The nature of the beast From: htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000 Greetings! I've been following some recent threads in which various opinions were expressed about the demise of PBM gaming. I don't want to open up any cauterised wounds, but I was wondering if you folks would mind giving me your opinions regarding (what you see as) the difference between PBM, PBEM (et al), and their evolutionary future? Superficially, PBEM seems to be little more than an offshoot of PBM which utilises electronic mail to streamline operations. The vendor saves time and money by replacing the paper-filled envelope with a character-filled message. The consumer gets faster and more reliable delivery of turns. Let's consider the main characteristics of PBM for a moment: 1) Paper turns. Most people feel more comfortable reading stuff printed at 600dpi on 80gsm paper than they do at 72dpi on a 640x480-pixel screen. In addition to the fact that it is physically easier to read information on a printed page than it is on a screen, the pages can be spread out so that specific information is actually easier to get at than navigating through layers of windows on a computer. Couple this with auxilliary hand-drawn maps, post-it notes, and lists of things-to-do, and what it boils down to is that paper turns are easier to digest, manage, and use than computer turns (where you have to wrestle with a program's interface and have few options for customisation). 2) Long turn-around. Most players look forward to the delivery of their turns. Did the Evil Empire repulse the latest attack? What new technologies have the scientists developed? Regardless of who you are, the sense of anticipation that starts the moment you post your turn, builds towards the date of delivery, and then peaks just as you tear open the envelope, is an aspect of PBM that is relished. Regardless of the outcome, you get up to a week of positive anticipation out of every single turn. Sure, the turn may contain nothing but bad news, but how many minutes of disappointment do you suffer before you're engrossed devising come-back strategies and your mind's racing at a mile-a-minute? In essence, long turn-arounds conjure up more emotion. Now let's have a bit of a look at PBEM. To reduce the number of factors at work, assume that the same PBM game is being played, and that the turn output (report) is little more than a text file, or an Acrobat document, which gets printed out at the player's end: 1) Electronic turns. A PBM game that accepts electronically-submitted turns probably does so by way of a helper-application which creates the turn (file). No need for the player to fill in pages and pages of forms, or deal with syntactical issues common to the codified order systems employed by PBM games, or post an envelope X days before the deadline, or worry about lost or delayed mail. Whip it up with a helper-app and beam it off a few hours before the turns get crunched. You put up with a rigid order-entry application because it makes your turn less prone to errors; you send it via email because it makes delivery faster and possibly buys you more time to do your turn. 2) Shorter turn-around. With the added efficiency of email, PBEM games tend to have a shorter turn-around than PBM games. Because of the increased rate, the amount of anticipation experienced by PBEM players between each turn is less than experienced by PBM players. A shorter turn-around also implies that there is less time for diplomacy - ergo less diplomacy. Now, one *can* argue that because anyone playing by email also conducts diplomacy by email, that the level of diplomacy would remain unaltered; however, diplomacy is a human action - if it takes five days to think of a devious plan to pitch to your allies, then it takes five days - having access to email during that time *won't* make your brain think faster. Shorter turn-arounds *do* result in less diplomacy. Now for the third generation of PBEM games, which I will refer to as PFEM (Paper Free Electronic Mail) games. Not a particularily great acronym, granted, but it emphasises the major evolutionary step taken by this mutation. Here we talk about games like VGA Planets, Stars, etc., where the turns were never meant to be displayed on a paper medium - a program not only being used to display reports, but compile orders as well. [As an aside, if there is already a label for these types of games commonly in use, could someone please tell me? Also, is this an acceptable forum for discussion of these types of games? If not, what newsgroup is more appropriate? Finally, where can I read the charter for this newsgroup, and check out the latest FAQ?] Anyway, PFEM games have one, and only one difference to PBEMs - they do away with the paper: 1) Paper-free. This type of game requires that the player be willing to spend *hours* in front of the machine preparing a turn. There is no option to take the reports away for casual analysis and formulation of strategy - you sit down, shut up, and plough through it. Human endurance becomes the critical issue - if the interface makes it too hard to do your turn in the available amount of time, you either don't play, you play less, or you pay less attention to detail in areas that you're not really interested in. PFEM games tend to have even shorter turn-around times than PBEM games, with even less opportunity for diplomacy as a result! Pulling it all together, it seems as though, as a result of technological advances, the time available to play these sorts of games has gradually decreased. This, in turn, has resulted in shallower games with less personal interaction and less emotional payback. Each of these evolutionary steps has produced a generation of players with an affinity to that method of play. (The newest generation of players seem to be throwing around the acronym RTS (Real Time Strategy) without, it seems, any idea of what the word 'strategy' actually means!) As the original (PBM) generation ages, their numbers will thin until critical mass is lost, then the PBM industry will crumble and take PBEM with it. PFEM has not yet finished maturing and so will be around for a while to come - even so, it is doomed because of societal (primarily time-based) pressures towards real-time entertainment. The RTS generation is in it's infancy and, although it's future is assured, it's shape is uncertain. The current bland plethora of RTS offerings is not financially sustainable. RTS needs to mutate quickly into something that will allow it to be classified as more than a 'diversion'. The way I see it: The current (RTS) breed of game uses a coarse digital medium to deliver shallow entertainment which discourages emotional investment. The original (PBM) breed of game uses a fine analog medium to deliver entertainment in-depth which encourages emotional investment. There is no question in my mind that the success of PBM was due to some fundamental qualities which are ageless. The hype surrounding the current medium (the Net) has obscured the fact that the quality of entertainment it delivers has gone down the drain. The big question is whether or not an Internet technology can be used to deliver the qualities that PBM has been delivering for years; or whether or not the new generation of brain-washed consumers actually give a damn. What's that old saying? "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." Thoughts? Henry. PS: This was a posting intended to provoke discussion on the principles underlying PBM gaming (and it's progeny), with a view towards identifying structural reforms or adaptation which could promote it's ideals in a contemporary framework. In English, what that means is that if you are going to bitch and moan about exceptions to the rule, and cite specific examples, then you have missed the whole point. Referenced By Up