Teamwork and Recruiting New Team Members...

mepbmlist
#1

They keep telling us that it's a team game.

The best way to win is to play with as many teammates as possible.

The best way to enjoy the game is to either be successful in what you are trying to do (ie..win) or enjoy the greater going's on amongst a larger group of people.

In other words, there is absolutely no excuse for reclusive MEPBM play. None that I can surmise. Anyone have a good argument for reclusive, solitary nation play? Maybe even a dumb excuse that you fervently believe in? Thought so.

Not only within your own team, but also with the others. It's always fun to carry on a bantering conversation with a sporting enemy. It's also almost always absolutely necessary to keep the channels of communication open to each/every neutral. Hey, the neutrals may be pre-aligned, or one of those solitary (virtually useless..) chaps also, but that is not the majority.

I personally just do not understand the lack of communication often seen in the game. Should the company send out a pre-game info pack that says something like: "We'll take your money for as long as you keep sending it to us, but for your better enjoyment (and our better long term business plan...) we heartily recommend playing this game as a member of a larger gaming group..." or something of the sort...?

Opinions welcome

···

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

#2

They keep telling us that it's a team game.

The best way to win is to play with as many teammates as possible.

The best way to enjoy the game is to either be successful in what you are

trying to do (ie..win) or enjoy the greater going's on amongst a larger
group of people.

In other words, there is absolutely no excuse for reclusive MEPBM play.

None that I can surmise. Anyone have a good argument for reclusive, solitary
nation play? Maybe even a dumb excuse that you fervently believe in? Thought
so.

Not only within your own team, but also with the others. It's always fun

to carry on a bantering conversation with a sporting enemy. It's also almost
always absolutely necessary to keep the channels of communication open to
each/every neutral. Hey, the neutrals may be pre-aligned, or one of those
solitary (virtually useless..) chaps also, but that is not the majority.

I personally just do not understand the lack of communication often seen

in the game. Should the company send out a pre-game info pack that says
something like: "We'll take your money for as long as you keep sending it to
us, but for your better enjoyment (and our better long term business
plan...) we heartily recommend playing this game as a member of a larger
gaming group..." or something of the sort...?

Opinions welcome

RD: You're absolutely right Brad. It should be emphasised that ME is a TEAM
game. If you don't want to communicate, if you want to play solitaire, do
NOT play Midle-earth, go play another game. I very much like the paragraph
you suggest, and heartily recommend Harlequin include something along these
lines in future advertising!

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "BBrunet" <ditletang@canada.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 10:02 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Teamwork and Recruiting New Team Members...

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#3

I agree to an extent about your points regarding lack of
communications. The absolute WORST thing is when someone joins as a
Free People or Dark Servant nation, then refuses to communicate with the
teammates. This practically results in the side being affected going
into the game short-handed. The ONLY reasonable option (in my opinion)
for remaining silent/uncommunicative is playing as a neutral in Fourth
Age. In such a circumstance, the player could choose to "role play" a
specialty type nation that is isolationist. This would be a measured
choice, as the player should have no complaints if someone comes out of
the blue to whack him! Silence can be a double-edged sword, after all!
I've personally contemplated such an idea as an alternative to what I
feel is sometimes becoming an overly scientific game. Instead of
"making sure you have at least x emissaries of x skill points to post a
ton of camps ASAP," "taking the 'summon mounts' spell so you can make
big money," "recruit only heavy cav or heavy infantry at all times
during the game," and "move your weaker agents to an allied location to
steal and train up," it might be fun to not have to worry about going
through the same boilerplate motions each and every game. Again,
playing in such a manner would have a big emphasis on wild fun as
opposed to striving to WIN. Then again, even if I played such a nation,
I'd still communicate with others in character if in no other manner. I
feel that such communications, especially with the more light-hearted
players, is nearly half the fun. One disclaimer before I go-- I respect
and appreciate all the "scientific" based advice I get in the game,
realizing it is the wise path to victory, and continue to welcome such
advice! But let's have some fun too!

  Pat

BBrunet wrote:

···

They keep telling us that it's a team game.

The best way to win is to play with as many teammates as possible.

The best way to enjoy the game is to either be successful in what you are trying to do (ie..win) or enjoy the greater going's on amongst a larger group of people.

In other words, there is absolutely no excuse for reclusive MEPBM play. None that I can surmise. Anyone have a good argument for reclusive, solitary nation play? Maybe even a dumb excuse that you fervently believe in? Thought so.

Not only within your own team, but also with the others. It's always fun to carry on a bantering conversation with a sporting enemy. It's also almost always absolutely necessary to keep the channels of communication open to each/every neutral. Hey, the neutrals may be pre-aligned, or one of those solitary (virtually useless..) chaps also, but that is not the majority.

I personally just do not understand the lack of communication often seen in the game. Should the company send out a pre-game info pack that says something like: "We'll take your money for as long as you keep sending it to us, but for your better enjoyment (and our better long term business plan...) we heartily recommend playing this game as a member of a larger gaming group..." or something of the sort...?

Opinions welcome

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#4

Here is the rule I live by. I play to have fun. Winning is fun, so playing
as a team is fun. However, I play with my money. If all I'm doing is what
everyone else tells me to do, it ceases to be fun and I will stop wasting my
time and money. In other words, MePBM is a team game, but only if everyone
on the team realizes that it is individuals running the various nations, not
automatons, does it remain fun. I occassionally do some interesting and
unorthodox things, but I at least let the team know what I'm doing.
Sometimes, they may try to talk me out of it, but if I really think it's
going to be fun and won't hurt the team, I'll do it and say "I did it
my........ way..........." Of course, most of the time it's one of those
daring and risky things that will either succeed with overwhelming success
or fail miserably, depending on just how much info the enemy has (and how
much guts). You know what they say, no guts, no glory! But in the end, "it
was (pause) fun."

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm a team player, but I won't let someone
else run my game for me.

-Draugnar

#5

I agree with you very strongly. I'd suggest some reasons why we see
so much incongruous poor team spirit in a game, which I personally
hold supreme among PBMs simply _because_ of the strength of the
team aspect.

It's a brilliant game, but it's not perfect. The shortcomings, which
encourage the individualists are:

1) The VP system. Stupid, and irrational, rewarding inaction rather than
participation.

2) The individual VC system. Random, and detrimental to the basic
story plot of the game.

Now almost everyone is agreed on the truth of 1 and 2, and all the
chaps whose company I enjoy most, simply disregard them. But, new
players and players who have never had experience of a really good
team do not know that. There's no prospect of a second edition, but if
there was, switching off the VCs and VPs is the first thing I'd like it to
do.

Nations joining an alliance only because they see it as a way of
furthering their own ends, may be appropriate for war games based on
a Renaissance to C20th world, but it is the wrong mood for Tolkien.
His pseudo-mediaeval, magical milieu is that of the epic-heroic. It's not
about nations who are morally no better or no worse than one another,
it's about good versus evil. Dwarves and Elves certainly have old
hatchets to bury, but when the war starts, they work together, because
the only other option is to let the world become overwhelmed by evil.
I'm sure the scholars will find specific exceptions, but by and large, they
do not attempt to score off one another, with regard to who's going to
come out better at the end. It's an epic war about the survival or
destruction of the free, and nothing unites as solidly as that.

3) The lack of a good player rating system - which would of course
replace 1 and 2. We discussed this at some length last year, on this list,
and the majority favoured some kind of voting system, players vote for
the best on each team, or have 10 pts to distribute etc. Other options
include points for a team win etc. I would favour some complex
composite, and do have specific ideas, but this is not the time. The
value of such a system would be that team-minded players could find
others more easily. There is, for example, a particular player in some of
my games who has driven everyone out of their skulls with his failure to
communicate. A detailed player rating system might show him as having
some "wins" but it would not show any votes for team play. Sure, he
pays his money, and takes his choice, but those of us who think ME
should be a team game, can be warned against him in future. OK, and
root and branch individualists, who don't like communicating, can even
have their own games - good luck to 'em! Alternatively, it might
encourage him to improve his communication, and become a team
player.

4) Bad experience reinforcing bad practice. I've been in a couple of
games recently where the communication is staggeringly poor - that is,
"staggeringly poor" in _my_ perception and based on _my_ (better)
experience in other games. I usually sign up as part of a team of old
muckers, the team building is already mostly done. In these 2 games I
signed up as a neutral, declared after a few turns, and got big surprises.
I seemed to be the most experienced, by quite a long way. There were
plenty of newbies, but also a few individualists. These guys simply
didn't see that they were doing anything "wrong" by my definition.
They'd been in games with newbies and isolationists before, played the
same, and of course with similar disjointed play from their oppositions,
they'd done OK - had the VPs to prove it!

I don't really know what the solution to 4 is, resolving 1, 2 and 3 would
help. Detailed turn reports, mapping, artefact and character lists, and
tightly co-ordinated assaults are all things I take for granted in my other
games, but it's very hard to persuade 10 people that they are a good
idea, when you are a lone voice, and they think themselves to be getting
along perfectly well without much effort!

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

BBrunet <ditletang@canada.com> wrote

there is absolutely no excuse for reclusive MEPBM play.

#6

Not sure how to answer the Teamwork overall concept. Some players love the
team interaction, lots of diplomacy and chatting to everyone. (Hence there
will be a large proportion of such mailings to this list - they're the
chatty ones). :slight_smile:

Others don't.

The best team (ie team that wins) is one where the differences between
player styles can be buried, and co-ordinate effectively. But that is not
what lots of players like I am afraid. (I sometimes get players who are
unable to deal with the "team is all" concept).

The advent of Fourth Age games and their ability to sit off on your own and
play your own game, and to a certain extent NKA (& possibly WoTR?) games I
reckon is part of that. Not sure about the last just some thoughts that I
have been having here.

Whenever we chat to players starting up in the game we strongly emphasis the
team aspect of the game and try to get a feel to see if players like that
sort of thing. If not we try to point them to another game. But for some
new players it's a try and see approach. No real harm in that i think (it
does penalise team-mates but I try and equal out the newbie quotient on each
side).

I'll look at what we send out and see if we can emphasis the team aspect of
the game. Any thoughts on what should be added? We send out a basic how to
play sheet would it be appropriate for that? Or somewhere else?

Clint

#7

The best team (ie team that wins) is one where the differences between
player styles can be buried, and co-ordinate effectively. But that is not
what lots of players like I am afraid. (I sometimes get players who are
unable to deal with the "team is all" concept).

Yup, I've come across them. I just sometimes wish that we could
somehow identify them early, and send them off to "non-
communicators" or "low-communicators" games, rather than spend 6
turns slowly discovering that you've got an ally who's more of a
hindrance than a help.

The advent of Fourth Age games and their ability to sit off on your own and
play your own game, and to a certain extent NKA (& possibly WoTR?) games
I
reckon is part of that. Not sure about the last just some thoughts that I
have been having here.

Well no, not WoTR. But, agree. I dislike 4th age, am quite happy for
all the non-team spirited ones to go there. Rather like convict
transportation :wink: :wink: :wink: Steady now!

No real harm in that i think (it
does penalise team-mates but I try and equal out the newbie quotient on each
side).

Yes, understand the need to integrate new blood.

I'll look at what we send out and see if we can emphasis the team aspect of
the game. Any thoughts on what should be added? We send out a basic how
to
play sheet would it be appropriate for that?

I don't really think well intentioned words will make much difference. A
player rating system, which recorded and rewarded good team play,
might.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote

#8

Okay how to instigate this? I tried theVote for the best team player on
both sides and got diddly before.

···

I don't really think well intentioned words will make much difference. A
player rating system, which recorded and rewarded good team play,
might.

#9

Hi,

Apparantly, in the UK at the moment there's a trailer for the Lord of the
Rings now showing ahead of the film Pearl Harbor (sic). It's supposed to
be quite good, so I've heard. (The trailer that is).

Has anyone seen if for themselves yet? I'm not quite sad enough to go to
the pictures and watch Pearl Harbor just to see a 3 minute trailer but I
can't remember looking forward to a film as much since I was 11 years old
and Return of the Jedi came to our sleepy backwater all those years ago.

Kev

#10

I've seen two of them. The LOTR trailer, and the Fellowship trailer. I downloaded
both off the internet. (Thank God I finally got broadband! They were 12 and 17 megs!)

···

------Original Message-----
-From: Kevin [mailto:kevin@bobbins71.freeserve.co.uk]
-Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 5:40 PM
-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
-Subject: [mepbmlist] LOTR Trailer now showing
-
-
-Hi,
-
-Apparantly, in the UK at the moment there's a trailer for the Lord of the
-Rings now showing ahead of the film Pearl Harbor (sic). It's supposed to
-be quite good, so I've heard. (The trailer that is).
-
-Has anyone seen if for themselves yet? I'm not quite sad enough to go to
-the pictures and watch Pearl Harbor just to see a 3 minute trailer but I
-can't remember looking forward to a film as much since I was 11 years old
-and Return of the Jedi came to our sleepy backwater all those years ago.
-
-
-Kev
-
-
-Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
-To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
-http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
-
-
-Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-
-

#11

Actually, Kevin, the movie wasn't bad, once the attack began. It's just the
opening friendship and early romance stuff that's contrived. The effects
are very well done with a series of battles over Britain as one of the
"heroes" elects to be a part of a US unit sent to GB. The spits vs.
messerchmidts are some good sequences. The attack on Pearl is VERY well
done, and the final sequence (I won't give away what battle) is outstanding.

Now, for the Fellowship Trailer... It's AWESOME! If you still don't want
to see Pearl Harbor, go out to the LOTR movies website and download the
trailer #2. It is well done and brings shivers to the spine.

-Draugnar

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin" <kevin@bobbins71.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 6:40 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] LOTR Trailer now showing

Hi,

Apparantly, in the UK at the moment there's a trailer for the Lord of the
Rings now showing ahead of the film Pearl Harbor (sic). It's supposed to
be quite good, so I've heard. (The trailer that is).

Has anyone seen if for themselves yet? I'm not quite sad enough to go to
the pictures and watch Pearl Harbor just to see a 3 minute trailer but I
can't remember looking forward to a film as much since I was 11 years old
and Return of the Jedi came to our sleepy backwater all those years ago.

Kev

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#12

I don't really think well intentioned words will make much

difference. A

player rating system, which recorded and rewarded good team play,
might.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

I agree with this.
Even though I'm primarily playing just for the fun of it, I still
glance at the VP:s now and then. After all it's a game, and to some
extent you join a game with the intent to do well.
As it now is it's very wierd to determine what "well" would be. The
victory points is the only measurement of it, but we all know it's a
poor one due to it's shortcomings.

Johan

#13

Kevin wrote:

Hi,

Apparantly, in the UK at the moment there's a trailer for the Lord of the
Rings now showing ahead of the film Pearl Harbor (sic). It's supposed to
be quite good, so I've heard. (The trailer that is).

Yes but now people will be confused and expect to see Japanese Zeroes
attacking Minas Tirith. [1]

-ED \1/

[1] OK, it could have happened.

#14

You start with a player directory, compiled from a questionnaire sent to
all players. You use that as the stimulus of debate for a player rating
system. Questionnaire should be:

···

Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote

Okay how to instigate this? I tried theVote for the best team player on
both sides and got diddly before.

--------------------------------------------
We are considering posting a list of MEPBM players on the WWW as
a player directory, and possibly as a player rating system. A directory
will enable players organising new games to contact you. Please
complete and return the following questionnaire:

Your name:

Your e-mail, or phone number:

Your gender:

Your year of birth:

Year you started playing MEPBM:

Approx number of games played to, or almost to the finish:

Approx number of times you have been on the winning team at game
end:

In the future do you expect to play new games of:
1650?
2950?
4th age?

Would you agree to the above details being included in a web based
player directory?

We would need to discuss and work out the details of a player rating
system. It might include a component based on team wins, and a
component based on player votes. In principle (only) would you like to
be part of a system of this kind?:

If you send out a survey like this, and don't add anything that I disagree
with too strongly, then I'd be willing to receive all the returns and
process them. We'd put up a player directory first, gauge the interest
level for a rating system, hold discussions here, then come up with a
formal proposal for people to yea or nay.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/