Re: Et tu, Brute?

From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)

Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1993 21:58:49 +0000

In article <C250CH.GyD@newcastle.ac.uk> Mark.OLeary@newcastle.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) writes:
>
>Last year, an intriguing PBeM game was set up, called Senator.
>
>It's premise was simple: The game starts with no rules, and no way to win. The
>players ('Senators') define the game, and how it is played, during the
>progression of the game, by proposals and votes.
>
>Senator has just died, on Turn 9.
>
>Why?

[edited to save bandwidth]>
>around 200 pages per week (ie about 100 pages of *new* info per week, as there
>was some duplication in the format).

>Basically, 'playing the game' required an input of around an hour
>per week,to read others proposals, think, and vote etc. This was too much time
>for many to give.

If by 'pages' you mean a standard of around 60 linesx80 columns, Then
I'd say that just READING the turn report would takes more than one hour
per week.  I run a PBeM which average about 15 pages of weekly data, and
it takes around an hour and a half per player per week, and several
report much higher investment of time to think.  (don't underestimate
the amount of time thinking takes.

>Players became inactive. Others complained that the volume of turnsheets was
>making it impossible (Impossible? Do you spend less than an hour on your PBMs
>per week?). Finally, the Implementor called a vote as to whether the exercise
>should continue: The inactive players, who couldn't spend the effort to
>participate usually, took part in this vote en masse, and the game was closed.
Careful.  I don't participate in any PBM's.  A little respect for the
time constraints of others might go a long way...
>
>The other reason that the game closed possibly stemmed from the name given to
>it by its creator: Senator. This instilled in players the idea of voting,
>protocol and politics... A lot of 'Parliamentary Procedures' were designed,
>some trivial, some well thought-out adjuncts to Email based democracy. Very
>little actual *game designing* went on. Some individuals and members of
>underground groups tried to push this direction, and failed. So, we had awards
>for good proposals, penalties for bad, bonuses for voting, rules to cover
>illness in RL, copyright problems in the future etc etc, but no game.

I've seen a lot of these games around.  Sometimes its more interesting
to see why they fail than who wins.  As for 'copyright' forget it, the
whole point of the game is to be free form, and too many public domain
game of the format exist to publish it commercially.  The exercise is
an experiment in legislature, and viewing it thusly may help you
appreciate why it bogs down.

Ceneting the rules for publication defeats the purpose.

>I think we were *close* to designing the game: possibly because we had
>legislated on every possible aspect of the voting process.

EVERY possible aspect?  How interesting (or is that 'dubious' --- I get
confused easily :-) )
>
>To end without really beginning our avowed project is rather sad.

...and another lesson in commitment.
>
>So, why am I writing this post?

Bitter resentment at investing effort in a group effort that seems
wasted because the other were unreliable.
>
>Firstly, to serve as a warning to future PBeM game moderators: Unless you
>*know* that your players are keen, committed: KEEP IT SHORT. KEEP IT TRIVIAL.

Sorry.  There are a lot of non-trivial games out there which are not
failing, and which don't require particularly committed players.  A
lot more goes into making a game work than I have time to describe here,
and I will ask you to accept without proof that long, intricate games
can succeed IN SPITE of a percentage of the players being unreliable.

Mel

References

Et tu, Brute?
Mark.OLeary@newcastle.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
Mon, 08 Feb 1993 15:57:53 +0000