Rulebook

>I'm really torn on the idea of replacing the current rules with a "how to".

What are we going to do with you Old Chap? You are the Ayatollah of your
own Anti-PRS cult, but then when Clint comes out with a real shocker, which
almost everyone (so far) has condemned, you sit on the fence! I hope
you're not feeling battered into adopting a moderate stance to compensate
for your ultra-radical reputation :wink:

"battered into adopting a moderate stance"?!?! NEVER!!!! I've been in A LOT of games with newbies that are as clueless as I was when I started. My first game happend to be a team game, and I got a great mentor right from the start. I know I would have been very frustrated had I had to stumble cluelessly for my first few games. Probably would have just up and quit.

Then again, I fear the new "how to" could go too far. I could be very easy to become too long winded. It could get to the point of style. For example, there is a lot of debate about raising taxes to 60 on GT1, or lowering them to 39. A how to that recommends doing one or the other would probably be good. One that informs you that a 30C will have a tough time getting taxes from 40 to 60, even though it is an easy order, would be very useful.

I truely am on the fence on this issue. It will be VERY tough to do it right.

Unlike the PRS that will be very easy to get very wrong.

But even that is opinion. Some players will argue that there are certain
situations where light troops can be used.

Then, the how to will have to present one or two of those situations (I can't remember ever recruiting light troops), and point out just how badly quality light troops (high training, armor, weapons, etc) will perform against a equal number of new recruit junk HI.

>The economy is equally confusing. I've seen expereinced players go backrupt
>by buying too much, thinking the system would just round off their purchase
>to what they could afford.

Yes, but there are times when this risk is taken knowingly in the
expectation (or desperate hope) of the gold coming in from another source.

You miss the point. No where in the rules is there a good discussion of: Receive income->buy->sell->pay bills. I nice couple sentances explaining that you can bankrupt yourself, even if you have a surplus, would be very helpful to someone in their first game.

When we were discussing a hypothetical 2nd Edition 18 months ago, one of
the major, and much repeated laments from worried lurkers was "you're
making it too complicated". There was broad agreement that the rule book
should not become more lengthy, as that would put off new players.

Agreed that the rules growing (as they are almost sure to) would be an issue. One of the primary reasons I'm on the fence vs. full in favor of a new rules presentation.

Most importantly, it is important to recognise that there are already
plenty of "Beginners Guides" and sermons on advanced strategy, already out
there. They've been written, many are on the web (though too many are
rather inaccessible through being buried in old copies of Mouth of Sauron
and News from Brie). And they are independent, claiming to be the opinions
of a single writer. It is to these sources that new players should be
directed, so that they can learn, question, and ultimately decide for
themselves about "good play".

And for those without web access? For those that put the "official" rules as more accurate than these unofficial guides? For those that read the rules first, then never get to these guides? And these guides are just as long as you fear the official rules will become.

I'd like to see Mepbm games getting some existing projects, like MEOW and
PRS up and running, tested and evaluated, rather than starting new projects
at this moment.

I don't think they are all that involved in MEOW as it is in the play test/bug fix stage. We all know what I think of PRS. Initially, it seems it would be the players doing a lot of the writing.

But if they do have all this spare time, I think their
efforts would be better spent on creating a well organised web archive of
existing material rather than producing a subjectively rewritten rulebook.

Probably lots of issues of "commercial use" of others materials. If I want to through MoS on a web site, it would be tough for anyone to do anything about it. ME Games certainly can't start chopping articles out of it and placing them on its web site.

Darrell Shimel

路路路

_________________________________________________________________
Broadband?锟紻ial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

--- corsairs game 101 <corsairs101@hotmail.com> wrote:

One that informs you that a 30C will have a tough
time
getting taxes from 40 to 60, even though it is an easy order, would
be very
useful.

That was in my article in Bree.

No where in the rules is there a good discussion
of:
Receive income->buy->sell->pay bills. I nice couple sentances
explaining
that you can bankrupt yourself, even if you have a surplus, would be
very
helpful to someone in their first game.

That was in my article in Bree.

ME Games certainly can't start chopping articles out of it
and
placing them on its web site.

Bobbin's can and did.

Brad

路路路

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Indeed. However, Stormy's site has just (or is soon to), and last night I tried (with ref. to this discussion) to look at Middle Earth Manuscripts, and found, to great sadness that that's gone. That's two of the best repositories of Mepbm articles, going back some years, just vanished into the ether. And it's the reason why we need a company held archive, rather than just player ones (though may Bobbin live forever... as he seems to be the last of em.)

I don't see that there would be any problem with ownership. All of these articles were presented by their writers into the public domain - specifically into the Mepbm player community. I doubt that any of them will be pleased to see their work vanish forever as the old American web sites go off-line.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

路路路

At 02:39 23/10/2002, Brad wrote:

> ME Games certainly can't start chopping articles out of it
> and
> placing them on its web site.

Bobbin's can and did.

--- "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >

> > ME Games certainly can't start chopping articles out of it
> > and
> > placing them on its web site.
>
>Bobbin's can and did.

Indeed. However, Stormy's site has just (or is soon to), and last
night I
tried (with ref. to this discussion) to look at Middle Earth
Manuscripts,
and found, to great sadness that that's gone.

Have you tried lorestone.com? It was facade's NEW ME Manuscripts.
Last time someone complained about ME Manuscripts missing, I
tried lorestone.com and it was still there.

Also, have you tried gamesystems.com? Could be gamessystems or
gamesystem.com, etc, try different "s" combo's, but they have
an interesting assortment of articles.

Brad
- who see's your point for a company held archive and agrees
with it, AND upon further reflection, your well reasoned
arguments (ie if it says "hard" order, it's already in the
rules) have me leaning somewhat more towards leaving the
rules alone and directly inquisitive players to an indexed
archive...

路路路

At 02:39 23/10/2002, Brad wrote:

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Have you tried lorestone.com? It was facade's NEW ME Manuscripts.
Last time someone complained about ME Manuscripts missing, I
tried lorestone.com and it was still there.

You are a star! I have updated my favourites, and the link from my own ME page. I'm pleased that we haven't lost it.

Also, have you tried gamesystems.com?

Yes, that's still up, and can be reached by following the existing link

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

路路路

At 13:49 23/10/2002, Brad Brunet wrote:
from my site.

For
example, there is a lot of debate about raising taxes to 60 on GT1, or
lowering them to 39. A how to that recommends doing one or the other would
probably be good. One that informs you that a 30C will have a tough time
getting taxes from 40 to 60, even though it is an easy order, would be very
useful.

*** That's one of the items we want to address. We did it with Bofa rules. Changing the description of some of the orders - so that 690 comes under moderate, and 615 under hard - that sort of thing.

聽聽No where in the rules is there a good discussion of:

Receive income->buy->sell->pay bills. I nice couple sentances explaining
that you can bankrupt yourself, even if you have a surplus, would be very
helpful to someone in their first game.

*** Big point. I don't think a FAQ would address this issue.

Agreed that the rules growing (as they are almost sure to) would be an
issue. One of the primary reasons I'm on the fence vs. full in favor of a
new rules presentation.

** The ME rulebook is reasonably small for a PBM. We'd be able to cut the spells down a large amount and reduce some of the orders as well.

>I'd like to see Mepbm games getting some existing projects, like MEOW and
>PRS up and running, tested and evaluated, rather than starting new projects
>at this moment.

I don't think they are all that involved in MEOW as it is in the play
test/bug fix stage

*** Not correct. We're very involved.

聽聽Initially, it seems
it would be the players doing a lot of the writing.

*** Maybe - we're not sure of this yet. We have a group of volunteers so far that enjoy writing so we'll very likely use them.
Clint