Sporting play

General
#1

"Ed Mills: Unsporting is my middle name. Someday, I hope, Cardiff will understand the concept. "

LOL; I once did a deal in Dune (board game) to stop a win whereby my very close friend agreed to hold off an invasion by stacking his entire Army against my sole troop and we’d have a pyrrhic loss. I stabbed him in the back, killed his main leader and entire army, gained a lot of spice and he just wallked away from the table muttering and never played the game again.

Am I proud of such? Well it was something that happened, so I would say that I’ve tempered my playing of games since then, taught me interesting lessons, and of life (as I find people have a tendency to play games they way they live their lives)

I’m very aware of there being many ways to play many games, but let’s stay on target here - this is a KS thread, not a thread about Ed Mills.:p;):smiley: so I’ve moved the discussion here…

Clint

#2

It’s easy to stab in the back playing behind an alias in a darkened room. We’ve moved to the virtual face-to-face and your anecdote applies. Give me a recipe card, I’ll sign it “Bob from Idaho” and do as I please…

#3

Having played many a diplomacy game, including for my sins at one point the UK National Championships, I’m fully aware of backstabbing. The thing about backstabbing is that you don’t want to get a name for it otherwise you’ll never get people to trust you in the first place. So having a middle name of “Unsporting” is rather unfortunate if you want to get people to trust you in the first place. I’d keep your middle name hidden if I were you Ed :smiley:

#4

Thanks for the comment Gavin. In the Real World both your money and wife are safe with me. In Middle Earth neither is safe.

Let me propose that persons unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality act the same in both universes. What else can the poor sod do? He can’t imagine anything else. We can only do what we know or can imagine.

The concept of ‘moral freewill’ is one of the seven alien concepts incorporated into the Stassun/Feild game. It permeates the Epic, probably because Tolkien was a devout Catholic. The Hobbit collaboraters, Bill Finey, the orcs quarreling over Frodo’s possessions were not very good ‘team players’, were they?

For almost eight years I have been trying to explain this game to my fellow MEers. A thankless task it has been. Blank stares from Cardiff and hostility from some players—usually British.

Gavin, I have written four mini-articles on the List about what this game WAS before British Fairplay got ahold of it. You are welcome to review and comment on them:

“Game Construction and Design” dated Oct 3. 04
“Naval Combat in Moddle Earth” dated Oct 24, 04
“Random Victory Conditions” dated Dec 26. 04
“Loss of Diplomacy” dated Sep 29, 05

If nothing else you might find them of historical interst.

#5

I personally do not know 99% of the MEers.

I also do not understand why some players wish to label others (underhanded, backstabbers, stupid among others) because of their level of play or style of play. These are things I’ve heard about some players over the past few years. This is a rather interesting thread because these are issues that seem to come up in every game to some degree. Some guys deliver the silent treatment thinking that will send the message when they read something they don’t like. I think that is infintile thinking, but it is popular among some adults.

I’ve seen neutrals attack neutrals and eliminate players in quick fashion. And some players get MAD! To some players this is backstabbing and underhanded. HELLO! It’s part of the game, it’s allowed. And I’ve seen players/teams negotiate “no stealing or attacking” until a specific time. Nowhere do the rules state you must inform your opponents of when you plan to attack or perform offensive actions. The rules do mention under BASICS, that it depends on “your style of play” when determining how you wish to conquer nations of ME. So it ultimately comes down to diplomatic skills of each player. I personally don’t care for the “let me know when you have steel on all your infantry so I can attack” style, but many players like that. Clint is right in that some players play like they live, but that’s “some”, some players play the way the rules are written and they are written so each of us can paste our style to the game. And I play against styles, not the Duns or Arthedain. And some still don’t get it. That being said, I’ve taken my lumps early on against some more experienced players and while I was pissed off at the time, I learned some big lessons about style and the game. But at no time do I call a player a backstabber or underhanded because he got the best of me and I definitely don’t call players stupid if I’m crushing them. Losing does not mean you suck and winning does not mean your God’s Gift to ME. That’s right, I’m talking about you too! :D;):hug:

Dan

#6

Hi Lads
For what it’s worth I think players often lose sight of what MEPBM is - MEPBM is a game. It’s not a historical treatise, and doesn’t have to be 100% faithful to Tolkien. Tolkien’s works were not written to accomodate a war game. Tolkien wrote a quasi religious story about good and evil, he did not write about players of dubious personal values playing a game based on his works that he did not write. As such there are many holes in the story that must be filled to complete the wargame. Without being prescriptive there are many areas in which the game has mutability not in keeping with the story, such as the neutral nations. This mutability appeals to most but not all, but serves most gamers need to not repeat the same game over and over.

The game is a ‘team’ game, yet there are many who play in anything but a team spirit. Like it or not, no matter how good you are, you’re only as good as your team, so it is with great amusement we read the chest beatings of players who equate a victory to their own individual magnificence (and blame their losses on their team :D). There are neutrals who seem to feel that they are inviolate but free to launch a surprise attack against a faction of their choosing at their own leisure.

So many opportunities to get it wrong. It’s a team game designed to give as many people as much fun as possible, wrapped around the LoTR world which we all love so much. That means it’s a wargame first, not Middle earth first, we play the wargame btw. It’s full of personalities who pay varying regards to the legend of Middle earth. The mutability is offered as a means to chart a new course, that same mutability offers not only opportunity for you to chart a new course, but also your opponents.

Either you’re aligned to a faction or not. If you’re not - ie you are the enemy, or a neutral, then you have the opportunity to attack that faction … or be attacked by them. If you are not my ally, don’t sit there with a mug silly look on your face bleating at the unfairness of the game when I choose to reduce your threat! (this is the twin edge of the neutrality and mutabilities swords). There’s much written about the cheating neutrals, or the factions that attack them, but that’s part of the game, if you don’t like it, join a faction.

You don’t have to agree with the way MEPBM operates, and if enough people disagree - then there wont be enough players to fill games, the game will change. I suspect though that - in the end, the game with a fair deal of variables exists roughly in the mid range of what the majority want it to be - or we’d play something else :wink: If you are still here, then you will have a lot of trouble arguing that point (because you would have left if the game was really that bad :slight_smile:

If we polled 100 players on what they wanted the game to be, there’d be 100 versions. I think the key to having fun with it is not to take yourself too seriously, then you will be in the majority :smiley:

Cheers

Winsten Wun Toof

#7

In all my years of playing – I only remember one instance of backstabbing (or at least what I consider as backstabbing). I was playing the Noldo and Rhudaur gave me and our side his word he was gonna go free and even gave him ring of wind , plus other arties to join our side and what does he do – he eventually goes evil !! Well in this instance it did get upset and when I was the only freep left the evils asked me what was I doing – I told them I wasn’t dropping till Rhudar was out and low and behold he had pissed them off , so they along with me took him out and on turn 50 as I had given my word is when I dropped , also finished second place as I surrendered and found out about this also !!!

I don’t play with the VC anymore as when I am on a side every and anything I have is at the side disposal. And yes as seen above I don’t have a problem with a nuetral sneak attacking another nuetral or even one side or the other (heck its what gives them an advantage sometime) But I do consider a person giving there word in something (or yes maybe to me) and then not following it through a backstab.

Do I get mad – nope (just a game), upset/disappointed – maybe/yes and payback is a B***h as they say :slight_smile: and fun as hell :slight_smile:

#8

I think the ultimate understanding of “it’s just a game” could happen between husband and wife. There are some couples playing ME and I would interested in hearing if “anything” in the “game” would be carried outside the game, or would they kiss and makeup and say “you got me honey, good one” :fork::bash::hug: :wink:

How much cunning play would be tolerated if it was your best friend or lover? We are very lucky in that such options really only involve the neutral nations in the 1650 version. In 4th age anything goes among the 3 allegiances, though my experience shows it to be more of a polite game so to speak. So I am glad we have choices, though I wish more would learn UW :slight_smile:

I guess these comments stray a bit from original theme, but I’m pretty bored right now and needed to write something.

#9

Mike, I love the anecdote. Good for you~!

Rob, you illustrate Ed’s point. You came upon the game after it was developed and entered into an existing culture. Ed’s point is that it was NOT designed to be a “Team Game” and it was NOT played that way originally. “Allegiance” and “Team” have different meanings, that’s why they’re spelled differently… :wink:

Now, I came upon the game during a transition period. I got my turns in the mail and that’s the foundation upon which I made my decisions for me and my nation. You know, the days when you would offer gold to an “ally” only if you felt magnanimous- not because if you didn’t the yahoogroup would flame you into obliviion - or even “trade” gold for product/arties, etc. “Well Sinda, I see how you really really want RoI…what are you gonna give me for it?”. At least SG and Sinda were talking trade - that’s an Allegiance - not a Team.

Sharing files? JOverseer? Great gads man, this stuff is NOT what was intended. It WAS an INDIVIDUAL game, period, full stop.

There was a SINGLE WINNER. And if you were tied at the finish line with the guy next to you, you stuck out your foot and spun him off into the ditch, “Ally” or not, in order for YOU to finish FIRST. And he got up, dusted himself off, and said “Damn, you got me. I was just about to hit you with a truncheon, but you got me first. Good game~!” And that’s how the Noldo and Sinda used to make friends.

The idea that such behaviour is somehow “immoral” is completely incongruent, totally at odds, with the INTENT/SPIRIT of the game as it was DESIGNED. It WAS supposed to be that way.

Yes, the prevailing culture of players has changed the “way the game is played”. Technology/communication has played a very large role in that. Technology that wasn’t forecasted by the Game Designers. We don’t ride horses anymore, I don’t care how much of a genious various saddle inventors were… Ed has a hard time acknowledging that due to both the technology and the numbers of different kinds of people playing, the “way the game is played” has evloved to be, yes, very (if not “completely”) different than the way it was intended.

Ed prefers the elitist argument that it’s being dumbed down by reactionary profit seekers catering to dumb people who can’t grasp the complicated nuances of the designers intent. The only bone he’ll throw to the technology" argument is that it’s enabled and empowered the masses, and I’m sure we can guess what he thinks of them…

So people can’t say that he’s wrong. He’s not. And he’s not only a crotchety olde man grumping about the good olde days. Whether he ever get’s “his way” on various issues he’s argued against isn’t the point - his conscientious, principled and well considered positions on many issues are invaluable. When most people are happy with the cover of the book and are willing to roll their eyes and shout him down simply because of a misunderstood reputation, he’s actually proven even more reliably correct in his assessments, yes?

Cheers,

Brad

#10

So people can’t say that he’s wrong. He’s not. And he’s not only a crotchety olde man grumping about the good olde days. Whether he ever get’s “his way” on various issues he’s argued against isn’t the point - his conscientious, principled and well considered positions on many issues are invaluable. When most people are happy with the cover of the book and are willing to roll their eyes and shout him down simply because of a misunderstood reputation, he’s actually proven even more reliably correct in his assessments, yes?

*Dunno. Harley (or whatever entity has eaten and supplanted Harley) are the ones that put their money where their mouth is and take the economic risk of running the game. To me that’s the most fundamental point to arguing under what guise the game should be played in. If they get their presentation wrong, they lose customers - but they take the risk, not us who argue about what frills and ribbons go on the dress. It’s like employees who bitch about the boss, they don’t take the risks… I’ve dropped out for a period before due to dissatisfaction, so have many others. Ultimately you come back for a look because there are many good points to the game and the community as well. I don’t oppose Ed’s desire and right to vent his opposition to aspects of the game, that’s how it is improved, however it can be without benefit when each side gets themselves dug in over dogma/doctrine whatever. At some point you’ve got to say “this is the way it is!” Harley is the business owner, and the risk taker. They also have access to far more information than the rest of us on issues ranging from what the players want, to game construction, mechanics etc. Getting narkey about it and tagging comments on personal attributes of those involved is just counter productive. Or I could be wrong, but hell I’m not admitting to that anyway on the pure principal that I like to argue no matter the cost :smiley:

PS I’m also bored with nothing to do :slight_smile: My wife doesn’t play MEPBM, in fact she hates it because I play it :slight_smile: I play MEPBM :smiley:

Cheers

Winsten wun toof

#11

I see you are being true to your argumentative word… :slight_smile: Go ahead and curse me in Game 6 - Ed will be happy as we’ll give his beleagured Allegiance a little break AND demonstrate the olde tyme intent of the game designers - the Elves attacking the Dwarf~! Exactly how MEGames’ business model has anything to do with this or any of the above somehow escapes me, but there you go… :stuck_out_tongue:

#12

Winsten, I like your economic comment. Harley has Continental, North and South American, Asian and Australian customers. It should be apparent that this ‘mixed sort’ can’t be turned into English Gentlemen.

Harley should ask itself “Where does the economic future of the company lie? Is it in England keeping the ‘Brit Clique’ happy, or offshore?” If they conclude offshore then I suggest a mental jump-shift may be in order.

#13

Thanks for the marketing advice Ed. I respond to players’ needs, I’m not English myself so don’t understand why I’d want that… :wink: My understanding of players’ needs and desires is what I’m implementing here. I know you, personally, want something different, but until you start paying me $1ks I can’t create a game or implement one that others don’t want to play can I?

If you can point to others who want something different, as always we’re happy to implement whatever game format players want to play, just need the customers for it. There’s no point harping on asking for a format, if there’s no players for it. It’s a bit tedious.

Clint

#14

Hah - my point exactly! (I didn’t really have a point but that statement always seems to get the right reaction when you are arguing for the hell of it :D) Re t’other curses, I was just taking the pss :slight_smile: I shouldn’t take too much I say seriously - I don’t :wink:

Cheers
Winsten Wun Toof

#15

Harley should ask itself “Where does the economic future of the company lie? Is it in England keeping the ‘Brit Clique’ happy, or offshore?” If they conclude offshore then I suggest a mental jump-shift may be in order.[/QUOTE]

*Hi Ed. I give lessons in being me. If you feel it will help you fit in better we can give it a crack. If you like you can think of yourself as Audrey Hepburn in ‘my fair lady’ :smiley: It’s really not so bad being Colonial rabble :slight_smile:

PS I spent a year in England - loved it - excellent people - sense of humour needs to be a lot more robust, then you can finally all become Australians :wink:

Cheers

Winsten Wun Toof

#16

[QUOTE=Clint;62906]Thanks for the marketing advice Ed. I respond to players’ needs, I’m not English myself so don’t understand why I’d want that… :wink: My understanding of players’ needs and desires is what I’m implementing here. I know you, personally, want something different, but until you start paying me $1ks I can’t create a game or implement one that others don’t want to play can I?

*If Ed can come up with 24 others (or less players with deeper pockets) can he give his argument a run? Hell we can even consider going back to paper based turns, throwing rocks at each other, and going down to the local to club a cavegirl and drag her home :wink: I’m guessing from Clint’s comments that the game is possible Ed, you just need players. Ball’s in your court :slight_smile:

Cheers

Winsten Wun Toof

#17

Hey, I proposed a web app solution that would replicate the game of yore many moons ago… Technology to repair the harm done by technology. Ed, feel free to contact me and I’ll flesh out how I saw it working, but I have no insight into the costs of such (capital, development/programming, etc)…which IS the real problem, yes? Certainly doable, I’ve played other games I could point to as a model…

#18

I’m not up on most of Ed’s argument (well any of it as it would happen, but the joy of modern life is that you don’t need any inkling of what you are talking about to make sweeping statements and boldly go where no others have gone before (I think a recent president excelled at this :-))

Where was I? Ah yes, is there a non expense related way that Ed can replicate his heart’s desire? Does it really need a lot of game change, or can you replicate it through a rule set? Considerable cost makes it hard to get off the ground, considerable rules is easier (though getting 25 to stick to the plot is like herding cats :D)

Cheers

Winsten wun toof

#19

What I understand that Ed wants is a “Luddite” game whereby there is no mass communication (such as these fancy internet things), which would allow him more of the fog of war scenario.

This is effectively a limited communication 1650 game with paper turns emailed out where no one knows exactly who everyone else is. Perhaps each nation can send a single 100 word diplo to each other player each turn. I suspect that this would cost a bit extra for ME Games to implement, but this is the sort of game I think that Ed wants to play in. If this is the case then all Ed needs to do (from what I gather) is get 24 other people for the game and send their names to Clint to set-up.

Gavin

#20

Isn’t that exactly what the current ‘allegiance’ game 75 is?

Jon