Re: Olympia reviews/post-mortem

From: srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner)

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 14:44:54 +0000

troyer@cgl.ucsf.edu (John M. Troyer) writes:
>But is this correct -- was Olympia about ready to become stagnant? Was
>there enough game structure for old players & new players to do
>things?  Or was the player interaction enough to keep it interesting?
>In an actual, long term game, would the diety have to sprinkle lots of
>external forces into the mix? (quests, GM-controlled factions &
>monsters, invasion forces, etc.)

My opinion is that yes, to be viable a game of this sort will require
the GM to make an effort to create a structure with built-in interest.
Relying on the players to generate interesting structure is, I think,
doomed to failure.

90% of all gameplayers follow a min-max strategy of some sort.  Almost
everyone who tried to do anything in Olympia tried to accumulate
money/units.  They were trying to "win" the game.

In addition, anyone who's been in a game of this sort for more than a
few turns becomes conservative.  Invest enough time and thought into a
game, and it becomes painful to lose your investment.

These factors combine to create a world where you have most players
trying to be "king of the hill" but at the same time are unwilling to
use any tactics or strategy that might seriously endanger their
forces.  It gets boring very quickly.

-- Scott T.

References

Olympia reviews/post-mortem
troyer@cgl.ucsf.edu (John M. Troyer)
Wed, 21 Apr 1993 21:53:50 +0000