Yeah. Don't like paying money. Don't like paying more money even
worse. (Something terribly wrong with the grammar there.)
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
The whole of the opposition have to keep paying their 3.50's sorry
3.90's turn after turn,Sorry - was this a veiled complaint or aside about the pricing? Please just
say you don't like it, don't mind or whatever.
As for players who use monthly debit - it still takes us some effort to get
the card details correct (players often forget to update us with latest
information even when we ask), and lots of other little time consuming
issues. Regularly players get their credit card accounts wrong and the card
is refused because of the monhtly method whereby they forget. All easily
done.
Considering the fact that a credit card only expires once every 2 years
(or more?) this doesn't sound too traumatic.
>
>> 2) Your easiest market is your existing customer base. You should
>> exploit this by introducing a discount scheme for people who areplaying
>> in multiple games. This would tempt people to play more games and pay
>> for itself very quickly.
>Don't agree with this one though. I checked out the time vs money thingand
>players are fifty-fifty on this. Money is (generally) not the object for
>players who play a lot was the basic marketing thing we came up with.
It is an artificial distinction, and your question was not the best that
could have been asked.What would be?
An open ended one:
What would encourage you to play more games?
If the turns were cheaper, would you play more?
I am not convinced. What sort of scheme?
You have the figures, I don't, but a 10% discount for a third position,
20% for a 4th etc. would be attractive. If one in ten of your players
takes up a position they would not otherwise have taken, then you're "in
the money". (Visions of the Hamster tap-dancing)
What you seem to be asking here overall is that turns become cheaper in one
way or another? Would I be correct in this?
No. I'm saying that you should reward those who buy in bulk. I'm
saying that you should provide incentives to get more positions & games
running. I'm saying that I took a deep intake of breath when I saw my
credit card bill this month, but I'd still like to take on (another) new
position.
If so what would be a fair
price(s)? Won't players play as much as time (ie wife, inclination, work
etc) and money (desire to spend and can afford) allow?
Don't bring the wife into it... whatever you do. I have to hide the
credit card bill from her already.
As an aside I just realised that the last thing that I did at night (other
than read the Reality Dysfunction by Peter Hamilton a good space yarn btw -
suitbale for a Roleplaying adventure) was write on the list, and lo here I
am again...
Like to keep you busy. Get my money's worth. Hey you could have a
fixed charge for replying to letters, like solicitors do. There's a
thought 
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
Ah there you are confusing the "game is for free and Clint starves" option
as a viable one.
Clint
>> The whole of the opposition have to keep paying their 3.50's sorry
>> 3.90's turn after turn,
>
>Sorry - was this a veiled complaint or aside about the pricing? Please
just
>say you don't like it, don't mind or whatever.
Yeah. Don't like paying money. Don't like paying more money even
worse. (Something terribly wrong with the grammar there.)Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
>I am not convinced. What sort of scheme?
You have the figures, I don't, but a 10% discount for a third position,
20% for a 4th etc. would be attractive. If one in ten of your players
takes up a position they would not otherwise have taken, then you're "in
the money". (Visions of the Hamster tap-dancing)
Sounds like it might work - will have a think about that and do some maths.
>What you seem to be asking here overall is that turns become cheaper in
one
>way or another? Would I be correct in this?
No. I'm saying that you should reward those who buy in bulk. I'm
saying that you should provide incentives to get more positions & games
running. I'm saying that I took a deep intake of breath when I saw my
credit card bill this month, but I'd still like to take on (another) new
position.
Why reward those who buy in bulk? It doesn't particularly help us that much
(saves an hour work a week) and is it's own reward for those paying as it
saves them effort?
>If so what would be a fair
>price(s)? Won't players play as much as time (ie wife, inclination, work
>etc) and money (desire to spend and can afford) allow?
Don't bring the wife into it... whatever you do. I have to hide the
credit card bill from her already.
Basically like I said before I have seen players fork out large amounts for
turns - because to them their income means that they can easily afford it.
Anyone on �20k plus can afford a PBm hobby no problem at all and anyone
under that can do so with some reservations. I played a lot of games when a
young laddie for example - just took on some more paper rounds.
>
>As an aside I just realised that the last thing that I did at night
(other
>than read the Reality Dysfunction by Peter Hamilton a good space yarn
btw -
>suitbale for a Roleplaying adventure) was write on the list, and lo here
I
>am again...
Like to keep you busy. Get my money's worth. Hey you could have a
fixed charge for replying to letters, like solicitors do. There's a
thought
Okay - that's �30 please, and as you took more than two hours to reply to
one of them an extra �5 please - credit card payments charge an extra 5%...
Clint
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
> >My
> >suggestion, Clint, is that whenever a game finishes you offer a free
start-up
> >to those left at the end, provided they sign up straight away for one
of
the
> >current games filling up.
> I DON'T like this AT ALL. It encourages people to linger - one or two
> intransigent individuals hang on long after the game is irredeemable.We have that anyway...
> The whole of the opposition have to keep paying their 3.50's sorry
> 3.90's turn after turn,Sorry - was this a veiled complaint or aside about the pricing? Please
just
say you don't like it, don't mind or whatever.
> when more fun would be had by all if the
> lingerers conceded, and a rematch was arranged. You'll save much more
> money by resigning when your chance of winning is gone than by hanging
> on to the end and getting a free start up.I concur - but some players play this that they would never surrender the
little hobbits to the mouth of Sauron or the like. Fine by me although I
think it detrimental to actual play overall though as it does penalise the
other team. Very hard to please all of the people all of the time here.Clint
>
Why don`t the G.M`s look at a game, contact the side that has nearly lost
and then descide themselves if a game is worth playing on. This would cut
down on those games were people just hang on with a death grip.
shaun
----- Original Message -----
From: Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Pricing structure
> Regards,
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 72% off on Name brand Watches!
> Come and buy today and get free shipping!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4011/9//430399//958463776/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/9//430399//958473683/
------------------------------------------------------------------------Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Ah there you are confusing the "game is for free and Clint starves"
option as a viable one.
And who'll feed Twitch???
Colin.
That'll be me wife...
> Ah there you are confusing the "game is for free and Clint starves"
> option as a viable one.And who'll feed Twitch???
Colin.
Because we don't want to bring GM opinion into it. A player must have a
right to play to the death. After 30 turns he's invested 105 UKP in
turn fees alone (soon to be 117 UKP), and irrespective of what others
chose to do with their money, he must be allowed to play on if that's
what makes him happy. BUT there's nothing to stop him waiving that
right in advance (might improve his chances of finding team mates, and
reduce his chances of getting his head kicked in at a convention by the
other team). That's where pre-game agreements could be useful.
As for teams that give up too early - I think that's for them to decide.
If the other team have bluffed them, then great. Post game discussions
are some of the best - there's nothing to stop the GM giving his view
after the event. The game also has a morale aspect - you batter the
enemy nation, and in your head you picture the depressed guy reading his
turn sheet. If you beat a team by eroding their confidence then that's
great - just look at what happens to the England cricket team every
year. Their skills are not cr*p, you can see that on paper, but the
other teams, esp. the bl**dy Aussies, intimidate them. The GM should
not intervene any more than an umpire should.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Shaun Brown <whatdoyouwant@btinternet.com> wrote
Why don`t the G.M`s look at a game, contact the side that has nearly lost
and then descide themselves if a game is worth playing on. This would cut
down on those games were people just hang on with a death grip.
Tried this before with a couple of games but the players just wanted to play
on. Generally I do contact players in that situation (no need to bring up
the X times when I haven't please!)
Clint
Why don`t the G.M`s look at a game, contact the side that has nearly
lost
and then descide themselves if a game is worth playing on. This would cut
down on those games were people just hang on with a death grip.
shaun
Hi,
Why don`t the G.M`s look at a game, contact the side that has nearly
lost and then descide themselves if a game is worth playing on. This
would cut down on those games were people just hang on with a death
grip.
Are you suggesting that the GM should have the power to say, 'Right,
that's it, game over'?
From a player perspective I would hate that *big time*.
Froma GM perspective it's probably a total minefield - not to mention
taking a fair amount of time. What if the player doesn't have email? I
don't think Clint will want to ring round. Besides, at what point would
this happen?
Colin.
That'll be me wife...
Ah, but who'll feed her???
Colin.
Someone wrote...
"If you beat a team by eroding their confidence then that's
great... their skills are not cr*p, you can see that on paper, but the
other teams, esp. the bl**dy Aussies, intimidate them."
That's uncanny...! Are you in game 34???
Colin wrote..
"I always try to keep names to a sensible genre suggested by the
position. For instance Dwarven names are easy (Fili, Kili, Thorin,
Balin, Torin etc)".
What about Bashful, Doc, Dopey, Happy, Sleepy, Sneezy and Grumpy? (I can
name them all Laurence)
Isn't that sizeist?
Kev (Bored)
> Why don`t the G.M`s look at a game, contact the side that has nearly
lost
----- Original Message -----
From: Laurence G. Tilley <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:07 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Hanger's on and team concessions
Shaun Brown <whatdoyouwant@btinternet.com> wrote
>and then descide themselves if a game is worth playing on. This would cut
>down on those games were people just hang on with a death grip.
Because we don't want to bring GM opinion into it. A player must have a
right to play to the death. After 30 turns he's invested 105 UKP in
turn fees alone (soon to be 117 UKP), and irrespective of what others
chose to do with their money, he must be allowed to play on if that's
what makes him happy. BUT there's nothing to stop him waiving that
right in advance (might improve his chances of finding team mates, and
reduce his chances of getting his head kicked in at a convention by the
other team). That's where pre-game agreements could be useful.As for teams that give up too early - I think that's for them to decide.
If the other team have bluffed them, then great. Post game discussions
are some of the best - there's nothing to stop the GM giving his view
after the event. The game also has a morale aspect - you batter the
enemy nation, and in your head you picture the depressed guy reading his
turn sheet. If you beat a team by eroding their confidence then that's
great - just look at what happens to the England cricket team every
year. Their skills are not cr*p, you can see that on paper, but the
other teams, esp. the bl**dy Aussies, intimidate them. The GM should
not intervene any more than an umpire should.
Why have G.M at all then
Regards,Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.
Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:
http://click.egroups.com/1/2345/9//430399//958564010/
------------------------------------------------------------------------Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Sign of a misspent youth.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Kevin O'Keefe <kevin@okeefe.u-net.com> wrote
What about Bashful, Doc, Dopey, Happy, Sleepy, Sneezy and Grumpy? (I can
name them all Laurence)
Shaun Brown wrote:
Shaun Brown <whatdoyouwant@btinternet.com> wrote
... except he didn't. Not only did he quote very long messages, he didn't
actually add anything... That can get you shot on some lists.
Gavin
My job (as I see it in response to: by the way please try to mark clearly
your statements so that we all know what's going on)
> Why have G.M at all then
... is to facilitate the playing of MEPBM.
That's it...
Clint
PS as to what facilitating is here - that'll take a little longer...
As for teams that give up too early - I think that's for them to decide.
If the other team have bluffed them, then great. Post game discussions
are some of the best - there's nothing to stop the GM giving his view
after the event. The game also has a morale aspect - you batter the
enemy nation, and in your head you picture the depressed guy reading his
turn sheet. If you beat a team by eroding their confidence then that's
great - just look at what happens to the England cricket team every
year. Their skills are not cr*p, you can see that on paper, but the
other teams, esp. the bl**dy Aussies, intimidate them. The GM should
not intervene any more than an umpire should.Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
To, Laurence and Kev,
As a non-bl**dy Aussie but have played against and with them for the past 2?
3? Too bl**dy long anyway, :).
Don't bother insulting them but if you can insult them back as good as they
can throw at you, you earn their respect. Basically for a people who's used
to throwing abuse and insults on each another, intimidation DON'T work, it's
The Facts of Life to them. So that explains why their RL Sportsmen and
Women Are So Intimidating to Others.
But don't get me wrong, they seems to be great fun-makers, so is their
neighbours, the Kiwis. We had Loads of Aussies & New Zealanders in KL
during the 1998 Commonwealth, they really had fun. No matter if the Aust or
NZ did well or not, they started the party at the end of the game & it was
fun.
I'm seriously thinking of going to Sydney for the Olympics, if I can somehow
get some boarding space with my Aussie Friends.
As for Hangers-On, right now I'm in a game playing two positions, don't jump
on me, my team declared that they won, but there's one bunch of Aussie
Players that a whole lot of Other Aussie Players don't really like who
wouldn't drop (they were playing DkLt & CL), so I was the only who opted to
continue (For I Don't Like Them More) so I took another position from one of
my teammates (some who opted to drop even volunteered to throw in the
remaining of their game balances to me). Those two are gone now and there's
only the BS left, who happens 2b one of my team-mates from my other games.
He earned a rep for being a die-hard, he decided he has the cash and is now
trying for a One-Ring Win in a 1650 game. So now I've to terminate him in
less than 3 or 4 turns b4 my own cash runs out for I'm not gonna cough up
more money and I think I can do it. The key to end game hunting is having
the right mix of chars, I think. In this game, the enemy has MTs in far off
corners I can't reach with an army (actually as Cors, the pop ctrs he hides
in the NW don't really bother me) but that doesn't means I can't get at
them.
As for G34, I think the Free may win, why ? because they aren't really doing
that well and if I know my team-mates, I know how to play against them. If
enough Free survives manages to out-numbered the few Aussies die-hards in
our team who NEVER drops, then they have a chance. Basically I forecast our
team declaring ourselves a win and drop.
But I find it pleasant and interesting to know that my team is intimidating
the Free in G34.
b.e.
My job (as I see it in response to: by the way please try to mark clearly
your statements so that we all know what's going on)
Yes PLEASE take more care Shaun.
> Why have G.M at all then
... is to facilitate the playing of MEPBM.
When he quoted the whole of my mail and inserted this line, complete
with a (>) just in front of my sig, Shaun was responding to me. I had
said that GMs should not be expected to intervene based upon their own
opinion of the state of the game.
Since it was not understood, and since it's still good, I'll try the
sporting metaphor again. I'll reduce it from cricket to football, as
this may be more effective at hitting the mark (if you'll forgive the
confusing Archery metaphor - never mind Shaun):
In a game of football, the role of the referee is to interpret and apply
the rules. He makes judgements about whether or not rules have been
infringed. He sends players off for breaching the rules, but he does
not send them off for "being likely to lose". Nor does he tell them
"'Ere you're playin' like cr*p mate!" Coventry would never last the 90
minutes. The quality of play is evaluated by the manager who makes
decisions about substitutions, and who will play in the next game.
In MEPBM the role of the GM is to:
# Stick the data into the computer
# Correct it when he's input it wrongly (oh not again!)
# Resolve infringements of the House Rules (Character name
'HamstersRNaff')
# Resolve conflict from unforeseen events not otherwise covered in the
rules
# Guarantee fair competition.
It is not his role to:
# Tell a team how strong or weak he thinks their position is.
That undermines the psychological efforts of the other team, and is
comparable to a batsman saying to the umpire "Do you think I'd do better
if I spent less time on the back foot?" or a goal keeper saying to a
referee "Do you think I should go left or right for this penalty?"
I can see one possible exception, when the GM might announce his opinion
on the state of the game:
# When the team have failed to find a replacement for a dropped
position.
The GM might, in order to find a new player have to say "I think this
position is still playable, and it is a good team, who are doing fairly
well." But even then, he should do this reluctantly, and quietly to the
prospective player only. There's nothing to stop him asking the players
for their opinion. "Replacement QAv position needed in 1650 game,
nation state is fair, both teams claim they are doing well."
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com> wrote
In MEPBM the role of the GM is to:
# Stick the data into the computer
# Correct it when he's input it wrongly (oh not again!)
Very rare - with so many orders less thatn 1% I think you'll find.
# Resolve infringements of the House Rules (Character name
'HamstersRNaff')
and creation of appropriate House Rules.
# Resolve conflict from unforeseen events not otherwise covered in the
rules
Yeh...
# Guarantee fair competition.
I concur -this is only a part of it - the running of the business, getting
new players, chatting like this, all the chunky add on bits are what make or
break a game often I have found. For example when we took over the game was
definitely in decline (and our own "expert" capabilities didn't help). Now I
think we have built it up again. Some of the players do not like our style
(we are somewhat strict in some ways) but on the other hand too loose a hand
can bring disaster as well.
Players do ask for a lot of advice and guidance especially to start with.
It is not his role to:
# Tell a team how strong or weak he thinks their position is.
Sometimes players ask.
I can see one possible exception, when the GM might announce his opinion
on the state of the game:
# When the team have failed to find a replacement for a dropped
position.
The GM might, in order to find a new player have to say "I think this
position is still playable, and it is a good team, who are doing fairly
well."
Players consistently phone and ask for viable positions...
But even then, he should do this reluctantly, and quietly to the
prospective player only. There's nothing to stop him asking the players
for their opinion. "Replacement QAv position needed in 1650 game,
nation state is fair, both teams claim they are doing well."
yeh I would be so luck to get such info...
Regards,