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.
*** The information is there for those with enough knowledge to read it.
We're not going to spoon feed it Iam afraid.
> 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 sorry - we are not infallible. We have regularly quoted where we
make mistakes and are happy to inform players. To think that no mistakes is
an impossible situation. We happily correct them as well if they are our
error. [Well happily spending 8 hours on an edit is not quite accurate,
much complaining and pulling of hair occurs - but it's a nice illusion.
Let's say it's part of the service... 
] Don't know where you got that
impression from?
> 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.
*** Simple answer: I don't know. More complex and in depth answer: There
are hidden aspects to many parts of the game which we are not aware of. We
learn as time goes on, and Stuart who has run the game for 8 years is still
coming across new aspects of the game that he was not aware of - as no doubt
do we all (players and GMs alike). The description of the battle, and
answers that players have
given seem pretty comprehensive. The only query left seems to be
1) Strength of dragons - can they be this high? Answer yes.
2) Outcome of the battle - can one side be considered to be the winner and
the other a loser and what specificies who is the winner and who is the
loser. Asked GSI awaiting response. (Ie We don't know - ignorance is not a
crime!)
3) "Over-run" - I think this was just a description of the battle and not
over-run but I have not heard back from Mike about this.
4) Have I missed something?
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.
*** Yes and most battles do work this way. Hidden aspects are such as
Morale, training of enemies which there is a report on (unspecific but gives
a range) and the hidden aspects of Command artefacts, tactics % bonus,
downgrade/upgrade, bonus for fortications etc. As far as I am aware all
these factors are available ie I don't think there are any hidden random
major (or minor for that matter) aspects to the battle outcome and the game
in general. I would be content to be shown that I am incorrect here though.
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.
*** See above.
>
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.
*** Yes they can be I don't think this is the case. I am pretty certain
that this is not the case but having come from a Science background myself
anything is possible and we could run 50,000 simulations and not see the
error, but the 50,001 simulation could show it - my best guesstimate is that
the simulation would show the exact same result as has been shown in many
aspects of the way we run the game.
As there are random rolls in the game then certain things could be
apparently hidden but not show up. Challenges is one aspect where this
comes up 7-1 in your favour have gone against players - but I think that you
have a very low chance of this occurring. The one simulation and one real
turn, along with the fortifications (in the example that came up recently)
would suggest to me that it was okay. It's the method we use for doing
edits and works fine. (Not a perfect way of doing it but as long as we use
it across the board then I think it's a good working method).
> 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?
*** Yes I can. See above for my general and specific answer. I think that
was has happened is that both armies killed each other in battle - that the
Cardolan player did not allow for this in his calculations and is upset with
the result. The Winner/loser is a side issue - the gaining of stats from
winning compared with losing is minimal impact in relation to the outcome of
the battle but an interesting side issue which is being investigated. The
overrun is just a description of the battle - ie "you lost badly quickly".
That's it.
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?
*** How more straight can I be - I DON'T KNOW - GSI Won't tell us. I don't
think they are in the game, and Stu doesn't either - all our combined GM
experience says we don't it's there for reasons we gave already. We
constantly learn new bits and pieces as we play and do edits or
explanations. Once again part of the reason for us to create the FAQ etc. I
would count this battle in your first description of Hidden - not your
second - and with that in mind we can debate which style I use to
disseminate that information if you want?
> > > > > - 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?
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
*** How do you know it's unlikely? I gave a straight answer - I always
attempt to as I prefer honesty in all dealings - it's the way we attempt to
do business. We're human so somtimes we mes up but we then attempt to
correct those errors. GSI has not told us - have you attempted to get
information from GSI before? It's very, very hard to get a specific answer
sometimes. That's their call. I think it personally to be damaging to the
game but we are all welcome to our opinions.
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 isn't dishonesty. I am not allowed to give out the actual outcome of
the battle as this is hidden (1st desc) and the opposition have no right to
that information. I am not aware of any Hidden (2nd desc) aspects going on.
Note if it is Hidden (2nd desc) then that's part of the game - note I don't
think there areany aspects of the 2nd case in the game. There are random
elements - so responding to an encounter can give different effects for
exactly the same Answer but that I think would come under the 1st desc.
Look, I'm not asking you to fork over any information, just admit that
you have it. Yeesh!
*** We don't have it. I think we might be able to get it but not sure and
haven't got the time to investigate it nor the interest.
> > 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.
*** Don't then - take us by our actions. I would guess that others are more
trusting of our word then? Simple enough - I know some players don't trust
us - that's their call and I can understand why they don't in some cases -
but usually I go by peoples actions not their words. No faith needed then.
It will mean that some players don't like what we stand for here. It's a
shame that we cannot please all of the people all of the time.
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.
*** I am sorry - I think that communication has broken down too much then.
My point was that the battle seemed okay - that the player was unaware of
the reasons why things went against him and that we were unable to provide
that information. Nothing to do with power. I am not interested in that
sort of control - you can ask anyone who knows me personally for a
reference?
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.'
*** Thanks to them - John being the most constructive there- he did not need
to inform the opposition of the actual battle result. That was his call.
Our call is that we don't give out information that is not allowed to be
given out. This is the difference we have in opinion I feel. Would you
concur?
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...
*** I get paid around 1/10th what you do (I would estimate!). Just
trying to run a good game that's all - and some of the bits we are able to
offer as a service - and talking to players is part of that service - and
some we are not. On a personal point we're very proud of what we have
achieved in the business world.
He does now, no thanks to you.
*** There is still the query on over-run - note he should not have access to
the information.
> 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.
*** What? What am I doing here? Yum human nature is such a beautiful
beast.
> 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?
*** For those who can read it - if that was the case why did the player
question it?
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.
*** I specifically stated this was the case.
*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.
*** Please try to be more polite.
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.
*** Cool - happy with that as well.
>
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
*** Look no need to be insulting. Take a moment to step back and relax
here. That's my counsel here. We'll enjoy the game more then. I have not
yet found a way to have constructive dialogue in these situations, it's a
lose-lose situation. I don't reply - lose, I do reply - lose. I give the
player what he wants - the game loses - I don't give the player what he
wants - lose the player.
> > [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:
** No I was trying to ask you to clarify your statement. I generally in
real life am more emotive but find that it inhibits discussion through
email. I was attempting to inform you that I was ignorant (ie without
knowledge) of your statement and its meaning. Is this Merking? (Just a
little cute here).
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.
*** So what am I doing talking here?
Things may of course be different in the UK.
*** Yes there is a clear difference in customer service. I think that there
are pros and cons to both methods.
>
That's all very nice, but the point was very simply that 'big hidden
effect BAD.'
*** From your (and my perspective). I don't think these hidden aspects of
the game exist.
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.
*** Note we have a lot more experience than any player could possibly have.
Stu has 8 years, and is working closely with me in this, and all of us has
had many years of GMing PBMs - and few years running ME. We have run in
the last 6 months some 15,000 turns - and dealt with all the inquiries and
questions that have come up with that.
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.
*** I think we have a conflict of opinions and directions. I can't please
all of the players all of the time I am afraid. In the time that we have
taken over the running of ME we have upgraded the system, in the process of
many projects, and many improvements have been made. In some bits we are
stimied by funds, by GSI, by lack of knowledge or many other factors. But
despite this we have built the game up (upto 800 active players I think).
Lots of players like our service. Implication we do a good job. Note there
will always be conflict between us as the authority figure and the
customers. part of the job is to attempt to ease that as best we can.
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.
*** I don't know why you made this subject an attack on my person, the
company and all - there are many ways of politely requesting information
without insulting us. Maybe this a cultural difference but I suspect not.
When players care a lot and get emotionally involved in a game then unknown
set backs can cause an emotional outburst which is sometimes rude. Please
try not to - it makes it much more pleasant for all and you will get a
better service from us.
We have disagreements. I have informed players of the level of service
that we can offer, and we will attempt to continue to improve that as time
goes on. Where unfair information was not available I tried, politely, to
keep that hidden. Where the service asked of us was more than I felt
appropriate to deliver, we asked for renumeration. Where players have
insulted us - we responded as calmly as possible. Where one player has made
a statement about his own personal thoughts, I have attempted to represent
the thoughts of many of the players. There is nothing more I can offer.
Good day, sirrah.
-ED \1/
[1] Don't laugh. Planets, chemical elements, 'missing' species, and
professional embezzlers have all been discovered by this method.
*** Which are we?
[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.
*** Sorry - which of my many statements claimed that it wasn't? What else
are we culpable for? Assassination of Kennedy? In more serious tones -
please try to keep a sense of prespective and a sense of humour.
[3] Company which used to make and operate sleeper rail cars. They
prided themselves on a reputation for cleanliness and service.
*** Heh mistakes happen. I think often more important is the attempt to be
"clean". We try. (and are very trying i know!)
[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.
*** Please stop being insulting.
--
Have a nice day....
Clint
