I am not saying you haven't and if you have helped me, thank you. I just think its in the best interest for all of the players, current and future, to state the rules as clearly, correctly and completely as possible. I do not believe that a rulebook is the place for "fog of war" as you put it. If you do not learn the rules of the game correctly, you lose. It shouldnt take you multiple games of failing and dying to do so. Your words about hiding the rules in the rulebook worried me. I think that every player should know every rule...now strategies are a completely different animal, and I think we can agree that you can know the rules, and still get burnt on or by any number of strategies. Am I wrong?
-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 02:14:55 +0000Ken, 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
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus