Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
> 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.
Apples and oranges. The fate of the opposing army is listed in the
battle report, therefore hardly privileged information; your implication
that this is some sort of secret is at best disingenuous. For that
matter, the existence (or not) of a given character is easy enough to
find out.
Yes but no errors have occurred
Maybe not *in this specific instance* but they do occur. Attempts to
maintain an illusion of infallibility are one of the main reasons for
customer dissatisfaction with GSI.
I am not aware of any random factors.
Does that mean that there are no modifiers to the outcome of battle
that are not mentioned in the rulebook? This is no minor point, and I
will not tolerate any more dissembling. If all factors affecting battle
are mentioned (not necessarily specified) in the rulebook, it should be
possible to predict the outcome of battle with very high confidence once
all the numbers are known - and yes, players do share this kind of
information.
This also means it should be possible to isolate and perhaps estimate
any hidden factor [1] - and given enough time any such 'fudge factor'
WILL come to light. I have no objection if it does exist, but would
hate to find out there was such a thing if you're telling us there
isn't.
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.
Not to be rude, but someone else pointed out that if (IF, dammit, IF)
there is a glitch in the program, it could well turn out the same result
twice and still be wrong. Fortunately those people who do things like
engineer bridges, design ships, and predict the weather take this fact
into account.
Implication is that this is not the case.
*Might* not be the case. We can't be sure because you won't give a
simple straight answer. Dammit, can't you tell the difference between a
general hypothetical and a specific allegation?
Note most
players have voted for hidden information - if we give the information away
then it isn't hidden!
Perhaps the problem is that we're using the term 'hidden' in
different ways. There is 'hidden' information which is not known
specifically but can be discovered or inferred with reasonable
confidence, if not necessarily down to specific numbers. Examples
include things like the exact power and location of the Collar of Might
[2] in this particular game, exactly how much the fort added to your
enemy's army constitution, the combat strength of dragons, what that
magic fountain will do this time around, and exactly what your enemies
are up to. These are entirely legitimate and, as you say, part of the
fun of the game.
Then there's Hidden information (note capital H for clarity). This
would be something like a random +/- to armies in battles which could
turn the tide in close matches but is neither mentioned in the rules nor
reflected in the battle report. This is the kind of Hidden factor I
have objections to. Granted, that may be silly because it's entirely
possible no such factors exist, but how can we know that if we can't get
a straight answer from the GM?
> > > > - 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.
Look, you said 'we have asked this sort of thing before' and then later
say 'we haven't checked.' Either:
a) You are lacking information on dragons because GSI won't tell you
- unlikely but possible; or
b) You have information but cannot give it out because it's 'hidden'
information.
However, instead of just coming out and saying one or the other, you
give nothing but vague dissembling, the only apparent purpose of which
is to suggest both while not giving a solid answer. Here in then US at
least, that's considered a form of dishonesty; our previous President
was quite good at it.
> 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.
>
*** Sorry we are not the font of all wisdom.
Look, I'm not asking you to fork over any information, just admit that
you have it. Yeesh!
> And you wonder why many players don't want GM's in their games...
>
Most players are happy with this.
Can't see why. The very nature of the job makes it certain that you
have information about how the system works that other players don't.
Nothing wrong with that per se, but more to the point, for most people
the 'hidden' things that have been 'discovered in the course of play'
are best guesses, and the player can never be sure how accurate that is
or whether there is an additional factor not yet accounted for. The GM
suffers no such uncertainty, and thus has a large advantage over other
players. It is very difficult to take it on faith that they would not
use that knowledge to their advantage.
Please stick to the point.
The point is that you seem to derive a great deal of satisfaction out
of having information - and thus power - not available to players. To
protect this advantage, you were unwilling to provide even general help
to a player who needed help interpreting a battle report.
You didn't need to go look up the specific turn result, you didn't
have to debug the combat subroutines, you did not (despite your feeble
pretentions) have to reveal anything hidden or secret. Fortunately
other players were in a more helpful mood and have figured the matter
out without your 'help.'
What's really sickening is that you couldn't spare the time and
effort to do that, but appear to have interminable time to devote to
this discussion. If I counseled clients the way you 'help' players, I'd
have a bunch of dead patients on my hands...
In this case I feel that the player concerned has not
got a correct feeling on what has occurred,
He does now, no thanks to you.
is annoyed that he has lost his
big army to a surprise and like all of us is shouting about it.
It's a little more complicated than that, which you would realize if you
had actually read his posts.
But if would have given away that the enemy army was dead - that's not for
us to say.
CHeee-rist!!!
A) It's in the battle report - real big sekrit there huh?
B) You as much as said you hadn't investigated the specific incident, so
you had no specific knowledge of the fate of the enemy army to give or
withhold.
*THAT'S* what I mean by 'disingenuous.' Trying to protect a 'secret'
that isn't - and that you probably didn't know in any case - just makes
you look like a pretentious git. Would it have been so difficult to
just suggest a couple possibilities and explain what they meant? In
case you hadn't noticed, the players have figured out on their own that
you can 'win' even with your army destroyed, and that both armies can
'lose' a battle. I'm sure you'll consider this a great breach of your
holy sekrits and try to make us doubt it, but the information is already
out.
> 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
Yeah, I made a point and you completely dodged it. Do you understand
the difference between major and minor?
MAJOR <----------------------------------> minor
here and they look to be so different that we cannot reconcile them nor am I
sure that would be appropriate.
It would help if you'd actually address the point I made. Since you
seem to have trouble with compound sentences I'll reduce it to macros:
Minor hidden effects GOOD
Major Hidden effects BAD
[2] You have repeatedly chosen to ignore this
> point;
*** I cannot answer that - I attempt to answer all such questions.
Huh? Not only does that not make sense and not address the point, you
contradicted yourself in a single sentence.
And to think you Brits like to snigger at our President's linguistic
stumbles.
*** We have to agree to differ here I am afraid. Different percepetions
about hidden perceptions of hidden inferences through email.
Again: Huh? Is that even English?
> [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?
If you're trying to be cute, you failed miserably. The Bedbug Letter
story, for those not familiar with it:
A man once traveled across country in a Pullman [3] rail car; on the
way he was sorely beset by bedbugs. [4] Understandably upset, he
fired off a letter to the company about this experience. In return
he got a deeply apologetic letter on top quality letterhead which
said, among other things, that nothing of the sort had ever happened
before, that the company was deeply concerned and working very hard
to keep anything like that from ever happening again. In this case,
however, there was a handwritten note - presumably for interoffice
use and not meant to be sent to the customer - which read, "Madge:
Send this lousy SOB the bedbug letter."
The story may or may not be true, but it illustrates a common method
used by businesses in the US to avoid actually dealing with customer
problems. The tale dates from about 1900, but the general quality - and
reputation - of customer service is not appreciably better today.
Things may of course be different in the UK.
> [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 what1) 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.
That's all very nice, but the point was very simply that 'big hidden
effect BAD.' The emphasis was on the *magnitude* of the effect. It's a
footnote, ferchrissakes, not a separate thesis.
Clint, I've been playing MEPBM since GSI #47 - that's as long as or
longer than most of your staff have been working on it. In that time I
have *never* found a GM as willfully unhelpful as you have been on this
thread. Makes me wonder if Harley's reputation might be simply a
reflection of Brits' greater tolerance for diffidence from authority
figures.
Now, if you're not willing to talk to players as equals, but insist upon
playing the feudal lord holding court with his peasants, then I fear we
shall not have much more to discuss.
Good day, sirrah.
-ED \1/
[1] Don't laugh. Planets, chemical elements, 'missing' species, and
professional embezzlers have all been discovered by this method.
[2] Yes Clint, players have 'discovered in the course of play' that the
exact power of artifacts varies from game to game. There's nothing
wrong with that, but don't dare try to imply that it isn't true.
[3] Company which used to make and operate sleeper rail cars. They
prided themselves on a reputation for cleanliness and service.
[4] Nasty bloodsucking pests, very much like giant lice but they attack
at night and hide out in cracks and crevices during the day. They cause
intense itching.
···
--
"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'