Re: Play by Mail

From: slouie@soda.berkeley.edu (Shelley Louie)

Date: Tue, 04 Jan 1994 00:23:37 +0000

Styx <b_gerber@oz.plymouth.edu> wrote:
>How popular are play by mail games...?  I know of a few people who
>play them, but I'm interested in the large scale.  I'm thinking of
>running my own games, but I'd like to see if there is really a market!

I've added on the group rec.games.pbm where this posting might be more
appropriate.

From the lists I've seen and from general experience, I'll have to say
that the market is a fairly small one, even considering the small size
of the general gaming market. But they make this up by being fairly
fanatical about spending money for high quality games and service.
Consider that the average pbm gamer is willing to pay $3-10+ per turn
over a long period of time and you get an idea that this is an expensive
affair. However with the costs being spread out over a long period of
time, I find that most pbm gamers are willing to spend the money for
the sheer fun of gaming.

Most pbm games I've seen come in one of two forms depending on the
amount of diplomatic (or other) interaction takes place between players:
those where interaction is a necessity and those where interaction is
incidental. There is very little middle ground although those playing
high interaction games are more than welcome to keep their mouths shut
(and thus get overrun quietly).

The best example of the high interaction pbm game is the largest pbm
(and pbem) game today, Avalon Hill's Diplomacy and its variants. No
single player can "win" the game or really enjoy the game without
communicating (although there are non-communication Diplomacy variants).
The high interaction games rely on the idea that players probably don't
know each other and thus no knowledge of how their fellow players will
react. With gaming clubs or friends, you eventually learn how your
opponents will react in certain situations. Pbms remove that aspect.

Most minimal interaction pbm games have the player battling against the
machine/system/other players but minus the need for communcation to
"win". A few examples of these are chess, gladiator/arena games, and
role playing games. These rely on the working within a certain construction
to achieve goals rather than needing to fast-talk into or out of a
situation.

Perhaps you should explain more about your game so we can comment on
whether it sounds: a) doable, b) fun, c) interesting, and d) worth
the money. Sound fair?

-Shelley