Re: The end of Play by Mail? <PLEASE READ!>

From: pjlareau1@mmm.com (Paul J. Lareau)

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Bob Luthardt wrote:
> ...I am simply
> expressing my remorse at the steady decline of the true play-by-mail game.
> In fact, the "true" play-by-mail game has already vanished, replaced by
> what one might call the "Role-play by mail" game. Gone are the games where
> at some specific moment, a pre-defined winning scenario takes place, and
> the game comes to an end. Now we are offered the "open-ended",
> "play-me-forever" role-playing game where either one character, or a party
> of character roam a seemingly endless terrain discovering limitless bounty,
> and earning a continual flow of income. On occassion, you might even meet a
> fellow player, say hello how are you? how do you cast the teleport spell?
> and move merrily on your role-playing way. Once upon a time, these
> encounters between players usually meant that the slowly advancing lines of
> battle had finally met - the inevitable grand-scale war would commence, and
> the player who had made the wisest use of resources, the smartest decisions
> in tactics, and the brightest campaign in development would usually win.
> WIN - a concept no longer entertained by PBM companies. Once upon a time,
> the ultimate goal of a PBM was to WIN THE GAME. Now, the goal is to simply
> PLAY THE GAME - play forever, paying for move after move after move with no
> end of the cash-flow in sight.
>
> I played just about every PBM game you could imagine when I was in college.
> My mailbox was stuffed with game  turn results everyday but sunday - and
> that was only because no mail arrived on sundays. My favorite game by far
> was It's a Crime. This game was unique, and most importantly - it was FUN!
> But do not be confused - yes, it was fun to play, but much more, it was fun
> to WIN! It was fun to take a new territory from the guy next to you who
> kept robbing warehouses every week. It was fun because it was a
> COMPETITION.

Interesting observation.  As a gamer for over 50 years, my feelings,
since I was a teen, have always been on the other side.  Virtually all
games (boardgames, card games, and later, PBM's) seemed to be "slash &
bash" where the intent was always to WIN, to COMPETE, to KILL.  I have
always found that very frustrating.  I remember back in the very early
1970's trying to find COOPERATIVE games where "winning" was calculated
as the ability of a player to work WITH other players to come up with
the optimal result.  I remember how happy I was to find a game company
in Canada that specialized in such games.  Frankly, with the exception
of games emphasizing "storytelling", I still find that the vast majority
of games are based in WAR, heavy competition, and ultimate "winning".

You are right that most PBM (and now PBEM) games tend to be
storyteller-based, as are virtually all role-playing games.  There are a
couple of reasons for this, that are unique to storytelling games.  The
primary reason is that role-playing games encourage people to create
interesting, fun characters...and the longer you play with them, the
more interesting they get as personalities develop.  After a year of
playing with a character through several adventures, they become
friends.  Games where beloved characters get killed off are simply not
popular.  This was never an issue playing RISK or MONOPOLY.

Anyway, that has led to two different developments in order to calculate
a WIN or COMPETE, for those plays like yourself that don't feel
fulfilled in a game that doesn't provide that.  By competing against
NPC's rather than each other, players are not put in the position of
knocking off another player's character to save their own.  They can
both compete to beat on a common villain.  Secondly, your comment about
solitaire is close to the mark, and the rise of computer games has
strengthened this.  Many younger players have become very attuned to
competing against themselves ... usually by rising in rank,
capabilities, stature, popularity, etc.  If I am playing a 40th level
wizard, and the best you have done is a 32nd level thief, I see
competition there.  And given the fact that my wife invariably has
better luck surviving and thriving than I do, I see it there about every
day!   ;=)

As to games not ending, that is true!  And it is intentional.  In this
kind of game, the players really don't want it to end.  They're happy
interacting indefinitely, either alone or in packs.  It is even sad,
sometimes, when interesting NPC's who have become part of a story
suddenly die or go away, or when a player has to leave the game and
their character goes with them.

I play both kinds of games, and my feelings on ending go both ways.
With role-based games (as long as they're interesting and exciting), I'm
sad to see them ever end, yet as a board gamer, I detest most
non-storytelling board games that take over 2 hours.  I get bored stiff.

There are probably plenty of games out there for both kinds of players,
but I agree, they may be tough to find.  Just like most board games tend
to be "win & compete" games, the PBM/PBEM genre is really quite ideal
for storytelling, so I can see why you're frustrated.  Something else
you said, though, triggered another thought.  You mentioned "paying" for
games (I won't touch a pay-for-play game with a 10 foot bastard
sword!).  I'm afraid that the "no ending" game really is more of a
money-maker for commercial games, so you've got that going against you
too.

--
Paul J. Lareau
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[POST] 135 E. Viking Dr. #301, Little Canada MN 55117 USA
[HOME PAGE] http://www.wavefront.com/~pjlareau/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.

References

The end of Play by Mail? <PLEASE READ!>
"Bob Luthardt" <luthardt@clark.net>
Thu, 02 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

The end of Play by Mail? <PLEASE READ!>
"Bob Luthardt" <luthardt@clark.net>
Thu, 02 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0000