Re: Olympia players!!!

From: sundar@telepac.pt (Yannick Menager)

Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000

cedman@capitalist.princeton.edu (Carl Edman) wrote:

>I agree.  There is no challenge any longer in Olympia and that is why
>the Servants of the Art (which counted among their number BtA) retired
>at the end of month 72.  For all practical purposes the AOO has won
>G1.  It controls everything worth controlling and can take whatever
>else it wants at will.  Look for an announcement to that effect signed
>by all the leaders of the AOO in the next OT.

>What I'd propose to Rich is that G2 be started within the next few
>weeks.  G1 should continue at a cut price/for free but without support
>for as long as Rich can justify the effort.  New players could play G1
>for a few turns to gain some experience before plunging into the real
>game, and code-changes (of which I'd suggest a plenty) could use G1 as
>a test-bed.

I�ve heard of Olympia, but never played it. I�ve saw Atlantis I, and
it seemed a rather nice game ( I�ve ported the sources to the Amiga,
if anybody is interrested, just mail me, but don�t forget that to run
a campaign you need permission from the author whom I don�t remember
the name 8-). Anyway, I�ve been playing PBMs for a long time, and I
saw that sooner or later, the situation becames that a new player
doesn�t have any chance of gaining real power, unless sponsored by
some veteran, or unless very special circunstan�es, like a GM meddling
with things. I�ve been playing during 6 years a PBM here in portugal
called "Trevas IV", where the game remained artificially balanced by
the GM, meddling in several ways, principally when nations changed
players, you could be shure that the nation would go to some friend of
the weaker nearby Kingdom/Empire/Alliance/Nation. I gave up last year,
when the GM began to go beyond subtlety.) Well, anyway I don�t think
this is the case ( I hope ! ).

The issue of game balance is a very thought one. Small rule designs
may allow to create monstruosities. Strangely enought, many game
designers seems to let pass gigantic �holes�. Principally in
RolePlaying Games. In that aspect, FASA are specialists 8-) The magic
in Shadowrun, for example.

The main problem is when a GM is rarely a player. He loses the �Player
point of view� if I might call it that 8-) I know that, because  I�m a
speciallist a finding ( and using ) those hole.. ( I know, I know...
shame on me... sorry, it�s stronger than myself, I just follow the
rules in a maximum effiency, I just play like I program, efficiently
8-).

Ok, returning to the topic, from what I read, Olympia has some
problems with some rules that create unbalance the game balance. That
is a important problem that I believe the GM should give priority one.
Magic principally is prone to major unbalance. It�s been one of the
major problems in many games I played, Wargames or Roleplay. One of
the way to solve this problem is by making the magic dangerous 8-) The
more powerfull the magic, the more dangerous it is. At least it will
make some people think thrice before using powerful magic unless in
vital cases.

Well, that�s all folks 8-)... Those are my opinions and my words of
wisdom... Off course I just might to completely wrong 8-)

References

Olympia players!!!
anonymous@nada.kth.se (Anonymous Student)
Fri, 24 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia players!!!
cedman@capitalist.princeton.edu (Carl Edman)
Sat, 25 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Olympia players!!!
anonymous@nada.kth.se (Anonymous Student)
Fri, 24 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia players!!!
cedman@capitalist.princeton.edu (Carl Edman)
Sat, 25 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0000