Re: For PBM game moderators

From: madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)

Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:19:44 +0000

>>PBM or even PBEM in the traditional sense and style of games is a dead
end road.<<

And you would know all about this because... ?

>> Those games that hope to survive successfully as commercial
operations will have to attract the newer generations and that means
more of traditional computer game,<<

Well, you are of course entitled to your opinion.  The trouble with it is that
you clearly have no knowledge of the commercial PBM scene and are basing your
assumptions on other, similar, but not the *same* game industries.  I don't
doubt your extensive knowledge of RPG and Board Game design, but thats really
not the same thing.

>>The hobby as a whole needs to adapt or die.<<

ALL hobbies adapt.  While its very true that PBM and consequently PBEM must
continually look to modernisation, the good ones are not "struggling to
survive" and are still seeing regular growth and profits.  PBM game design, by
which I really mean "turn-based" game design, is very different to tabletop or
computer gaming.  Its fans do not want the same things out of a game, although
there is certainly some crossover there's a lot of differences too.

Those companies which have tried to heavily computerise their PBM games in the
way you suggest, have invariably failed.  Some have gone on to be successful
with those games in other fields, or have simply disappeared.  You seem to
think everybody wants the same thing out of the hobby.  I don't believe you are
right.  Certainly, my own commercial experience suggests you are not.

>> Or slating Rick Loomis, I
won't do that directly. I have no evidence that the events that have
transpired to make the Origins Awards such a joke were in any directly
linked to him. There *Are* a couple of names that are, though. But Rick
IS the President of GAMA and the GAMA member with the greatest invested
interest in this gaming field; that alone is enough to make me wonder.<<

Then again, couldn't it just be that the games which win need to be good enough
to win?  Don't get me wrong, I don't know enough about the history here, but I
do know that every game designer loves the game they made and rather assumes
its worth awards.  When they don't get those awards its easy to blame
"corruption in the committee" and difficult to accept that your game might not
make the grade.  I've seen a lot of VERY bad games out there, and I've noticed
some of them in Origins nominations.  When they don't win, I'm never surprised.

>>Truth is, I don't subscribe to Flagship at present. Its something I have
considered doing a couple of times, but haven't yet. <<

But you are an RPG company arent you?  So its no big deal if you dont sub to
Flagship (although Id still recommend you do so.  Its a great read, has its ear
very much to the ground for market trends, and is a neat place to advertise
hobby products at reasonable prices.)

>>And I don't think
they are on our news update lists. Maybe that's something we ought to
think about changing.<<

Given their recent wider coverage, Id say that would be a smart move on your
part.

>> In any case, we have been running 1483 Online for
over three years now and the rate of new members joinning only increases
over time, not diminishing.<<

Im sorry, Im not familiar with 1483 Online.  I think I browsed the site a few
months back but I dont know much about it.  No disrespect intended.  I'll check
it out!  I've encounted some of your RPG products in the past, as you probably
know I bought some stuff from you before Christmas.

>>So, based upon those numbers we definately consider 1483 Online to be a
success at present.<<

From your description, yes, it sounds like a great success.

>> We have had the fully interactive computer game
version of the game in development for over 6 months now. We look
forward to its completion, as I sincerely believe we'll achieve x10 or
greater player participation once the limitations of human moderation
have been lifted and it becomes worth our time to actively promote the
enterprise. Currently we almost no promotion for the game as word of
mouth and web listing bring us more new players than we have human
moderator capacity to give them play opportunities.<<

It sounds like a neat plan, and I wish you well with it.  I would only suggest
that you bear in mind that there are lots of types of game player, and lots of
types of game.  To assume that your route is the *only* route to success is
blinkered.  Our own growth plans are somewhat different, but no less valid, I
hope.  Certainly, our path has been successful for a decade now and has
provided full-time employment for an ongoing team of staff.

>>The key thing here is I believe we draw only a small fraction of our
player base from existing PBEM players.  The Internet draws more online
players and board gamers to us, as well as historical enthusiasts.<<

Board Gamers, Online Players, Historical Enthusiasts are ALL existing PBEM
players in some form or other, most often.  I dont believe there is a breed
which is *just* a PBEM player.  Most people who play by email do so off the
back of some other branch of the hobby or related interest.

>> In my
opinion, games designed to primarily target only the current PBM/PBEM<<

Is there such a thing?  Surely most of us target gamers who are interested in
the genre the game is set in?

>>player base are severly limited and most likely to fail, for the simple
reason that the current playing audience is pretty small.<<

I really don't agree with this last comment at all.  Not the "fail" part, but
your estimate of playing audience.  Id say the active PBEM audience, in some
form or other, is certainly in the millions.  The potential PBEM audience
definitely is.  If all the active players with Madhouse, KJC and Harlequin came
to join 1483 tomorrow you'd probably be rather surprised by the workload you
suddenly acquired <g>.

Good gaming!

Steve T.

References

Re: For PBM game moderators
"Ryan S. Johnson" <dowrie@guildofblades.com>
Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:42:34 +0000

Referenced By

Re: For PBM game moderators
"Ryan S. Johnson" <dowrie@guildofblades.com>
Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:42:34 +0000