Recently a game was stopped even though a player wanted to continue. Moralistic judgements against bug-hunts aside - I don’t recall this policy being communicated. I was in a 13 vs 1 game in the last couple years, so this is certainly new. While I loathe the bug-hunt, I have to say, I don’t necessarily agree with this arbitrary enforcement of disallowing one if the player in question so chooses to remain active.
Brad Brunet
There are ways to win from a position of weakness. But as usual, few want to explore that
Was this a game that could be won with the One Ring?
By definition, any game can be won with the One Ring… But one side doesn’t win until 100% of the other side is either eliminated or removed from play voluntarily with no players willing to pick them up. Period.
But Game 86 had a DS who wanted to continue and he was told it would be “inappropriate” to continue the game - so it’s now over. I don’t agree with that player continuing, but he certainly should have the right to - like freedom of speech, don’t always agree with what they say, but don’t try to shut them up…!
Interesting - did you ask for an explanation?
Or perhaps to elaborate on “inappropriate”
I wonder where the line is drawn. 6-1? 3-1? 12-3? I think it is inappropriate for the game to be called. If the majority wants to close it out, let them do the work.
Twasn’t me, I’m just the loudmouth in the street…
I’m glad you’ve gotten to the point where you can admit that in a public forum. The wonders of therapy…
And actually following prescriptions properly…
Hey, that was an honest error! I really thought the codeine bottle said “down a handful with a bourbon chaser”…
Is it wrong to look forward to surgery for the meds that come with it?
Brad, you were in this game? If so, then it looks like we are dealing with more “GM intrusion” into games. If so, then I note I have complained about that for years. A person can never be a ‘great’ GM until he learns when to stand aloof.
That democracy rearing its ugly head again :rolleyes:
Or to borrow from a more hallowed institution:
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… or the one”
Ed, I was amongst those who conceded and left.
Celebion - Democracy follows established rules and processes. The rules and processes established for MEPBM are that one Allegiance doesn’t win until the other is 100% dead. That is not the case in Game 86. In Game 86 we had an arbitrary ruling by a single person who was not personally involved but had the reins of power. You can’t use Democracy as an argument to support an application of dictatorial power - the volume of the current mob of the moment does any supporter of real Power to the People a great disservice.
Which nation in g86 wanted to continue?
Respectfully, that question is both erroneous and irrelevant.
Erroneous in that we’re talking of a Player - there are no real limits to how many Nations a player can play - there are serious precedents for Players running multiple Nations in a single game. So however many FP actually survived at that point might very well have been “playing” against more than one DS “nation” - if it were allowed.
And “if it were allowed” is what makes your question irrelevant - the point is the written rules and established practice was arbitrarily overturned. Agree or disagree on the tree - the issue is the forest.
What where the rules in that game – every game is different – am in some that end when it is a 3 to 1 , am in some when its 50 turns and then am in some where its till a one side wins and there are no others willing to stand on the other side and yes this might include a so called bug hunt – but know all this before going into the game !!
Standard 2 week 1650, no “special” game end rules. Just like our Bug Hunt against Cloudie, if you recall Mike. Your Rhudaur, wasn’t it? Got my Harad to join the Free… Good olde Indie game - where the fewer rules and “rulings” the better. These kinds of limitations are for custom games, agreed to amongst all players before starting.
“erroneous and irrelevant”
Erroneous - true I should have said which two nations, since that is the limit that the stated rules allow.
Irrelevant - also true but only to the point being discussed here - I am not disagreeing with your argument, merely curious as to the shape of the game had all the DS bar two nations dropped.
LMAO
Damn bro, when did you join the lunatic fringe element?
So the GM stopped the game but it not personally involved? Who is in charge of the game then? Only GM’s that are playing nations in a game may intercede?
I have never played in MEPBM game where 1 side had to be 100% eliminated. Is that a 1650 thing? I am glad GM’s will end bug hunt games and I think the majority of “normal” people are also
I come from a majority rules society, if everyone but one person wanted to quit there is no question as to what should and did transpire. Otherwise the losing team could opt to keep 1 person in the game and cause grief both time-wise and financial to the winning side.
Play WoW if you wanna be a dick to people 
OR-
Stay in the game, don’t quit then piss and moan (not you personally – all people)
Ironic to the nth degree that I am defending Harley
Steve, erstwhile Harley-hater