Re: [pbem] - New PBEM - Lawgivers

From: Frank J. Perricone <hawthorn@mail.com>

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 22:13:05 +0000

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 21:04:11 -0000, "Roy Pollard" <plod@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

> So after having played a massive two failed games you've decided to put a
> downer on a perfectly unrelated game? Fair? Nope.

Errr, excuse me?  That was two successful games, not two failed games, and
both were games I ran.  I wouldn't want to count the failed games; I can
think of a dozen or more without even trying, at least half of which died
within (or before) the first few "turns".  Actually, I've no interest in
flaunting my credentials, but seeing as how you've questioned them, I'll
mention that I first played in a PBEM in 1987, and I first ran one in 1988.
Not that that proves anything other than that my complaint is not out of
the blue.

> "Frank J. Perricone" <hawthorn@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:vtn64t42n8fpgai5khsc0pb4ibe3f0c1dk@4ax.com...
> > On 21 Dec 2000 23:45:55 GMT, cgoodin@sfu.ca (Charles Frederick Goodin)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >> Lawgivers is a mailing-list PBEM which is fast-moving - you should be
> able
> > > >> to reply ideally at least three or four times a week. Applicants
> should be
> > > >> fairly competent writers and should understand that this is NOT just
> a
> > > >> gore-fest - there will be emphasis on role-playing and thinking as
> well as
> > > >> gunplay!
> > > >
> > > >The more important question is, how long has it been running, and what
> > > >excuse does the GM have planned to bring the campaign to a slow,
> drawn-out,
> > > >painful end immediately after people join up?
> > >
> > > Hmm...that rings of the bitterness of recent personal experience.
> >
> > For suitably broad values of "recent", sure.  In the last few years I've
> > been involved with exactly two PBEMs that lasted long enough to have been
> > worth doing.  Both were games I ran.  If I hadn't done it, I don't know if
> > I'd believe it could be done, given the results I've had.  Is anyone else
> > doing any better?
> >
> > --
> > * Frank J. Perricone * hawthorn@sover.net * http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn
> >             Prism: http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn/Prism/
> > Just because we aren't all the same doesn't mean we have nothing in common
> >  Just because we have something in common doesn't mean we're all the same
> >
> >
>

--
* Frank J. Perricone * hawthorn@sover.net * http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn
            Prism: http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn/Prism/
Just because we aren't all the same doesn't mean we have nothing in common
 Just because we have something in common doesn't mean we're all the same

References

Re: [pbem] - New PBEM - Lawgivers
"Roy Pollard" <plod@ntlworld.com>
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 21:04:11 +0000
[pbem] - New PBEM - Lawgivers
"Michael Ball" <ballmy@lineone.net>
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:11:45 +0000
Re: [pbem] - New PBEM - Lawgivers
Frank J. Perricone <hawthorn@mail.com>
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:25:54 +0000
Re: [pbem] - New PBEM - Lawgivers
cgoodin@sfu.ca (Charles Frederick Goodin)
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:45:55 +0000
Re: [pbem] - New PBEM - Lawgivers
Frank J. Perricone <hawthorn@mail.com>
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:07:48 +0000

Referenced By

Re: [pbem] - New PBEM - Lawgivers
"Roy Pollard" <plod@ntlworld.com>
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 21:04:11 +0000
[pbem] - New PBEM - Lawgivers
"Michael Ball" <ballmy@lineone.net>
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:11:45 +0000
Re: [pbem] - New PBEM - Lawgivers
Frank J. Perricone <hawthorn@mail.com>
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:25:54 +0000
Re: [pbem] - New PBEM - Lawgivers
cgoodin@sfu.ca (Charles Frederick Goodin)
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:45:55 +0000
Re: [pbem] - New PBEM - Lawgivers
Frank J. Perricone <hawthorn@mail.com>
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:07:48 +0000