Et tu, Brute? From: Mark.OLeary@newcastle.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1993 15:57:53 +0000 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? Many of the 30 or so players became disaffected early on with the shear mass of information that began to be presented in each turn sheet: 30 Senators, each making their proposals, voting on those of others, discussing the proposals in a 'Declarations' forum, plus private EMail and the formation of 'parties' (both overt and underground) led to a flood of information for each turn: I averaged around 200 pages per week (ie about 100 pages of *new* info per week, as there was some duplication in the format). This has revealed a basic difference between PBeM and PBM (specifically, PBM which charges money). If I joined a PBM with a reasonable turn fee, and received this kind of volume of carefully thought out information and game details, I would be very happy- value for money. However, it seems that the majority of Senators, faced with the same service for free, resented the volume of material. 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. 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. 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 think we were *close* to designing the game: possibly because we had legislated on every possible aspect of the voting process. To end without really beginning our avowed project is rather sad. So, why am I writing this post? 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. Have short-term goals, with lots of hooks to keep the players with you. I say this as a player, not a moderator, and I'm not describing the kind of game I enjoy, just (it seems to me) the kind that will *work*. An involved, complex, slowly developping game can only work if all the players continue to participate. Senator was dead from about the 3rd turn, as only around a third of Senators could be bothered to vote or propose. Secondly, I want to publicly thank our Implementor, who invested a lot of time and effort (and skill) in moderating and hard-coding our proposals on a weekly basis as they became rules. I suspect that he put in more effort than the sum of his Senators, and for vewry little return: when he called for support, the majority asked him to wind up the exercise. So there it stands: Senator died, but its passing left a few lessons. And while it existed, it was immensely stimulating and enjoyable for those who put in the effort. Perhaps there's a lesson there for players, too. -Ex-Senator Raphe of the White Hand Referenced By Up