RJD: Actually, the LA scenario started to look interesting, but your messages posted
here seem to be getting more and more closed-minded, which has pretty much turned me
off to the idea. In fact, most of your statements seem to be along the lines of; "Let
me explain why I am right and you are wrong.", and you seem little interested in ANY
ideas that might change "your scenario" in the slightest. In fact, when someone makes
a suggested change, you seem almost defensive about it.
Please don't assume that silence means consent. I (and quite possibly others) haven't
joined the discussion, not necessarily because we agree with you, but because there
seemed little point in doing so. You don't seem to want to alter "your scenario" in
any way.
Mike Mulka
···
------Original Message-----
-From: Richard John Devereux [mailto:devereux@lineone.net]
-Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:39 PM
-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
-Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance
-
-RD: I HAVE started with what is known. It is NOT known, one way or the
-other, whether Sauron captured the palantir in SA or whether one of
-Elendil's sons rescued it. I consider it more likely that Sauron captured
-it. You obviously disagree. I suggest we agree to disagree. Nobody else
-has joined the discussion which suggests nobody else is bothered.
I think you're being unfair on him. The LA scenario is no different to
two other non-standard variations that I'm playing, one with pop changes
my Mike Sankey, one with changes by Richard. The only difference is
that for LA, Clint posted all the data here before starting the game.
And that's where we have a problem. I think Clint was unclear in asking
for comments. What's needed at this stage is ONLY serious objections,
not a free-for-all invitation to suggest multiple minor tweaks. If we
do that, the LA games will never get started.
The situation is quite different, to say, the 2nd ed. discussions, which
were based on a hypothetical revamping of the game.
If you'd like a more democratically constructed variation, then why not
start one? Have a period of collecting everyone's ideas, then debate to
your heart's content - BUT sooner or later, you, or somebody, has to
round up, and say "Right this is the finished proposal, unless there are
serious objections, we're going to play." That's the stage that LA is
at.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
···
Aaruman <aaruman@orions.net> wrote
Please don't assume that silence means consent. I (and quite possibly others)
haven't
joined the discussion, not necessarily because we agree with you, but because
there
seemed little point in doing so. You don't seem to want to alter "your scenario"
in
any way.
My thoughts are this. As with the other variant scenario if there are some
clear things wrong with the scenario before we start let's get them sorted
before everyone set-ups. Minor points of clarity can be left for a free for
all discussion after the game has run to its end and we can correct a later
version of the game (as we intend to do with WoTR variant). At present it
has a lot of interest (half again what we had for WoTR variant) so it has
clearly grabbed players attention. Clarification of any rulings are welcome
to be queried so that I can correct or modify them as appropriate (with
Richard's consent). Some things that the players have brought up (and in
the office) have been dealt with where this is possible and others points of
"historical" interest we can deal with later should we need to.
Personal opinions of methodology of presenting ones viewpoint are just that,
a personal opinion. Players are welcome to express them if they want, but
please try to be helpful if you can - and if difference of opinions do occur
then fine, we're all human.
'Nuff said,
Clint
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:
My thoughts are this. As with the other variant scenario if there
are some clear things wrong with the scenario before we start let's
get them sorted before everyone set-ups. Minor points of clarity can
be left for a free for all discussion after the game has run to its
end and we can correct a later version of the game (as we intend to do
with WoTR variant). At present it has a lot of interest (half again
what we had for WoTR variant) so it has clearly grabbed players
attention. Clarification of any rulings are welcome to be queried so
that I can correct or modify them as appropriate (with Richard's
consent). Some things that the players have brought up (and in the
office) have been dealt with where this is possible and others points
of "historical" interest we can deal with later should we need to.
'Nuff said,
Clint
I have to agree, lets first play a round of the scenario, and then
figure out whats wrong, and fix it afterwards. Seeing all the fuzz
about the Palantir question I brought up, I almost wish I hadn't 
Game balance goes before canon, and I have no problems with that
