Hi all,
1)Internet set up. Having subscribed to the list for some time and generally
ignored it because anything interesting was submerged under a torrent of
game specific info. I am now taking more notice because the game specific
content has gone elsewhere. I think that the current internet set up is a
bit complex and could do with rationalisation though the sites seem to be
getting more useful. I understand that there are reasons for why it is like
it is but a critical eye over structure and accessibility would help. It is
not easy to get something that both sells the game and provides back up for
current players.
2) News from Bree. Always scan it, sometimes read it and have now sent an
article to it. Perhaps more frequent issues would be better with an emphasis
more on news. I understand the current system is to wait for sufficient
material before doing one. Maybe one should be sent out as soon as there is
worthwhile NEWS!!!!! Doesn't matter if it is 3 pages long. I know that some
players still get it by snail but do a digest for them when there is enough
stuff! With more emphasis on news and explaining changes in processing etc I
think more notice will be taken of it. How about some one does a summary of
site discussions for Bree (Mr Tilley's Hot Topics).
3)Player rankings (Stop reading now if you get easily offended). I don't
need some stupid list for me to know I'm a better player than everyone else.
Oh! sorry it wasn't about ego? Make all the newbies play the rubbish
positions whilst we old salts get the cream? Hey our own form of apartheid!
That will encourage them to keep playing! In my experience, out of every
three games you get once dismal failiure, one Ok and one scorcher. Joining a
team of random nutters is all part of the experience. Whilst I understand
that some of you struggle with the rest of the human race or need to hide
behind your mates, the true form of Middle Earth is to join a random bunch
of people and try to recruit neutrals and trash the enemy. That is not to
say there is anything wrong with team games, if that is your taste, merely
that the 'pure' form of the game is lucky dip and making do with what you
get.
4)Changes to the game. I think there are two seperate types of game change.
Those that seek to address a game imbalance causing one side to have a
significant advantage and ones that might make the game more fun or
realistic. An example of the first was the agent rule changes which have
hopefully given the Free a better chance of winning. If it becomes obvious
through victories that one side or other then some form of balancing should
be discussed. The second type of changes involve turning this into a
different game which may be better or much worse but wont be MEPBM as we
play it. Any changes should be treated very carefully. I remember when they
brought out 2nd edition D&D which was one groups vision of how the game
should be. I thought it was a very bad upgrade and the quantum leap made
with 3rd edition highlights how poor it was. Personally I would do a hundred
different things but would they don,t sound like what others have been
asking for. I like Middle Earth 1650 and Harlequins excellent running of it.
If it ain't broke, so....
Death to my enemies.
Chris Courtiour
