Ken, here is something non sarcastic: When I was a newbie I blundered around and got slapped a lot by more experienced players. By trial and effort, experimentation and the odd bit of kindness-from-strangers, finally I was able to wrap my way around the game and its layered subtleness. I paid my dues. I don't have a lot of sympathy for persons who expect it to be all laid out for them on some silver platter.
···
From: "Kenneth Weed" <watakshi@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] rewriting the rulebook
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:42:38 -0500Yes, but if you leave it the original way, it will secretly give all of the
veterans an advantage, while frustrating all of the new players and get them
to quit, surrendering the games to the veterans. Brilliant scheme!*There is a hint of sarcasm in this, for those who could not detect it*
-Ken
>From: "Richard DEVEREUX" <rd@pagan-47.fsnet.co.uk>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] rewriting the rulebook
>Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:33:38 -0000
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ovatha Easterling
> To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] rewriting the rulebook
>
> In my view the ambiguities in the rules are deliberate. One of the
> strengths and realistic aspects of this fantasy game is the "fog of
>war".
> Persons who can penetrate it best gain an advantage.
> RD: Yes but that paragraph is just badly written. There's a difference
>between an ambiguity and a downright contradiction.
>
> Richard.
>
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Clint
> >
> > >Clint, you have been talking about rewriting the rulebook. Well I've
> >come
> > >across one passage that badly needs to be rewritten. It's unclear,
> > >contradictory, contains bad grammar and it's unnecessarily long.
>It's
> >the
> > >last paragraph on page 19 and concerns stealth.
> > >
> > >Allow me to dissect this paragraph sentence by sentence:
> > >
> > >"A character will get the benefit of the stealth only during the
>attempt
> > >to fulfil his own missions."
> > >
> > >1) Why "the stealth"? Is there more than one kind? No. Then
>"stealth"
> > >on its own is better.
> > >2) It uses the word "only" but, in the 3rd sentence of the sama para,
>it
> > >says, "stealth can also come into play when..." which contradicts
> > >"only." "Only" means one, but "also" means more than one. Therefore
> > >"only" should be deleted.
> > >3) "the attempt": does a character only get one attempt (singular) to
> > >fulfil his missions (plural)? Of course not, so this should be
>changed
> >to
> > >"attempts" (plural). And why "missions"? Why not "orders"? Making
>the
> > >above changes we have:
> > >
> > >"A character will get the benefit of stealth during attempts to
>fulfil
> >his
> > >own orders." This is both shorter and clearer but still misleading,
>as
> >it
> > >states the character "will" ie definitely, get the benefit.
>Experienced
> > >players know this doesn't -always- happen. "will get the benefit"
>should
> > >be changed to "will get some benefit" which is more accurate. It
>should
> > >really read "will get a random amount of benefit from stealth" but I
> >guess
> > >that gives too much away.
> > >
> > >"To reflect the reality that a character will not be stealthy all of
>the
> > >time, the stealth of a character will not be considered when other
> > >characters are trying to affect them - only when the character is
> > >attempting to fulfil his own orders."
> > >
> > >1) "the stealth of a character will not be considered when..." is
> > >contradicted by the third sentence. It needs to be amended, perhaps
> > >substituting "may not" for "will not" or inserting "always" after
>"not."
> > >2) The last phrase, beginning "only when..." is an almost word for
>word
> > >duplication of the first sentence. As such it's unnecessary and
>should
> >be
> > >deleted. There is also that word "only" which is contradicted in the
> > >following sentence.
> > >
> > >"Stealth can also come into play when a character is actively trying
>to
> > >avoid death/capture after combat, when guarding a character or
>location,
> > >when a 'scout for characters' order is issued, or when trying to
>escape
> > >while being held hostage."
> > >
> > >1) Note the third word "also" which contradicts the "only" in the
> >previous
> > >sentences.
> > >2) Why is the phrase "when guarding..." included here? Isn't that
> >covered
> > >by "during the attempt to fulfil his own missions" in sentence 1? If
>so
> > >that phrase is unnecessary and should be deleted. If OTOH guarding
>is
> > >affected by stealth differently to other agent orders, this needs to
>be
> > >clarified.
> > >3) "When a 'scout for characters' order is issued": does this mean
>when
> > >the character issues such an order his stealth comes into play, or
>when
> > >such an order is issued which might affect him, his stealth comes
>into
> > >play? Logically it is the latter, but it's not clear from this
> > >phrase. Add after the word "issued", "which might affect him."
> > >4) "When trying to escape while being held hostage" is
> > >clumsy. Substitute: "when a hostage and trying to escape." That's
> > >clearer and only 7 words instead of 8.
> > >
> > >Here is the offending paragraph rewritten:
> > >
> > >A character will get some benefit from stealth during attempts to
>fulfil
> > >his own orders. To reflect the 'reality' that a character will not
>be
> > >stealthy all the time, the stealth of a character will not always be
> > >considered when other characters are trying to affect him. Stealth
>can
> > >also come into play when a character is actively trying to avoid
> > >capture/death after combat, when a 'scout for characters' order is
>issued
> > >which might affect him, or when a hostage and trying to escape.
> > >
> > >Isn't that better?
> > >
> > >Richard.
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >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/
> >
> >****************************************************************
> > Middle Earth Games
> >Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
> >Website: www.middleearthgames.com
> >
> >UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
> >US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA
> >
> >Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
> >UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
> >(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
> >UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
> >US Fax: 1-503-296-2325
> >US Alternate: Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax
>24hrs
> >****************************************************************
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail