The part about the WK army also being destroyed was not in the original
post; makes all the difference.
Thanks to John there. I cannot give out that information as a GM - it's
like asking - I cast 90 points of Weakness I want to know if the character
died - I cannot give that information away.
> Yes but what error have we done?
>
*sigh* None that I know of. *THE POINT* is errors often go unnoticed
unless someone looks. That's a general point, perhaps (or perhaps not)
applicable but not specific to the matter at hand - as in, something to
consider if someone brings up something like this again.
Yes but no errors have occurred - every unusual enquiry/question cannot be
investigated. Or we could but we would spend ALL day every day
investigating them.
> Or input - if there is nothing to
> investigate running the simulation again will just show up the same
battle.
>
Unless, of course, there are secret modifiers which might change from
one battle to the next. Lest you think I'm being flippant, consider
that in Victory! - one of the most detailed number-crunching battle
systems in existence - there is still a random modifier which can turn
the tide of battle, so you will *not* always get the same result with
the same two forces in the same situation. Of course, in that game
players are made aware of the existence of that factor...
I am not aware of any random factors. I mentioned this before in a posting
to do with a different query - ie we re-run the battle and the exact same
result came up. Implication is that this is not the case. Note most
players have voted for hidden information - if we give the information away
then it isn't hidden! 
> > > I don't want to go into details of Dragons
> > ...
> > > - GSI won't tell us would be my
> > > guess as we have asked this sort of thing before.
> > >
> > Not making sense here; is the problem that you don't know or are
> > unwilling to say?
> >
> No comment. I have not investigated the situation for the reasons given
> already.
>
Oh, please, do stop being so coy; it's unbecoming and blatantly
dishonest.
Sorry are you accusing us of being dishonest? We haven't checked. End
of story.
This cannot be the first time you have ever had reason to
wonder about how dragons work, whether someone asked (and paid a fee) or
not.
*** True enough generally this comes up when we are playing in a game and
Dragons come up and then we wonder -mostly it's enough to get the turns out
on time. The other time is taken with work projects.
If there are details which cannot - or have not - been 'discovered
in the course of play' it is inconceivable that one or more of the GM's
have not come across or looked them up at one time or another. [1]
*** Sorry we are not the font of all wisdom. We have to ask GSI in lots of
cases to get a 100% accurate answer on questions. Part of the reason we
decided to create the FAQ. Part of the reason to play is to get a better
perspective.
And you wonder why many players don't want GM's in their games...
Most players are happy with this. Is many 1?10?100? Okay in those games we
don't play but for the majority. Please stick to the point. This is
irrelevant - but just so that you don't feel that I have ignored your point
I feel that I have to respond. We can discuss this in private if you want?
Note I have already discussed this in depth with you. If YOU don't want to
play with GMs fine - that is very much an option, but for the 90% (my
estimate I don't have the 100% figures I am afraid as I have not polled
everyone) they are happy with it. And we inform players so that if they
don't want to get into a game with GMs then we don't play. (One game we had
the player join another game out of the 30 or so positions we have played
due to the lateness of the request and lack of reason for asking us not to
play).
> > > These are to be discovered in the course of play.
> > >
> > First off, having potentially devastating hidden factors 'to be
> > discovered in the course of play' is a good way to discourage and
> > alienate players.
>
> *** Hold on you, please correct me if I am in error, were the player
> advocating dissemination of incorrect information. How can you then
claim
> this?
>
You are in error, and I hereby correct you. I have never advocated the
'dissemination of incorrect information.' Indefinite, maybe, but not
incorrect. There is more than one Ed around here...
** My apologies.
> Second, for something to be 'discovered in the course
> > of play' there has to be a way for it to be 'discovered;' it's rather
> > cruel to expect someone to 'discover' some secret factor that could
> > result in their being blindsided and knocked out of the game, and
> > provide no means of doing so.
> **** Chat to the opponents - trade information - lots of different ways.
>
Um, many players do just that. And then you sit there and smugly imply
that their information is wrong, and suggest there are other factors
still secret. Must give you a nice feeling of power, but it does little
to build trust.
Smugly? Sorry that email comes across that way. I am trying to NOT give
information where it should not be given - nor give an inference in those
situations. If that comes across in the wrong manner then please accept my
further apologies. In this case I feel that the player concerned has not
got a correct feeling on what has occurred, is annoyed that he has lost his
big army to a surprise and like all of us is shouting about it. I know that
I have have whinged in that manner before - we're all human after all. As
for trust - not sure what I can do about that - run a good game and see the
results. As for power - Try being a GM for a day and then you might
understand the full horror of customer relations... (Big grin!) It's
the bane of my life.
> > Third, as mentioned earlier, much has
> > been 'discovered in the course of play' about the combat strength of
> > dragons, so trying to suggest that this is some big mystery at this
> > point seems more than a little disingenuous.
>
> I did not claim that there was a big mystery - seems pretty obvious to
me.
> The only thing i would add is that it is possible that the report on who
> "won" the battle might not be 100% appropriate. If both armies died
then
> you could still be a winner or a loser.
>
Granted. As mentioned previously, the original post did not indicate
that the WK army had also been destroyed. Of course, someone *ahem*
could have easily looked that up, or drawn on their tremendous expertise
to suggest it as a possible explanation. That would have saved everyone
a lot of time, wouldn't it?
But if would have given away that the enemy army was dead - that's not for
us to say. And the other reasons given.
Instead, someone *ahem* chose to retreat behind the rubric of 'Well, I
can't be bothered to look into this unless I'm paid, and even then might
not be able to tell you much because much is hidden from the players for
their own entertainment and everything you think you know is probably
wrong, om-mana-padme-hom, hroom-hroom-hroom...'
****
> > >For example, if it should turn out that
> > dragons can roll a 'critical fumble' and do effectively no damage,
there
> > should be some way to know this.
> >
> Okay so not all information is available to players. What's wrong with
> that? It's already been agreed that players like hidden information.
>
Clint, are you trying to be dense?
First off, I have repeatedly pointed out that there is a difference
between 'hidden' factors with relatively minor effects - say, 1-5% - and
those with major effects.
*** Yes and some players like this. Look we have a different perspective
here and they look to be so different that we cannot reconcile them nor am I
sure that would be appropriate.
[2] You have repeatedly chosen to ignore this
point;
*** I cannot answer that - I attempt to answer all such questions. I feel
that I put a lot of effort into player service and that is part of the
strength of the game.
your responses suggest a willful misprepresentation of my
position, which I do not take kindly.
** Already apologised for where I was in error. Anything else I am unaware
of?
Second, I have repeatedly said that players should be aware of, or be
able to discover, said hidden factors and their rough significance, NOT
specific exact numbers. Again, you have chosen to ignore or willfully
misrepresent my statements on this. I'd be quite happy if, for example,
the 412 Spell said that artifact #245 Big Honkin Dark Blade of Death is
'an evil weapon of great power' as opposed to 'Combat weapon - 3500.'
*** We have to agree to differ here I am afraid. Different percepetions
about hidden perceptions of hidden inferences through email. Mistakes
happen.
Third, I have repeatedly said that there should be a way to discover
hidden information, NOT that hidden information should not exist. And
by 'discover' I mean 'determine with reasonable certainty.' Once again,
I do not take kindly to having my statements misrepresented.
*** See above.
-ED \1/
[1] This is a common form of denial and stonewalling used by 'Merkin
businesses, so we are quite familiar with it. The quintessential
example is the folkloric story of the 'bedbug letter.'
*** Sorry I am not aware of Merking or the bedbuh letter so cannot feel
qualified to comment I am afraid. Who are we though?
[2] For example, suppose Dark Servants get a 50% combat bonus during the
dark of the moon. Something of that magnitude should be known, in
general if not the specific numbers.
** Or discovered in the course of play? Or able to be discovered through
some mechanisim? Or just hidden? Different players and styles have
different desires here. Yours is one perspective, and my job is often to
attempt to run the gauntlet and work out what
1) Players want - and what a small (or large) majority of players want.
2) Reasons for wanting what they want.
3) GM perspective on this.
4) GSI's perspective.
5) How this impacts on the game - and therefore what action should be taken.
6) Other factors I have missed above - not from any form of malace,
disinformation, but just general did not notice or did not consider at this
time.
···
--
"Kiwi fell sideways into the water and . . . managed to rupture his
eardrum. Chuck offered to pump his head full of Fix-A-Flat but was
rebuffed." - field medicine among the staff of 'Motor Trend'
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
