someone who whines “It’s not all clear and easy from the beginning! I’m not playing!” This game is somewhat escapist for me and the farther from the “point-click-please-me-NOW” crowd it takes me, the better.
It’s my opinion that there aren’t legions of put-off gamers out there just waiting for MEPBM - Clarity Edition to sign up and make Clint and Co millionaires. I just don’t see it, sorry.
Am I the only one who laughs most of the time when I read Ed’s stuff? 50, perfect number, more like 50/50 it’s 50… [shrug] I guess I’ll just have to count now, won’t I? hahahaha! I love it…!! You win again Ed!
Yes I did survive, won my first game in fact, 57-Silvan Elves. My point it is poor business IMO to not have clear rules out there. Do you really think having ambiguity in the rules will encourage someone to play? " Hey John check out this new game, it costs 8 dollars per 2-weeks and in 2 years I may have a decent understanding of it."
I am all for someone taking responsibility and initiative. I am for creative play and non-linear thinking though I rarely find that in my games. I don’t see any correlation between ambiguity in the rules and the caliber of play a person may exhibit. Are you saying there should be ambiguity in the rules to weed out the point and click crowd? If so, then that is poor business. I would like to see more people sign up and try the game. The rules may not be an issue with the newer players though I have had a couple of new players email me about my post. I think it a great game that would not be hurt by cleaning up the rulebook.
There may not be legions of gamers waiting to play ME that are waiting on the clarity addition. Personally I think MEG does a poor job of soliciting new players in the US. There should one edition and it should be improved with regards to rules over the early 1990 edition. MEG has made or sponsored many such improvements in the game over GSI yet the rulebook, which should be a cornerstone, is still inaccurate in some instances.
I would like to see more people try the game and for MEG to make more money. Perhaps I am off base stating what I think can only help the game but it just one person’s opinion.
I do have one question, do any of the status quo crowd ever refer to the Bobbins website for encounter or artifact info? If so then you are relying on what other people have accumulated and published. I don’t see why there cant be some disclosure about other aspects of the game.
Actually, I’m quite all for publishing everything - I just don’t think it would have such a transformational effect on the nature of the game or the numbers of players that others seem quite convinced will happen.
In fact, as far as I can tell, there’s already an unfair split between those who have actually read the rules that do exist and a great number of players who quite obviously haven’t. Whether this is because people don’t think they need rules in our society, or can’t read anyway, I do not know, but they’re still playing (some for many years) so my “filter” doesn’t work. Mind you, doubling the size of the book won’t help them any either now, will it? Level the playing field or increase the disparity? I don’t know…publish everything, we at least will read it all and enjoy…
I believe that I might owe you guys a bit of an apology. Here and on the group forum I’ve heard a lot of discussion about rules and finances. For me, personally, I enjoy the unknown aspect of it. It lends itself to the same type of thinking that enabled a bunch of farmers to soundly defeat the seasoned veterans of the British empire on more than one occasion on the American Frontier. For me, it is enough to know that the rule exists.
Were it to be the case of a rule being created mid-stride, now that is something that I would have difficulty swallowing.
Anyway, onto the apology. You see, I knew that I disliked the whole “bash the company” policy, but I couldn’t figure out why. It just seemed that entirely too many people were using Clint and Co. as the new favorite whipping boy, something of which I’ve never been a fan. What I dislike is victimization, or, more to the point, people that insist upon taking the role of the victim. In American society, this has become prevalent, and it is something that, while I dearly love my country, I detest.
Upon reading further posts, it occured to me that what you guys were doing was hashing your way through a subject semi-intelligently without becoming truly angry, something which I aplaud.
For those of you concerned about the newbie standpoint, I wouldn’t worry. Personally, I’m addicted, and I am under ten in games played. (There are those that could tell how far under, but how interesting would that be? )
Personally I think MEG does a poor job of soliciting new players in the US. There should one edition and it should be improved with regards to rules over the early 1990 edition. MEG has made or sponsored many such improvements in the game over GSI yet the rulebook, which should be a cornerstone, is still inaccurate in some instances.
Players need marketing. We want a product that we’re happy to market - we went to US Gencon, advertised in and wrote articles for Polymancer magasine (you’ve probably not heard of it - Canadian mag circulated in the US) due to the lack of interest from the bigger mags such as Dragon etc. We want to do demos at shops but that can only occur when we have a portable system which with out limited resources we can do slowly but are doing. Primarily players come from other players; it’s how I got into being a GM in the first place for example. We’ve looked at nicer look to the game (we should have something out for that when the conversion is sorted for example) and also chatted to quite a few companies (met with the Dept Trade and Industry in London and got contacts with Ian Livingstone and some other projects we’re working on for example).
Rules are being updated, they are lower priority than, say dealing with requests from you guys, so getting them sorted is on the list and nearly done. Personally don’t fancy the stupid hour days I did before. :rolleyes: We designed Bofa to help bring new players into the game and protect the full games from “likely-to-drop” new players until they’ve learnt enough to know if the game is for them. KS is our next project - some good advice I’ve heard (and try to take to heart) is look after your current customers before looking for new ones.
We’ve only just taken over GSI so need to, and are, spending a lot of effort bringing it upto date, software development (mappers). I assume you use Palantir and I know you use AM - where did they come from!? I don’t think that some people appreciate the effort we have put into the game and developed it over the years and want bigger, better, yesterday but without paying the price. We’re on it, if you want to help that’s great - it’s what lots of PB(e)M companies rely on to move things forward. (AM was created by Mike Mulka with suggestions from us for example, Palantir by Mark, MEOW by Jason, Archon by Tibor, Bree by Colin and much, much more - these all take a lot of development time by us as well as the people who step forward to assist). What would you like to offer Steve?
As Oystein was very kind enough (note he did lots of the colour map stuff for us - thanks again!) I don’t know all - it’s fun learning though. (Mutters to self, checked the finances, had it double checked but, mutter, mutter).
Gee, this is really really interesting. I started out with a game called ‘Tactics’. A RTS boardgame of the first order (very simple), no fog of war, no hidden movement, simplistic rules system… Played another board game called ‘Assault’ in the 80’s based on the hypothetical confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in and around the Fulda Gap in West Germany (hundreds of pieces, large rules set, intricate line-of-sight rules) and my buddy and I got so bored with the fact that we could see every unit on the map we developed our own system of hidden movement and overlayed that onto the game. Why you ask? Because knowing everything about the nature of your opponent’s opportunities as confined by the rules made for rote tactics so to introduce some randomness into the game we intentionally clouded the issue.
Who among us has ever written computer programs? If you have you would know that nothing is really finite or excuciatingly precise to be able for every contingency to be programed for, so you program for the exception through error routines. Counters and data elements have a finite size and certain limits imposed by computing capacity and storage limitations. Therefore, any game that is run by (primarily) a computer program has limits.
The question begged here is, (IMHO) how much of the limits of the systems need to be ‘common’ knowledge to enhance the gamers’ experience? Obviously many would have each and every nuance and idiosyncrasy of the progrm exposed and many would just as soon experience some randomness or a bit of the unknown in their game play.
As for me, since I can only speak for myself, I prefer running into unknowns that may shock and dismay me at times and at others thrill and delight. As far as finances are concerned, I’ve benn around the block a few times and and am well aware of ‘you pays your money and you takes your chances’.
Thanks for the forum to allow me to post my opioion!!
John d
Played MEPBM in the 1990’s when it was run by GSI. Have returned.
As for the “not to scare off new players” issue: let’s face it, we are a bunch of freaks
A bunch that is large enough to keep the game going, with any luck for some years to come. Play-by-mail is a concept of the eighties, and its mainly played by people who know it from those early days and stuck to it.
But there is no way one will get the MMORPG/SHOOTER/REALTIME-STRATEGY-Kids to play this game. Reading the rulebook? Waiting two weeks for some pdf-file and pay for it? You get my drift. Even the immense Lord-of-the-Rings-hype did not much to increase the player base AFAIK. In the long run we will die out. So the issue that our rules will scare off new players is really, really moot. They are either scared off long before they get to the rules or led towards them by someone who can explain them. That means the only viable way to recruit new players is via other players. You know somebody of whom you think he might be interested, you play with him, explaining the game and with some luck he sticks to it. I tried that with many friends of mine, most of them lost interest after a few games, though. What remains is that bunch of freaks, of which I am proud to be a part of
I still find it discouraging to see rules pop up that were not known before. Point in case, the kidnap limit. Does the number have to be published? Probably not, but I think it should be known that their is a finite number to kidnaps, challenges and any other point of play not listed. I love the fog of war, that is why I play gunboat (By the way, no quit gunboat should become the game of choice for people that enjoy gunboat games). People are always going to have a difference in opinions, no one can change that.
In the early stages, my mentor probably new as much if not more than most of the people playing the game. He and a group of about five people eliminated everyone from a game and then played about 30 more turns just trying different things. He would not allow his knowledge to be published. Fortunately, many people started publishing their information to make the game more common knowledge.
I have seen quite a few people put together grudge teams and most of them ask for experienced opponents. Imagine taking down Bobbins website and then playing the free side against a relatively new dark servant team that has no idea what the response is to recruit a dragon let alone that they can even do that. Pretty boring game in my opinion.
Do I need or want the code published? Absolutely not. I could care less about the actual mechanics of the market. I don’t particulary care that much about the chances of a kidnap being succesful, but I do know experienced players have a lot more advantage than non experienced players.
Playing opponents that know the game is more enjoyable than playing opponents that have no idea what they are doing. Their are many experienced players that have no idea what they are doing. I have been accused more than once of not knowing what I am doing. On the other side, I have seen some new players that play well, if not better than experienced players.
Playing gunboat is more enjoyable with experienced players that won’t quit than random players that you have no idea if they will quit or not.
People always have different capacities. One of the awkward but challenging problems is getting people who think differently on the same wavelength. If people choose not to read the rules that is their decision. There is a world of difference between that and ‘we’ll keep the rules vague and inaccurate to give us an edge over new players’. That’s implicitly what people say when they prefer the rules being incomplete. I differentiate between the rules and the games mechanics.
I don’t say it would make a major difference, at least for most people. However it would be reassuring having a clearer idea what IS possible. Whether an action is worthwhile or not in a certain position is a matter for skill, experience and luck. What you can or can’t do is NOT, at least in my opinion.
There is one other point to be considered. As many people have said the nature of the game has changed and teamwork is far more important than it used to be. As such can a responsible new player say to his team ‘I know you’re always done that and it worked reasonably well but I want to try something different’? Especially since it might result in a major loss for the team.
) hence the large number of games I personally play in and me and some friends play in two grudge games together for example. Now it all could be a double-bluff where I deliberately hide some of my illicit knowledge (and some will think that regardless) but anyone who knows me personally knows my thoughts on that.
For some it’s more the latter but heh, each to their own… 
)