rewriting the rulebook

mepbmlist
#1

Ken, don't put words in my mouth. I do help newbies who are on my team. I have even given you good advice.

···

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 20:45:04 -0500

Perhaps not on a silver platter, but I guess my view is just because I
suffered, doesnt mean that everyone has to suffer after me. And to be
honest, and not sarcastic, I honestly believe that the player base of this
game has been reduced because the rules are misleading, contradictive (as
Richard has pointed out) or downright non-existent.
What happens if someone sets you in front of a chess board, doesnt tell you
the rules, lies about them, misleads them and tells you to start playing?
You get your hand slapped alot for not knowing how to move, you get stomped
alot, you lose alot, and you get frustrated. Now it could be that you don't
care. It could be that your view is anyone who has not suffered the trial
by fire that you have doesn't deserve to play your game. I personally do
not agree with that assessment. There are alot of good gamers who have been
completely alienated by the poor writing and displaying of the rules. Oh,
and I woulda hoped that you would have been happy to have someone come in,
correct the problems you saw, help guide you so you werent blundering around
mindlessly. The next obvious question is, why cant you help others then?
Why not clear up the rulebook, stop half the blind stumbling. There is
still much learning to be done even if you do know the rules, strategies to
be built and refined. Don't make their first games suffering, you lose alot
of good players that way, players worth keeping in the game. I know, I was
almost one of them, and may be once again if the general view of the veteran
players becomes "Make 'em suffer cause I did..."

-Ken

>From: "Ovatha Easterling" <ovatha88@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] rewriting the rulebook
>Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:39:30 +0000
>
>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 -0500
> >
> >Yes, 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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus