Regarding a team play agreement I think it's unworkable & unnecessary,
although I agree with the sentiment behind it. The big problem is how are
you supposed to get people to agree to it, and suppose people do agree but
then break it what happens to them?
As far as the one ring is concerned I think it is largely irrelevant anyway.
I have yet to see it in any of my games, and of the dozen or so friends who
play MEPBM none of them has either. I know it's occured in a couple of
games, but only a couple. As far as I'm concerned if I were to lose due to
the One Ring, whilst being slightly irksome, I'd view it as an admission by
the other side that militarily they have lost, and are clutching at straws
for a way to technically "win" the game.
On pursuing individual victory conditions it will often be difficult to tell
if someone is doing this to the detriment of the overall team: who's to say
that the Cloud Lord is breaking the agreement if he assasinates character X
instead of Y, because X is on their victory conditions? In many cases it
will be unclear which target it was better to kill from the overall team
viewpoint. People who blatantly pursue their own goals at the expense of the
team are more of a problem. However, I've only really come across this once.
Perhaphs people could tell us of their own experiences with this kind of
thing?
One point I do agree with is the desire to see news circulated. In the past
I have sometimes found it extremely frustrating to play with people I don't
know and find some of them never tell you what they are up to (for this
reason I try to join games with friends). I'm not sure what can be done to
ensure that players do tell their colleagues what they are doing, other than
people continually reminding them to do so. Forcibly replacing those who
don't communicatre seems a bit draconian.
Finally, on the subject of surrendering I agree that it would be good if a
team could agree to surrender together. It's not so bad for those who want
to give up because they can just drop the position regardless of the
minority on their side who want to carry on. I'm thinking more of the
other side who sometimes spend ages chasing down the one remaining player on
the losing side, who won't give up. Whilst no doubt exiting for the latter,
this can be time consuming (preventing one being able to start up new
games), costly, and downright boring for everyone else, particularly for the
poor sod who is playing an army power on the other side of the map from the
one opponent who won't give up. I'd like to see Harlequin introduce some
kind of rule whereby if the referee thinks a game is unwinnable for one side
then it is stopped by GM ruling (perhaphs with a couple of turns notice).
I realise that Laurence's ideas were merely examples, but I don't see how
you can force people to accept or abide by any kind of informal agreement.
Most people will act reasonably anyway, and those that don't should find
that their reputation proceeds them and run out of allies.
Regards
Adam Mitchell
···
I'd like to see this question asked:
----------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that a team-play agreement document would be useful?
Such a document would be a gentlemen's agreement to encourage good co-
operative play. It would have a number of flexible clauses which could
be included or excluded by debate prior to the game. They would include
(for example only):
* I agree not to seek to end the game by means of the One Ring.
* I agree to circulate my news or forward it to an agreed co-ordinator
within 3 days of process.
* I agree to concede defeat if the majority of the team wishes to
concede.
* I agree not to pursue the Individual Victory Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'd be willing to draft such a flexible document, but I'd like to know
first if there's sufficient interest.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
Heather Taylor wrote:
the One Ring, whilst being slightly irksome, I'd view it as an admission by
the other side that militarily they have lost, and are clutching at straws
for a way to technically "win" the game.
There are only two ways to win: elimination of the opposing side or finding
and returning the One Ring. Given that 99.9% of wins are in the former
category, I would say that a team that manages a One Ring win should
actually earn our collective respect and admiration.
A One Ring win is not a "technical" win. It's a win.
Gavin
Heather Taylor wrote:
I'm thinking more of the
other side who sometimes spend ages chasing down the one remaining player on
the losing side, who won't give up. Whilst no doubt exiting for the latter,
this can be time consuming (preventing one being able to start up new
games), costly, and downright boring for everyone else, particularly for the
poor sod who is playing an army power on the other side of the map from the
one opponent who won't give up.
I won a game like this once. Are you saying I should have given up just 'cos
I was badly outnumbered at one stage?
Gavin
Heather Taylor wrote:
I'd like to see Harlequin introduce some
kind of rule whereby if the referee thinks a game is unwinnable for one side
then it is stopped by GM ruling (perhaphs with a couple of turns notice).
Definite vote against GM interference! It's bad enough having GMs actually
playing without also asking them to constantly evaluate the state of play.
Gavin
The issue is - is it worth asking the question? - not, with respect, how
you would answer it. I described the idea as a "Gentlemen's agreement".
That mean's nothing happens to you if you break it. It's about
friendship and honour, and making a statement of intent. Such an
agreement, would make things clear for later in the game. I've seen
teams argue because they have different recollections of what was
decided about the one ring. I've seen teams break up in acrimony when
nearing defeat, because some would like to concede, whilst others want
to play to the death, but nobody wants to be seen as a bad team-player.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
···
Heather Taylor <heather.taylor@virgin.net> wrote
Regarding a team play agreement I think it's unworkable & unnecessary,
although I agree with the sentiment behind it. The big problem is how are
you supposed to get people to agree to it, and suppose people do agree but
then break it what happens to them?
I realise that Laurence's ideas were merely examples, but I don't see how
you can force people to accept or abide by any kind of informal agreement.
Most people will act reasonably anyway, and those that don't should find
that their reputation proceeds them and run out of allies.
What we win?! Okay I win game 46 - game 39 in two turns, and game 23 I
resurrect the Sylvan's and win with them as the dwarves are a little too
short for my liking.
Basically if a player wants to continue it is hard to say no to them. Some
players like that style of play.
Clint
Heather Taylor wrote:
> I'd like to see Harlequin introduce some
> kind of rule whereby if the referee thinks a game is unwinnable for one
side
> then it is stopped by GM ruling (perhaphs with a couple of turns
notice).
···
Definite vote against GM interference! It's bad enough having GMs actually
playing without also asking them to constantly evaluate the state of play.
Gavin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$60 in FREE Long Distance! Click Here to join beMANY! today.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4126/9//430399//958506818/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
If the agreement was made formally I could enforce it. It generally suits
grudge matches and the like though.
Clint
···
I realise that Laurence's ideas were merely examples, but I don't see how
you can force people to accept or abide by any kind of informal agreement.
Most people will act reasonably anyway, and those that don't should find
that their reputation proceeds them and run out of allies.
Regards
Adam Mitchell
Gavinwj wrote:
A One Ring win is not a "technical" win. It's a win.
I totally agree! Its part of nthe game design and (aside from other
considerations) it is how the 'Free Peoples' won in the actual book.
Cant see any gentleman's agreement between Sauron and Gandalf about not
trying the find the Ring. Everything that wenty on was all about how to
stop Sauron getting his hands on the Precious...
I won a game like this once. Are you saying I should have given up just
'cos I was badly outnumbered at one stage?
Quite. Whilst I agree that playing against someone tenacious enough to
keep going against all the odds can be very frustrating, I must also
admit that actually doing that was really a great deal of fun. I
certainly don't think we should heap opprobrium on anyone who hangs on
in there! Besides if a team is properly organised, one person will not
be able to hold out for long.
Colin.
Something that I notice due to more access to the game is that some teams
appear to give up when they should continue to play and the odds in their
favour. Shame that - it happened in game 23 for us lot when we thought we
were utterly creamed, but then I heard the bad news about the other side and
now we think that we are have a good shot.
Some of it is quite clever propaganda in games which I am all for,
(especially for the "poor" neutrals who don't get accurate info throughout
the majority of the early game).
My advice: It's generally worth sticking with the game a little longer - but
when the team decides (should you be in a team) then drop out and give the
laurels to the winners uh? I guess this is partially the ethic of playing
to win as a primary goal, or playing to have "fun" (I have fun trying to win
btw) more along the way.
Clint
Heather Taylor wrote:
> I'm thinking more of the
> other side who sometimes spend ages chasing down the one remaining
player on
> the losing side, who won't give up. Whilst no doubt exiting for the
latter,
> this can be time consuming (preventing one being able to start up new
> games), costly, and downright boring for everyone else, particularly for
the
> poor sod who is playing an army power on the other side of the map from
the
> one opponent who won't give up.
I won a game like this once. Are you saying I should have given up just
'cos
···
I was badly outnumbered at one stage?
Gavin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/9//430399//958506680/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
I tried this with a letter to all players at the beginning of the game and I
think it has had some success - some players actually contact me now and
tell me they are unable to continue playing for whatever reason, and I can
often find others to take it up. So I think some sort of agreement does
help although it won't solve the problem.
Clint
>Regarding a team play agreement I think it's unworkable & unnecessary,
>although I agree with the sentiment behind it. The big problem is how are
>you supposed to get people to agree to it, and suppose people do agree
but
>then break it what happens to them?
>I realise that Laurence's ideas were merely examples, but I don't see how
>you can force people to accept or abide by any kind of informal
agreement.
···
Heather Taylor <heather.taylor@virgin.net> wrote
>Most people will act reasonably anyway, and those that don't should find
>that their reputation proceeds them and run out of allies.
The issue is - is it worth asking the question? - not, with respect, how
you would answer it. I described the idea as a "Gentlemen's agreement".
That mean's nothing happens to you if you break it. It's about
friendship and honour, and making a statement of intent. Such an
agreement, would make things clear for later in the game. I've seen
teams argue because they have different recollections of what was
decided about the one ring. I've seen teams break up in acrimony when
nearing defeat, because some would like to concede, whilst others want
to play to the death, but nobody wants to be seen as a bad team-player.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws.
http://click.egroups.com/1/3020/9//430399//958509974/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Gavinwj wrote:
A One Ring win is not a "technical" win. It's a win.
I totally agree! Its part of nthe game design and (aside from other
considerations) it is how the 'Free Peoples' won in the actual book.
Cant see any gentleman's agreement between Sauron and Gandalf about not
trying the find the Ring. Everything that wenty on was all about how to
stop Sauron getting his hands on the Precious...
I also agree..agreements gentlemans or otherwise between free and DS totaly
stink....you can take non agression pacts etc and shove them where the sun
dont shine
I won a game like this once. Are you saying I should have given up just
'cos I was badly outnumbered at one stage?
Quite. Whilst I agree that playing against someone tenacious enough to
keep going against all the odds can be very frustrating, I must also
admit that actually doing that was really a great deal of fun. I
certainly don't think we should heap opprobrium on anyone who hangs on
in there! Besides if a team is properly organised, one person will not
be able to hold out for long.
I remember game 9 too !! When it comes down to chasing another player all
over the map on your own just because you want to win i think it is time to
give up as i did.......its a big country to hide in when only 2 people are
playing .....i would like to thank clint for the reward he gave for sticking
with the game for so long
forbes
Colin.
···
-----Original Message-----
From: ColinForbes [mailto:mearth@suilven.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 16 May 2000 23:11
To: mepbmlist@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Pricing structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old school buds here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4057/9//430399//958515134/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Harlequin Games wrote:
Shame that - it happened in game 23 for us lot when we thought we
were utterly creamed, but then I heard the bad news about the other side and
now we think that we are have a good shot.
What bad news would that be, Clint?
Gavin
The question is did you win by knocking out the other players or did they
descide that they had won and gave up.
shaun
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Harlequin Games <pbm@harlequingames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Pricing structure
Something that I notice due to more access to the game is that some teams
appear to give up when they should continue to play and the odds in their
favour. Shame that - it happened in game 23 for us lot when we thought we
were utterly creamed, but then I heard the bad news about the other side
and
now we think that we are have a good shot.
Some of it is quite clever propaganda in games which I am all for,
(especially for the "poor" neutrals who don't get accurate info throughout
the majority of the early game).
My advice: It's generally worth sticking with the game a little longer -
but
when the team decides (should you be in a team) then drop out and give the
laurels to the winners uh? I guess this is partially the ethic of playing
to win as a primary goal, or playing to have "fun" (I have fun trying to
win
btw) more along the way.
Clint
> Heather Taylor wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking more of the
> > other side who sometimes spend ages chasing down the one remaining
player on
> > the losing side, who won't give up. Whilst no doubt exiting for the
latter,
> > this can be time consuming (preventing one being able to start up new
> > games), costly, and downright boring for everyone else, particularly
for
the
> > poor sod who is playing an army power on the other side of the map
from
the
> > one opponent who won't give up.
>
> I won a game like this once. Are you saying I should have given up just
'cos
> I was badly outnumbered at one stage?
>
> Gavin
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/9//430399//958506680/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Save 75% on Products!
Find incredible deals on overstocked items with Free shipping!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/9//430399//958520089/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
Well that you are all going to die - we already have Chris Hardy claim that
he should have changed to our side as he is getting as the saying goes, "a
right kicking" and you ain't seen nothing yet.
Clint
> Shame that - it happened in game 23 for us lot when we thought we
> were utterly creamed, but then I heard the bad news about the other side
and
···
> now we think that we are have a good shot.
What bad news would that be, Clint?
Gavin
Free start up or something like - he seemed like had had earned it....
Clint
···
forbes jaffray wrote:
> i would like to thank clint for the reward he gave for sticking
> with the game for so long
There was a reward...?!
Gavin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.
http://click.egroups.com/1/3019/9//430399//958589091/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
