Quest Digest 14/4/96 From: ">>-Josh->" <J.P.Gallagher@durham.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0000 JPG> Tried to get this to the news server the other day, but it was having none of it. Second attempt. Sorry it's late! ___ _ / _ \ | | 14th April, 1996 | |_| |UEST__| |IGEST \__ | / _ | | |_ | |_| | An e-mail discussion forum for the fantasy |_ / \___/ play by mail game; "Quest". Compiled by Josh Gallagher. J.P.Gallagher@durham.ac.uk o This isn't one of those automatic list thingies, so could all articles be sent clearly marked with paragraphs initalled to me. o If you want off the list, just say! No hassle, no pressure. o All material here is the exclusive property of the author and may not be used elsewhere without their permission. ___ / _ \ Anyone got any hangover cures? | __/DITORIAL That's besides the point anyway, I'm here to present to \___| you another Quest Digest. First one of the pagan new year I am lead to believe. Discussion has been continuing about the email game, and there's a good idea from Stephan in this Digest about running it with an option to have turns sent by email or by snail mail, the email version being obviously far cheaper. :) Let me know your thoughts on the matter... If we want to get this game running, we're going to have to make sure there's enough support for it, both to convince KJC that it's worth their while (see Peter Read's kind offer in the first article!) and also so that those of us who play don't end up in a quiet game. Anyway, on with the articles... Not an awful lot this week, again due to the Easter holidays I suspect, but thank you to all those who wrote in. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Read <pbm@ozemail.com.au>" Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 10:15:41 +0000 > I am afraid, Paul Noble, that the original suggestion was not for an > email only game, as I don't see KJC implementing that any time soon. > (Perhaps they could get Peter's code...?) Also, personally I like bits > of paper that I can refer back to, as opposed to files on disk. Call me > a luddite. :) > I will have words with KJC at some point and ask them about the > feasibility of setting this game up. Obviously they'll want more than > just a few emails of support before they set it up, but at least we can > start the ball rolling! > If there is sufficient interest, and *ONLY* if KJC don't want to run one, I'll be happy to do a special digest email game only. Costs, turn around times and other options are all negotiable. Mika Riikonen is liasing with me about running his semi-hand moderated game - we are just in the process of starting. Maybe that could be a viable option. Look at his web site - http://www.sci.fi/~freebird/alliance.htm Regards Peter ================================ Eccles and Peter Dynamic PBM Games Email :- pbm@ozemail.com.au Web site :- http://www.ozemail.com.au/~pbm ================================ (JPG> Peter has pointed out in another email that although the email game referred to by Chris Mead in the last digest was a four day turnaround, Dynamic Games also offer 7 and 10 day turnaround games too) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Wright <jxw@mailhost.exel.co.uk> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 10:01:15 +-100 Auto alliances in the proposed QD quest game. This could lead to some very interesting situations. If players are allowed to leave an alliance then it will be no different to current games of quest. If they aren't allowed to leave (either for a time limit or ever) then a player who wants to be a Novala worshipper who finds themselves in a Sundonak alliance could turn out to be an excellent spy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stefan Andersson <t94stean@und.ida.liu.se> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:11:29 +0200 SA> I heard from someone "outside the Digest" that you can get 60+ skilled recruits when offering 2000-5000 gold and that you may take plus-weapons when robbing weapon-shops. Anyone with any experience from this? SA> As one of the newsletter-editors I can now inform all Quest-players that the free-position you get for your editorship is history. After me pointing out to Kevin that I get half the payment compared with an editor that choose to play his free position in a 7-day game (I play in a 15-day game) he followed my advice to instead pay the editor for each issue produced. This will not only lead to a more fair payment, but also, HOPEFULLY, more regular newsletters in those games which hasn't. Thanks Kevin for that one! SA> I can also see that you are discussing a pure e-mail version of KJC Quest. Great! Count me in! Having played for 35 turns in Dynamic Games Quest game 4 I can only agree with some voices saying that a 7-day game is fast enough. Those wishing to play faster games can begin playing MUD- games instead! And I really hope that the pure e-mail version would be cheaper. Maybe a turn-cost of 1 pound would be suitable, considering that there will be less work for the inputters and that the administration costs and postage for sending the turn result back almost disappears (if the turn result is sent out by e-mail that is, and that is a must for all the non- UK players since it takes about 3 days for snail-mail to reach a country outside UK). >B> There is only one possible flaw with this idea, what do the digest >members who are at university do during the holidays? Putting your group >on holiday for a long time can be frustrating because other groups are >developing faster. Do you have any ideas for getting around this? SA> I am one of those students at university. But here we don't close down the school or anything during holidays, and you can always connect to school from home via modem. The final solution, when entering longer holidays like over the summer, and if you then doesn't stay at the place you are studying, would be to put your group on holiday. But maybe a better solution would be to have the oppurtunity to switch between e-mail and snail-mail mode, so that you can play on in the game by snail-mail when not having access to e-mail. At the higher, normal, cost then of course. It wouldn't be that difficult to implement. >B> One final point, what do you think of giving the game completely >different spell components so we all start from the same level of >knowledge? ... SA> Yes! New codes! This was the reason when I started in Dynamics Quest but when you are some friends who play together and cooperate you soon find out the most useful spells. By putting the spell-name on the chat-list gives the first component for example, and then it's just to experiment, or if you can afford it, buy spell research. >PN> If there were only 60 players in the game it would be mighty empty >and desolate. But once you'd found someone it could be fun ];) SA> If the players only play one group each... Imagine IF KJC would have the courage to LOWER the price of e-mail turns to, say 1 pound (or even less!), then the players could afford two or even three groups each. 60 players, increasing all the time, with 2-3 groups each... SA> Finally, Kevin said they were working on the e-mail possibilty now, but he couldn't give more detailed info as he didn't know himself yet how it would look like... Maybe Mr Cropper should contact the Australian Quest- moderators who have been running e-mail Quest for long now! The only difference being that the map symbols are replaced with letters and that you don't get the world-map printed on your result (You can see how your specific game world looks like on their www-page). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JPG> As I say, let me know your thoughts on the game (and any other quest related stuff, obviously!). My preference would be to receive turns by snail mail, but an option on a turn card / emailed turn to get the turn sent by email instead would be most welcome. That's about it for the moment. Until next time, happy Questing.... >>-Josh-> "You can't always get what you want" - Rolling Stones Up