So I disagree with the basic MEPBM is always a team game and am
interested in the views of the readership on this subject.
It's a two-step game, as clearly noted in the rules and by
yourself. A *player* wins the game, but can only do so if the
*team* wins the overall fight.
It's an interesting psychological experiment based on gender.
You see, women tend to cooperate more than men so they would put
the team first. Men tend to be more confrontational and ego
driven, so they (we) put themselves first. This has been shown
over and over again in multiple research studies. (Even in the
most serious of situations, ego comes first for men. Witness the
end of WW2 for many examples of cooperation giving way to ego.)
This is also why there are so few women gamers. Most games
are adversarial, winner takes all, by nature.
It is therefore a noble, and fascinating, idea that is difficult
to make work.
You should see that though perhaps more as a statement of the game designers' original objective rather than a statement of what the game actually is. Since their mechanisms for determining individual achievement - the Victory Points and Conditons - were, by near universal agreement, a complete failure, only one of your two steps remains. I'd therefore suggest that MEPBM is always a team game, except on those occasions when it is a bad game.
It's a two-step game, as clearly noted in the rules and by
yourself. A *player* wins the game, but can only do so if the
*team* wins the overall fight.
You should see that though perhaps more as a statement of the game
designers' original objective rather than a statement of what the game
actually is. Since their mechanisms for determining individual achievement
- the Victory Points and Conditons - were, by near universal agreement, a
complete failure, only one of your two steps remains. I'd therefore
suggest that MEPBM is always a team game, except on those occasions when it
is a bad game.
Well then I guess by that I can't sign up for a game unless I recruit a
team to start with.
Well then I guess by that I can't sign up for a game unless I
recruit a team to start with.
You can never play Middle Earth unless you sign up with a team...you
don't have to recruit them though. ME Games will assign you team
members...either DS or FP. Of course you can play neutral if you
want. Neutrals in 1650/2950 eventually declare allegiance to either
DS or FP though. In 4th age, you can stay neutral the entire game
if you want(maybe the best choice for solo players), but eventually
you'll see it's not in your best interest to play as a team will
eventually gang up on you.
Teams that act like TEAMS do better...meaning players that put the
team first before themselves have a much better chance of winning
the game. You can put a team of all star players on one side that
don't communicate and play selfishly and put a team of new players
on the other that do communicate well and are a TEAM and I'll always
put my bets on the new players.
> Well then I guess by that I can't sign up for a game unless I
>recruit a team to start with.
You can never play Middle Earth unless you sign up with a
team...you
don't have to recruit them though. ME Games will assign you team
members...either DS or FP. Of course you can play neutral if you
want. Neutrals in 1650/2950 eventually declare allegiance to either
Joel, I think you are confusing alignment with a team. Just because
you are a Free Person or a DS doesn't make you a member of a team.
Sure if you are to do well you will need to cooperate with the other
members of your alignment but that does not make it a team. A team is
members who band together by choice, not simply because they are in
the same alignment.
DS or FP though. In 4th age, you can stay neutral the entire game
if you want(maybe the best choice for solo players), but eventually
you'll see it's not in your best interest to play as a team will
eventually gang up on you.
Teams that act like TEAMS do better...meaning players that put the
team first before themselves have a much better chance of winning
the game.
I do agree with you completely here Joel, you cannot succeed in this
game as a lone wolf no matter how powerful your nation is. I feel
however in a solo game you are free to choose your own course no
matter how stupid that choice may be in the long run, you are not
obligated in any way to support a group strategy that you do not
believe in. In a grudge game however I think you are obligated to go
with the strategy that the team comes up with, even if you don't
personally think it is the best way to go. I've been in games where
everyone worked closely together and games where the relationship was
very fractious, you can probably guess which was more enjoyable.
You can put a team of all star players on one side that
don't communicate and play selfishly and put a team of new players
on the other that do communicate well and are a TEAM and I'll
> Well then I guess by that I can't sign up for a game unless I
>recruit a team to start with.
You can never play Middle Earth unless you sign up with a team...you
don't have to recruit them though. ME Games will assign you team
members...either DS or FP. Of course you can play neutral if you
want. Neutrals in 1650/2950 eventually declare allegiance to either
DS or FP though. In 4th age, you can stay neutral the entire game
if you want(maybe the best choice for solo players), but eventually
you'll see it's not in your best interest to play as a team will
eventually gang up on you.
NO ME will assign abunch of random people to mostly random positions.
Radomly grouping people does not make them a TEAM.
ME will assign abunch of random people to mostly random positions.
Radomly grouping people does not make them a TEAM.
Aha! But they CAN make a team. A Team is People. Those who
say Middle Earth is a Team Game don't take such an exacting
technical view. Nobody can deny that: more often than not the
"allegiance" that works more closely together wins. Thus, in
order to win, you work as close as possible with your "allys".
These allys are strangers from various continents. You must get
to know each other, make allowances for each other, etc. As
the game wears on, barring major personality/pride disputes, a
group of strangers Becomes a team in a less literal sense.
As has been often stated, a group of experienced and talented
players working alone will easily lose to a less experienced
group.
As Lawrence stated: there are Team Games, and there are Bad
games. If your random allottment of strangers do NOT "become"
a "team" in this sense, you will likely lose, and likely
consider the game a "bad" one.
And considering I've played with you in the past and do not
remember you as a selfish anti-team player, I'm confused as to
your position here..
Brad
···
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
We've caught ourselves on a semantic hook here. Those of us who believe "MEPBM is always (effectively) a team game" will easily consider "alignment" and "team" to be synonymous - on turn 0 you're assigned to a team just the same as if you joined your local cricket club and were asked to play. Those arguing that it's not always a team game have of necessity to consider a "team" as being something other than just the alignment to which one is allocated (interesting though that in the game it is sometimes called an "allegiance").
So I supposed then, we end the circle talking about a "team" = bunch of people thrown together or a "TEAM" = group of people acting together to achieve a goal.
--- kurgan <kurgan@olp.net> wrote: >
> ME will assign abunch of random people to mostly
random positions.
>
> Radomly grouping people does not make them a TEAM.
Darn it Dave! When are yo going to get on board with
this "team" idea?
JCC
···
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
