IDEA: Submission of Official Rulings to TOM/WOTC

Guy Keen (g...@hceltd.demon.co.uk) wrote: : EG: I still don't think the Fame ruling works. While most people will : agree that allowing Fame to be cumulative is too unbalanced, making : the card a Unique Master almost kills it off entirely. Once one is in : play, any other one will contest it and take it out of play. The basic : idea behind the card is great - it adds the right kind of flavour to : the game. I'd rather see a solution along the lines of non-cumulative : use and maybe the introduction of a balancing card like an O-O-T Master : Disgrace to counter it. : Well people what do you think? : ***Hungry Wolf*** I completely disagree. The only thing that WotC could have done better than to make it unique is to take it out of the game (which I hope they do in successive releases). Making it rarer will just make it a Mt$ card that everyone has to have one of. Making another master specifically to counter Fame? I don't think that's a great idea. Maybe as a directed action you could burn fame or something. Fame is simply too heinous a card, and too many people are trying to figure out combos to get their vampire into and out of torpor every round. Is that fun? Is that in the spirit, or flavor of the game? Admittedly the idea is, the principle behind "popularity" in kindred/kine society, but the card is simply too powerful. Erik

With the April 95 FAQ release it seems apparent to me that some card/rule issues still haven't been clarified. In particuar, I'm thinking of cards like Fame, Rotschreck, and Charming Lobby. After all the discussion that has taken place on the net regarding these and othercards/rules, we should be able to reach playable inerpretations acceptable to the majority of players. This is not to level criticism at the design team (some contributors to this newsgroup would do well to remember that no-one or one group holds all the right answers), because most of the rulings in the current release are fine. But, IMO, a few of them still don't work, and that's what needs to be fixed. My idea: that a small group (say 3?) of dedicated and experienced Jyhad "Elders" be elected or chosen. I'm particularly thinking of people like Alan, Curt, James et al. Periodically, they would open threads on this group for OFFICIAL discussion, with a view to ultimately producing a ruling, interpretation or decision (like fix the card text) for OFFICIAL submission to Tom Wylie or the design team. Provided that the WOTC reps are receptive and reasonable about this srt of assistance I can only see positive benefits as an outcome. There's no way Tom or whoever else can monitor all the net discussions on their own, and this seems like a good way of keeping them aware of current opinions and ideas. WOTC need this sort of input to keep this brilliant game on an even keel. And I think a lot more can be gained by helping them rather than heaping scorn. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <883197...@hceltd.demon.co.uk>, Guy Keen <g...@hceltd.demon.co.uk> wrote: >My idea: that a small group (say 3?) of dedicated and experienced Jyhad >"Elders" be elected or chosen. I'm particularly thinking of people like >Alan, Curt, James et al. Periodically, they would open threads on this >group for OFFICIAL discussion, with a view to ultimately producing a >ruling, interpretation or decision (like fix the card text) for >OFFICIAL submission to Tom Wylie or the design team. No Cabals. This group exists as an open forum, and the opinions of everyone are important, no matter how much you post. If you are well reasoned and logical, you should have the right to be heard, ask questions, initiate discussion, and otherwise communicate. If you are a lame munchkin, you deserve the right to be ingnored by everyone. Besides, anyone who doesn't get elected isn't going to stop giving his or her ideas out. It's the abundance of our postings that made people think of us as "Elders." LSJ's house rule list is about as close as we should get. The DT can read that, and will know what we feel. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

g...@hceltd.demon.co.uk (Guy Keen) writes: >With the April 95 FAQ release it seems apparent to me that some >card/rule issues still haven't been clarified. In particuar, I'm >thinking of cards like Fame, Rotschreck, and Charming Lobby. After all >the discussion that has taken place on the net regarding these >and othercards/rules, we should be able to reach playable >inerpretations acceptable to the majority of players. Well, we already work as hard as possible to reach consensus. If you want to see what's been achieved, check LSJ's house rules list. >My idea: that a small group (say 3?) of dedicated and experienced Jyhad >"Elders" be elected or chosen. I'm particularly thinking of people like >Alan, Curt, James et al. Periodically, they would open threads on this >group for OFFICIAL discussion, with a view to ultimately producing a >ruling, interpretation or decision (like fix the card text) for >OFFICIAL submission to Tom Wylie or the design team. It sounds reasonable, but the devil's in the details. How would the "Elders" be chosen? Given the constant changes in the Jyhad netnews membership, I'm at a loss for a good procedure. Can you give a more detailed suggestion? My own preferences would be model based on courts with multiple judges, with majority opinions and dissenting opinions. >Provided that the WOTC reps are receptive and reasonable about this sort >of assistance I can only see positive benefits as an outcome. That, regrettably, may be the problem. In response to one query for reasons on the new FAQ, Tom said (presumably as a mouthpiece, and not as himself) "Just because". Does that response make you think that the DTR carefully considers and discusses serious suggestions? >There's >no way Tom or whoever else can monitor all the net discussions on their >own, and this seems like a good way of keeping them aware of current >opinions and ideas. At present I monitor all discussions, and I don't get paid for it. I doubt I'm the only one. >WOTC need this sort of input to keep this brilliant >game on an even keel. And I think a lot more can be gained by helping >them rather than heaping scorn. If they read and listen to intelligent discussion, yes. If not, scorn is appropriate, and more likely to produce results. After the flurry from the last Official Rulings, I think they'll at least proof more carefully. (Discussion of the Fame ruling elided) >Well people what do you think? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >That, regrettably, may be the problem. In response to one query for >reasons on the new FAQ, Tom said (presumably as a mouthpiece, and not as >himself) "Just because". Does that response make you think that the DTR >carefully considers and discusses serious suggestions? I am not on the design team. Yes, I know you all know this, but everyone keeps asking me to do things that only someone on the design team can reasonably be expected to do. When I say "just because", it's because there is no chain of logic that really leads to the reason why something is the way it is. Things were designed that way, and that's the end of it. Theoretically I could go on a long diatribe about why the game was designed the way it was, but that seems to be just asking for trouble given that I wasn't there when the game was designed, and it's outside of the scope of most discussions besides. Anyone expecting me to go into detailed explanations of game design, and why certain alternatives were explored but not taken, is out of luck. Maybe whoever comes in after me will be more willing to talk about such matters, but I am not. (And to stall any complaints of Jyhad players being neglected, this is the same policy I follow with regards to Magic.) >If they read and listen to intelligent discussion, yes. If not, scorn is >appropriate, and more likely to produce results. After the flurry from >the last Official Rulings, I think they'll at least proof more carefully. Oooooh yes :) Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

> I completely disagree. The only thing that WotC could have done better > than to make it unique is to take it out of the game (which I hope they > do in successive releases). Making it rarer will just make it a Mt$ card > that everyone has to have one of. Making another master specifically to > counter Fame? I don't think that's a great idea. Maybe as a directed > action you could burn fame or something. Fame is simply too heinous a > card, and too many people are trying to figure out combos to get their > vampire into and out of torpor every round. Is that fun? Is that in the > spirit, or flavor of the game? Admittedly the idea is, the principle > behind "popularity" in kindred/kine society, but the card is simply too > powerful. Sorry Erik - I completely disagree with you too. Banning a card is the worst thing you can do, full stop. That's a real "stick your head in the sand" reaction that I will never subscribe to. The card idea is basically good, and adds to the game. What's wrong with another Master card, like Disgrace, that might be played O-O-T to remove a Fame, or played on its own to reduce a vamp's bleed by 1 (0 minimum). Also, Fame could be played to remove the Disgrace? Adds even more flavour. If someone wants to waste their time getting a famous vamp in and out of torpor, then they can be bled, rushed, out-voted, or Digraced into submission! Yes, I do think trying to work a tactic is in the spirit of the game, as is trying to counter it. Reply at will... ***Hungry Wolf***

> Well, we already work as hard as possible to reach consensus. If you want > to see what's been achieved, check LSJ's house rules list. Point 1: I think the ideas and decisions that fly across this newsgroup are for the most part excellent. > >...OFFICIAL submission to Tom Wylie or the design team... > > It sounds reasonable, but the devil's in the details. How would the > "Elders" be chosen? Given the constant changes in the Jyhad netnews > membership, I'm at a loss for a good procedure. Can you give a more > detailed suggestion? My own preferences would be model based on courts > with multiple judges, with majority opinions and dissenting opinions. > > >Provided that the WOTC reps are receptive and reasonable about this sort > >of assistance I can only see positive benefits as an outcome. > > That, regrettably, may be the problem. In response to one query for > reasons on the new FAQ, Tom said (presumably as a mouthpiece, and not as > himself) "Just because". Does that response make you think that the DTR > carefully considers and discusses serious suggestions? > > If they read and listen to intelligent discussion, yes. If not, scorn is > appropriate, and more likely to produce results. After the flurry from > the last Official Rulings, I think they'll at least proof more carefully. > Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) Well, Tom/DT, this is where we need some sort of response from you guys. You can't deny the value of the discussions that take place here. How do you think these ideas should be taken on board, and live in a world potentially free of Fame and Rotschreck type confusion? ***Hungry Wolf***

In article: <3mql80$g...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: > No Cabals. This group exists as an open forum, and the opinions > of everyone are important, no matter how much you post. If you are well > reasoned and logical, you should have the right to be heard, ask > questions, initiate discussion, and otherwise communicate. If you are a > lame munchkin, you deserve the right to be ingnored by everyone. Besides, > anyone who doesn't get elected isn't going to stop giving his or her > ideas out. It's the abundance of our postings that made people think of > us as "Elders." LSJ's house rule list is about as close as we should > get. The DT can read that, and will know what we feel. > I hear what you're saying, but all I'm suggesting is that while the game is still in its (hopefully) early days, and before it gets further complicated by new releases and expansions, some formal means of net people helping solve card/ruling problems be established. I just feel that we're pissing in the wind a little at the moment. If Tom/DT were able to receive coherent net opinions on specific problems, not 200 different threads, then I'm sure the Fame/Rotschreck dilemmas would vanish. Right now, I'm afraid that I'll see a Rotschreck ruling that hoses the attacker on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and the victim on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Toss a coin on Sundays. ***Hungry Wolf***

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>That, regrettably, may be the problem. In response to one query for >>reasons on the new FAQ, Tom said (presumably as a mouthpiece, and not as >>himself) "Just because". Does that response make you think that the DTR >>carefully considers and discusses serious suggestions? >I am not on the design team. Yes, I know you all know this, but everyone >keeps asking me to do things that only someone on the design team can >reasonably be expected to do. >When I say "just because", it's because there is no chain of logic that >really leads to the reason why something is the way it is. Things were >designed that way, and that's the end of it. Theoretically I could go on >a long diatribe about why the game was designed the way it was, but that >seems to be just asking for trouble given that I wasn't there when the >game was designed, and it's outside of the scope of most discussions besides. >Anyone expecting me to go into detailed explanations of game design, >and why certain alternatives were explored but not taken, is out of luck. >Maybe whoever comes in after me will be more willing to talk about such >matters, but I am not. (And to stall any complaints of Jyhad players being >neglected, this is the same policy I follow with regards to Magic.) If you don't know the answer, say "I don't know". I don't expect you to answer every question. Ask the Design Team for a complete answer. If the DT can't or won't answer, tell us why (too complicated, not enough time, didn't think about it, not a priority, whatever). An honest reason for not giving an answer to a serious question is, I believe, a reasonable request. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: : >That, regrettably, may be the problem. In response to one query for : >reasons on the new FAQ, Tom said (presumably as a mouthpiece, and not as : >himself) "Just because". Does that response make you think that the DTR : >carefully considers and discusses serious suggestions? : When I say "just because", it's because there is no chain of logic that : really leads to the reason why something is the way it is. Things were : designed that way, and that's the end of it. Theoretically I could go on : a long diatribe about why the game was designed the way it was, but that : seems to be just asking for trouble given that I wasn't there when the : game was designed, and it's outside of the scope of most discussions besides. : Anyone expecting me to go into detailed explanations of game design, : and why certain alternatives were explored but not taken, is out of luck. : Maybe whoever comes in after me will be more willing to talk about such : matters, but I am not. (And to stall any complaints of Jyhad players being : neglected, this is the same policy I follow with regards to Magic.) Tom; When the same thing can be said in many different ways, each of which causes a different emotional reaction in the listener/reader, this is defined as semantics. Saying 'Just because' has negative semantic connotations to many people. It indicates that you (personally) know and aren't going to tell us; that it is that way because you (proxy for DT) are in power and have made that decision and we aren't important enough to know the answer; that there _isn;t_ a better answer but you can't let anyone know that because that would weaken your position. Nobody likes to be made to feel unimportant and/or insignificant; the answer 'Just Because' has those connotations for many because that is the kind of answer they were given when they were on the young end of a parent/child relationship. As adults, people feel they deserve better and resent feeling like they are being treated like children. If you really don't know, as you say and I believe, then the best answer is a simple, "I don't know. I wasn't told either." This is the truth and alienates no one; indeed - it even brings them to your side as they now feel a kinship of ignorance with you. If you do know but cannot say for whatever reason, then say so; "I am not allowed to tell you - I have been forbidden." People will then understand that you are not in control of the answer you can give in that situation and not blame you personally. If you _do_ know but the answer is too long for you to go through the whole thing, say that too; "I do not have time/desire to go into full details; many of the suggestions you have come up with were tried and rejected for one reason or another." Most people will respect that time is a significant consideration when answering as many posts as you do, and will appreciate knowing that their viewpoint was at least considered before the final way was chosen, or that maybe they have come up with something no one has thought of before. Giving a flip, casual answer to a serious questioncan have negative repercussions; in this case, the phrase 'Just Because' implies an '...I say so' at the end to many people. It only serves to make people hostile and alienate them. Semantics is a powerful thing, and can manipulate people in many ways - often inintentionally or unknowingly. The truth is usually the best answer; you treat people like adults and not children, and let them know exactly where you (personally) stand, which for most will build the level of respect and not weaken it. Believe me; most people would rather respect someone than scorn them, if given the chance. Shane Travis | Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits sht...@duke.usask.ca | are objects of scorn to Americans who blow horns Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | to break up traffic jams. | -- Mary Ellen Kelly

>Giving a flip, casual answer to a serious questioncan have negative >repercussions; in this case, the phrase 'Just Because' implies an '...I >say so' at the end to many people. It only serves to make people hostile >and alienate them. Semantics is a powerful thing, and can manipulate fre...@anthrax.cisco.com (Frederick Scott) writes >sht...@herald.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >>Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: >>: When I say "just because", it's because there is no chain of logic that >>: really leads to the reason why something is the way it is. Things were >>: designed that way, and that's the end of it. >>Saying 'Just because' has negative semantic connotations to many people. >I think someone's getting into a huge hissy fit over nothing here. Look - >saying "just because" is not obviously (to me, anyway) intended to insult >anyone and it shouldn't. It's simply intended to point out that there was >NO particular chain of causation to something else that the questioner was >apparently looking for. It's INFORMATION, nothing more. >Tom has given this sort of answer to people on the MtG groups a number of times >and somehow I've never noticed any of those guys go ballistic over it. It's >a reasonable - and very informative - answer to certain questions. >Come on, let's save the angst for the WotC activities that truly deserve it. >CARD BACKS, for instance... I find the prospect that major rules decisions get made without thought or reason (the implication of "just because") very disturbing. That can trash the game as thouroughly as swapping the card backs. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3mv1tj$p...@cronkite.cisco.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >I think someone's getting into a huge hissy fit over nothing here. Look - >saying "just because" is not obviously (to me, anyway) intended to insult >anyone and it shouldn't. It's simply intended to point out that there was > >Tom has given this sort of answer to people on the MtG groups a number of times >and somehow I've never noticed any of those guys go ballistic over it. It's >a reasonable - and very informative - answer to certain questions. Tom has given this sort of answer in the MtG groups because he first spent a lot of time giving the rationale for his answers and established himself as an authority on the game by his knowledge and reasoning. He has earned the right to say "just becasue" in the Magic groups, becasue he knows the game and we know he knows the game. He is not an authority on Jyhad, by his own admission. That means that "just because" carries no weight from him other than the inherent weight that his job title gives. And on the net, job titles don't lend much weight to anything. Even when they're WotC titles. >Come on, let's save the angst for the WotC activities that truly deserve it. >CARD BACKS, for instance... What, get mad at the only time WotC's listened to group advice in the last 5 months? No, I'm happy about that. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mv2ko$q...@cronkite.cisco.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >Tom Wylie and Kathy Ice. They do it because it's their job to do it and if >they need further help (say, in the form of reps from the customer population), >I'm sure they'd ask. In any case, I have little appetite for assigning anyone That is an unfortunate fallacy. Tom has stated that he believes that he is not the most qualified person to answer Jyhad questions. He has also stated that he is looking for someone in the company to take over, but nobody has the time. This means that he knows that help is needed. But since his restriction is "they must work for WotC" he will not ask for help, even if someone here could do a better job, because they do not meet his restriction. That is neither good nor bad, but it is the way they choose to practice their customer representative policies. [ quoted text not captured ]

g...@hceltd.demon.co.uk writes: >> If what you want is some sort of liaison to WotC, you already have two: >> Tom Wylie and Kathy Ice. They do it because it's their job to do it and if >> they need further help (say, in the form of reps from the customer >> population), I'm sure they'd ask. In any case, I have little appetite for >> assigning anyone else to speak for me. This is Usenet - I'll speak for >> myself, thank you. > >My point is that these liaisons aren't proving to be too effective, on key >issues. That's no criticism of Tom, he's already said that that the amount of >time he can spend dealing with Jyhad issues is strictly limited. Kathy Ice >I'm not aware of. It'd just that Rotschreck is a mess, I don't even bother to >follow the rulings on that one any more. And the Fame ruling seems to have >been made in ignorance of a couple of months net discussion. I think your making an error here in going from (essentially) "they didn't obey our will" to "these liasison aren't proving to be too effective" and "the Fame ruling seems to have been made in ignorance of a couple of months net discussion" as you seem to be doing. Does it occur to you that they may be perfectly well aware of your opinions and just don't _agree_ with them? First of all, this is not a democracy here. A bunch of people on this particular board coming to consensus on something is not and should not be the necessary and sufficient reason for the DT to act on something. The design team may have any number of considerations in doing what they do that you may or may not be aware of. On the bottom line, these guys are responsible for the rules of a game that puts food in their mouths. They'll do what they do for those reasons - not because you guys happen to think something in the game is not right. If the two considerations correspond as we might hope they often do, fine. But when they don't, what you want loses. Also, keep in mind that people here are only a narrow cross-section of their potential customers. There's other feedback they have to consider and some of it might be running counter to the consensus that comes up here. This is only one data point in the picture. So don't say the existing liaisons on the net aren't working. That may be true or it may not - only the WotC personel involved could evaluate that accurately. Perhaps it's not producing the results you'd hoped for. But is that because it's failing or because your expectations are too high? Fred

sht...@herald.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: >: When I say "just because", it's because there is no chain of logic that >: really leads to the reason why something is the way it is. Things were >: designed that way, and that's the end of it. > > >When the same thing can be said in many different ways, each of which >causes a different emotional reaction in the listener/reader, this is >defined as semantics. > >Saying 'Just because' has negative semantic connotations to many people. >It indicates that you (personally) know and aren't going to tell us; that >it is that way because you (proxy for DT) are in power and have made that >decision and we aren't important enough to know the answer; that there >_isn;t_ a better answer but you can't let anyone know that because that >would weaken your position. > >Nobody likes to be made to feel unimportant and/or insignificant; the >answer 'Just Because' has those connotations for many because that is the >kind of answer they were given when they were on the young end of a >parent/child relationship. As adults, people feel they deserve better and >resent feeling like they are being treated like children. ... >Giving a flip, casual answer to a serious questioncan have negative >repercussions; in this case, the phrase 'Just Because' implies an '...I >say so' at the end to many people. It only serves to make people hostile >and alienate them. Semantics is a powerful thing, and can manipulate >people in many ways - often inintentionally or unknowingly. The truth is >usually the best answer; you treat people like adults and not children, >and let them know exactly where you (personally) stand, which for most >will build the level of respect and not weaken it. I think someone's getting into a huge hissy fit over nothing here. Look - saying "just because" is not obviously (to me, anyway) intended to insult anyone and it shouldn't. It's simply intended to point out that there was NO particular chain of causation to something else that the questioner was apparently looking for. It's INFORMATION, nothing more. Tom has given this sort of answer to people on the MtG groups a number of times and somehow I've never noticed any of those guys go ballistic over it. It's a reasonable - and very informative - answer to certain questions. Come on, let's save the angst for the WotC activities that truly deserve it. CARD BACKS, for instance... Fred

g...@hceltd.demon.co.uk writes: >My idea: that a small group (say 3?) of dedicated and experienced Jyhad >"Elders" be elected or chosen. I'm particularly thinking of people like >Alan, Curt, James et al. Periodically, they would open threads on this >group for OFFICIAL discussion, with a view to ultimately producing a >ruling, interpretation or decision (like fix the card text) for >OFFICIAL submission to Tom Wylie or the design team. ... >Well people what do you think? I don't know what you mean by "official" discussion. This is an unmoderated group and anyone is free to open any threads they like at any time. I hope everyone is responsible with their power to do this and remembers to observe common nettiquete. Aside from this, there's little else we can or should do. It strikes me as totally pointless to anoint anyone as the "privileged and all-powerful" (or even the "mildly favored and _slightly_ powerful") and if we try it, we'd only be asking for flame wars. If what you want is some sort of liaison to WotC, you already have two: Tom Wylie and Kathy Ice. They do it because it's their job to do it and if they need further help (say, in the form of reps from the customer population), I'm sure they'd ask. In any case, I have little appetite for assigning anyone else to speak for me. This is Usenet - I'll speak for myself, thank you. Fred

> If what you want is some sort of liaison to WotC, you already have two: > Tom Wylie and Kathy Ice. They do it because it's their job to do it and if > they need further help (say, in the form of reps from the customer population), > I'm sure they'd ask. In any case, I have little appetite for assigning anyone > else to speak for me. This is Usenet - I'll speak for myself, thank you. > > Fred My point is that these liaisons aren't proving to be too effective, on key issues. That's no criticism of Tom, he's already said that that the amount of time he can spend dealing with Jyhad issues is strictly limited. Kathy Ice I'm not aware of. It'd just that Rotschreck is a mess, I don't even bother to follow the rulings on that one any more. And the Fame ruling seems to have been made in ignorance of a couple of months net discussion. Maybe the answer is a call for more dedicated and thoughtful assistance from WOTC. I don't know. ***Hungry Wolf***

Excuse me for being so ignorant but i have neither seen nor do have i an idea where to find the april 95 FAQ . Have looked in tower but couldnt see it (maybe im blind) . Could someone either please mail me the faq or a site where it is . thanks JA Chapman

Frederick Scott (fre...@anthrax.cisco.com) wrote: : I think your making an error here in going from (essentially) "they didn't : obey our will" to "these liasison aren't proving to be too effective" When many people who have spent innumerable hours playing the game, thinking about the game's theory of design (without being privy to the _actual_ design theories) and discussing the mechanics of the game can all come to a general consensus on something that is broken within the context of the game, this is a good indication (at least) that it may actually be broken. When these same people are customers of that game, (thus partially responsible for the game even surviving), and have taken great pains to introduce others to that game and answer any questions that a new player might have, then it can be seen that these people are truly interested in the survival of that game. When these people are then told by the people representing the company that produces the game that their input has little or no value, and their ideas are misguided at best and a waste of time at worst, then I would say that the company is not effectively listening to the people. : "the Fame ruling seems to have been made in ignorance of a couple of months : net discussion" as you seem to be doing. Does it occur to you that they may : be perfectly well aware of your opinions and just don't _agree_ with them? Yes, it does. Tom has mentioned that he cannot/will not continually re-post the same statements detailing why a certain decision was made and others were ignored. I believe that were he to post it _once_, enough people would read it and archive it that any future questions along the same line could be answered by a synopsis or re-posting of the original post. This would _save_ Tom time in the long run, (IMHO) and would have the side-effect of many more well-informed players. Perhaps WotC wants to avoid that side-effect, however, and prefers to keep people in the dark about rationale, feeding them only rules. : First of all, this is not a democracy here. Correct. It is a dictatorship, with the DT as its head. Pardon us if some of us chafe under its shackles and prefer to think for ourselves. : A bunch of people on this : particular board coming to consensus on something is not and should not be : the necessary and sufficient reason for the DT to act on something. Correct, but it is at least an indication that this area should be given some serious consideration - especially when the people who came to consensus probably spend a greater total percentage of their time discussing Jyhad than the DT does. : The : design team may have any number of considerations in doing what they do that : you may or may not be aware of. One of our constant cries is, "Make us aware of these considerations!" : On the bottom line, these guys are responsible : for the rules of a game that puts food in their mouths. They'll do what they : do for those reasons - not because you guys happen to think something in the : game is not right. If the two considerations correspond as we might hope they : often do, fine. But when they don't, what you want loses. Correct. We do not do this for food - we do this for enjoyment and relaxation. The fact that these people who _do_ do this sort of thing for food have a huge resource available to make their jobs easier and the game 'better/more successful' and _choose not to use it_ (TTBOMK) is what frustrates us. (me, anyway.) : Also, keep in mind that people here are only a narrow cross-section of their : potential customers. What, people who play Jyhad and own a computer? People who play Jyhad and have a little extra spare time on their hands to read a newsgroup about it? Neither of these would seem to be a limiting factor in getting a broad cross-range of types of people whjo play Jyhad; it's not like this is the Aryan Brotherhood of Jyhad Players or anything... : There's other feedback they have to consider and some of : it might be running counter to the consensus that comes up here. They have _other_ groups on tap that do little else but sit around and discuss Jyhad Game Theory and Design? : This is only : one data point in the picture. Correction: _I_ am only one data point. _Curt_ is only one data point. _Scott_ is only one data point... together, we all make up a large cross-section of players representing many different views on how the game should be played. When all these people can _agree_ on something... : So don't say the existing liaisons on the net aren't working. They aren't working _for me_ (or for Curt, I'd gather), and that is the only yardstick I can measure by. If I put a dollar in a coke machine and nothing comes out, I assume it didn't work, or that maybe my dollar was faulty. If many people cannot get the machine to work, then it is the assumption that the machine is faulty, not the users. : That may be : true or it may not - only the WotC personel involved could evaluate that : accurately. Perhaps it's not producing the results you'd hoped for. True - we would like reasoned thought and a few explanations. Sometimes we get one, sometimes the other. : But is : that because it's failing or because your expectations are too high? I have generally seen it echoed that Jyhad is believed to be the most complex, most balanced, all-around best CCG on the market. Is it too much to expect that the makers will continue to treat it that way, or to assume tha the people playing it might actually have relevant or valuable input on the game? [ quoted text not captured ]

sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >Frederick Scott (fre...@anthrax.cisco.com) wrote: > >: I think your making an error here in going from (essentially) "they didn't >: obey our will" to "these liasison aren't proving to be too effective" > >When many people who have spent innumerable hours playing the game, >thinking about the game's theory of design (without being privy to the >_actual_ design theories) and discussing the mechanics of the game can >all come to a general consensus on something that is broken within the >context of the game, this is a good indication (at least) that it may >actually be broken. Maybe. Or maybe it's a good indication that some of those people are mistaking their opinions on how they would like the game to be played with divine truth. >When these same people are customers of that game, (thus partially >responsible for the game even surviving), and have taken great pains to >introduce others to that game and answer any questions that a new player >might have, then it can be seen that these people are truly interested in >the survival of that game. I would agree with that. I'm sure you all are genuinely with the game's survival and improvement. This does not, of course, confer any special powers on such a group which you seem to be claiming. >When these people are then told by the people representing the company >that produces the game that their input has little or no value, and their >ideas are misguided at best and a waste of time at worst, then I would >say that the company is not effectively listening to the people. I do not believe this has been said. You may have filtered a disappointing response from a WotC representative through your propragando-matic interpreter and come up with this _interpretation_ of the response but I doubt if it's an accurate one. I think the trouble here is that you've got some idea in your head that what's decided here ought to go straight to top of the agenda at the next design team weekly meeting. Furthermore, you no doubt think that the response from the design team ought to be forthcoming later that day - if not total submission to your will, then a well-reasoned and eloquently written statement of precisely why they disagree - which will be open to further discussion, of course. That's not going to happen. While I'm sure that the design team is undoubtably sensitive to extremely unpopular aspects of the game, there is NO WAY they can put themselves in a position of seeming to be "answerable" to some fairly small group of people on a computer board. Such a relationship would be very untenable over the long term. >: First of all, this is not a democracy here. > >Correct. It is a dictatorship, with the DT as its head. Pardon us if >some of us chafe under its shackles and prefer to think for ourselves. I don't have a problem with people saying they disagree with the design team's decisions. I don't have a problem when people say they don't think the design team is doing a very good job overall. I do have a problem when they start suggesting that design team ought to jump when we yell "frog", which is what I'm hearing. That's not "chafing under shackles". That's conspiring to take over the dictatorship and put yourselves in charge. >: A bunch of people on this >: particular board coming to consensus on something is not and should not be >: the necessary and sufficient reason for the DT to act on something. > >Correct, but it is at least an indication that this area should be given >some serious consideration - especially when the people who came to >consensus probably spend a greater total percentage of their time >discussing Jyhad than the DT does. OK, that sounds highly reasonable. But then, what do you _want_? Taking a thing as "an indication that this area should be given some serious consideration" is not something that will yield a visible result. They may very well have taken that indication but nothing has happened that yielded the result you wanted - how would you know? You would only know if they made a visible alteration - which I think is what you're _really_ demanding here. Basically, you don't just want them take it as indication that this are should be given some serious consideration, you want them to: 1) accept your opinion on the matter; and 2) DO SOMETHING. And that's not so reasonable, IMHO. >: The design team may have any number of considerations in doing what they do >: that you may or may not be aware of. > >One of our constant cries is, "Make us aware of these considerations!" I imagine they try to when they can, particularly WRT decisions that are likely to be highly unpopular. But I don't think it's very practical for them to document the precise reasoning for absolutely everything they do. And some considerations may be difficult to understand by players as opposed to game designers, who are often likely to get blasted from some direction or other no matter _what_ they do - or don't do. >: On the bottom line, these guys are responsible >: for the rules of a game that puts food in their mouths. They'll do what >: they do for those reasons - not because you guys happen to think something >: in the game is not right. If the two considerations correspond as we >: might hope they often do, fine. But when they don't, what you want loses. > >Correct. We do not do this for food - we do this for enjoyment and >relaxation. The fact that these people who _do_ do this sort of thing >for food have a huge resource available to make their jobs easier and the >game 'better/more successful' and _choose not to use it_ (TTBOMK) is what >frustrates us. (me, anyway.) You have no idea to what extent they choose to use it. All you know is how often a concern expressed here seems to be addressed by WotC. Unfortunately, this by itself doesn't really give us an indication of how much we're listened to. It depends on who else they listen to and how their decisions have to be made. >: Also, keep in mind that people here are only a narrow cross-section of their >: potential customers. > >What, people who play Jyhad and own a computer? People who play Jyhad >and have a little extra spare time on their hands to read a newsgroup >about it? Neither of these would seem to be a limiting factor in getting >a broad cross-range of types of people whjo play Jyhad; it's not like >this is the Aryan Brotherhood of Jyhad Players or anything... Yes, people who own a computer and have a little (_little_?!? sheesh!) extra spare time on their hands to read a newsgroup. This is a very small and very specialized population. So small that out of all the people I know who play Magic (and I know quite a few), I know only two or three people who read the r.g.t-c.magic groups and no one else who posts. And at that, it isn't even they only group of such people. >: There's other feedback they have to consider and some of >: it might be running counter to the consensus that comes up here. > >They have _other_ groups on tap that do little else but sit around and >discuss Jyhad Game Theory and Design? There's the mailing list. And BTW, sitting around discussing Jyhad theory and design is not the only qualification for being a source of input. Anyone who might buy this product is someone who's opinion they might want to listen to. >: This is only one data point in the picture. > >Correction: _I_ am only one data point. _Curt_ is only one data point. >_Scott_ is only one data point... together, we all make up a large >cross-section of players representing many different views on how the >game should be played. When all these people can _agree_ on something... I'm sorry, I disagree. You are, in fact, a very small group in comparison to the overall Jyhad-playing population. >: So don't say the existing liaisons on the net aren't working. > >They aren't working _for me_ (or for Curt, I'd gather), and that is the >only yardstick I can measure by. If I put a dollar in a coke machine and >nothing comes out, I assume it didn't work, or that maybe my dollar was >faulty. If many people cannot get the machine to work, then it is the >assumption that the machine is faulty, not the users. Did you, indeed, put a dollar in a machine? I thought Usenet was free - or at least for the cost of your on-line service if you can't get it elsewhere. And for the privilege of running your mouth, if you're so inclined, I've always felt it was great bargain. Also, your expectation of getting a "coke" back automatically, which I interpret to mean "change the game the way I want it to be changed", is precisely my bone of contention discussed above. Fred

In article <3n3p3t$g...@cronkite.cisco.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >>all come to a general consensus on something that is broken within the >>context of the game, this is a good indication (at least) that it may >>actually be broken. > >Maybe. Or maybe it's a good indication that some of those people are >mistaking their opinions on how they would like the game to be played >with divine truth. He's talking about when all of us agree on something. Not the (D) bleed issue or something where we can't agree on anything, but something like Concealed Weapon. In these cases, he's right. We all have our opinions on how we want the game to be played, and sometimes all of us try to push our interpretations onto others (sometimes we try to push them even onto Tom or the DT). But those are trhe cases Scott's talking about, and frankly, I resent the implication. I know my place on the totem pole quite well, thank you, and have no illusions about that. >I would agree with that. I'm sure you all are genuinely with the game's >survival and improvement. This does not, of course, confer any special >powers on such a group which you seem to be claiming. But does well-thought out logic, good game balance considerations, a careful reading of the rules and cards, and a well-formed and insightful opinion confer any special powers on a person? (in theory. Ignore what you may think of me or anyone on the group personally for a moment and answer that) >>: The design team may have any number of considerations in doing what they do >>: that you may or may not be aware of. >> >>One of our constant cries is, "Make us aware of these considerations!" > >I imagine they try to when they can, particularly WRT decisions that are >likely to be highly unpopular. But I don't think it's very practical for >them to document the precise reasoning for absolutely everything they do. >And some considerations may be difficult to understand by players as >opposed to game designers, who are often likely to get blasted from some >direction or other no matter _what_ they do - or don't do. They did just that for Magic (cite WHY they ruled the way that they did). I am still considered one of the local rules gurus because I read those explanations as to why the rulings were made, and can use those tools to answer further questions. And 99% of the time, I'm right even if I haven't seen the specific details about a certain situation pass through the net group. I would like to be able to do the same for Jyhad, but without those explanations, it is difficult, if not impossible. As to the idea that some game design considerations would be difficult for us lowly players to understand: bullsh*t. Some of us *are* game designers to one degree or another, and those that aren't are certainly capable of taking a step back and looking at the game (or being helped to do so by those of us that are game designers). I don't think that WotC has that low of an opinion of us. >>: Also, keep in mind that people here are only a narrow cross-section of their >>: potential customers. >> >>What, people who play Jyhad and own a computer? People who play Jyhad > >Yes, people who own a computer and have a little (_little_?!? sheesh!) >extra spare time on their hands to read a newsgroup. This is a very >small and very specialized population. So small that out of all the >people I know who play Magic (and I know quite a few), I know only two or >three people who read the r.g.t-c.magic groups and no one else who posts. >And at that, it isn't even they only group of such people. Our size is actually quite sufficient for a statistical sampling. The question is whether our content is actually an accurate cross-section of the population. In most cases, this is done via a random sample. So, the big question is are we all geeks? :-) (Note: by "our size" I mean the readership of the group, not the frequent posters.) >>: This is only one data point in the picture. >> >>Correction: _I_ am only one data point. _Curt_ is only one data point. > >I'm sorry, I disagree. You are, in fact, a very small group in comparison >to the overall Jyhad-playing population. However, we are not one data point, we are each data points in the overall population. We may be one _demographic_, but that is a different way of looking at things, and if you do look as us as one demographic, you probably want us as happy as possible, as we are on the 'leading edge' of technology, and many of us are college students. That makes us the male 18-29 demographic, a really important one to keep happy, 'cause we spend lots of money, you know... [ quoted text not captured ]

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3mv1tj$p...@cronkite.cisco.com>, >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>I think someone's getting into a huge hissy fit over nothing here. Look - >>saying "just because" is not obviously (to me, anyway) intended to insult >>anyone and it shouldn't. It's simply intended to point out that there was >> >>Tom has given this sort of answer to people on the MtG groups a number of >>times and somehow I've never noticed any of those guys go ballistic ove >>it. It's a reasonable - and very informative - answer to certain questions. > > Tom has given this sort of answer in the MtG groups because he >first spent a lot of time giving the rationale for his answers and >established himself as an authority on the game by his knowledge and >reasoning. Nonsense. Every time he's given that answer, it's meant essentially the same thing as it means here: that there's no particular reason or if there _was_ a reason, it was considered essentially unimportant. In some design situations, arbitrary decisions need to be made. They did it because it seemed like the thing to do at the time. It's part of the creative process. >He has earned the right to say "just becasue" in the Magic >groups, becasue he knows the game and we know he knows the game. Oh, bull. He earns the right to say "just because" when that happens to be an accurate assessment of the situation, as far as he is aware. Otherwise, he is engaging in an activity many poeple refer to as "lying". That is not likely what WotC pays him for. >>Come on, let's save the angst for the WotC activities that truly deserve it. >>CARD BACKS, for instance... > > What, get mad at the only time WotC's listened to group advice >in the last 5 months? No, I'm happy about that. Hmmm. I'd like to think you're right. But Curt's repost of the poll on AOL suggests otherwise. Fred

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Players are of course free to submit their fixes for various things >they see as problems. However, it should be understood that it is never >guaranteed that these suggestions will be adopted, that the design team >is not necessarily going to agree that the "problem" in question is something >that needs fixing, and that we are typically reluctant to release actual >changes to the rules midstream. Plugging holes is one thing, but official >rules changes are best left to be incorporated when new editions come out. That's a perfectly reasonable rule. Would you have any problem using statements like "That's not important enough to justify changing now, but we'll consider fixing it in the next version."? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Frederick Scott (fre...@anthrax.cisco.com) wrote: : js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: : > Tom has given this sort of answer in the MtG groups because he : >first spent a lot of time giving the rationale for his answers and : >established himself as an authority on the game by his knowledge and : >reasoning. : Nonsense. Every time he's given that answer, it's meant essentially the : same thing as it means here: that there's no particular reason or if there : _was_ a reason, it was considered essentially unimportant. In some : design situations, arbitrary decisions need to be made. They did it because : it seemed like the thing to do at the time. It's part of the creative : process. Congratulations Frederick. You have managed to note _every_ instance of Tom saying 'Just because', delve deeply into his mind by some arcane means, and _know_ the reasons it was said? Wow. Even we-whom-you-ridicule don't claim to have that kind of memory or abilities... You are also giving the DT even less credit than we ever have; in effect, it seems as though you think they flip a coin when presented with questions. I believe that most of the people you lambaste think that there is _some_ sort of structure to their 'creative process' whereby they try and determine the best answer, even if it is short and superficial. If you _do_ have some inside source of information that you haven't heretofore revealed, and things are truly as you say - arbitrary decisions, following the whim of the moment because it 'felt right' without thinking through the ramifications of these decisions - then how can you also argue that these same people have _not_ failed the jyhad-buying populace? If anyone responsible for something I cared about acted in this manner, then I would consider them a failure... Fortunately, I give them more credit than you apparently do. [ quoted text not captured ]

Players are of course free to submit their fixes for various things they see as problems. However, it should be understood that it is never guaranteed that these suggestions will be adopted, that the design team is not necessarily going to agree that the "problem" in question is something that needs fixing, and that we are typically reluctant to release actual changes to the rules midstream. Plugging holes is one thing, but official rules changes are best left to be incorporated when new editions come out. [ quoted text not captured ]

Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@herald.usask.ca> wrote: Point taken. I will avoid simply saying "just because", though some answers are going to boil down to that, of course. (I already avoid just saying that, but will try harder to resist the urge.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >If what you want is some sort of liaison to WotC, you already have two: >Tom Wylie and Kathy Ice. They do it because it's their job to do it and if >they need further help (say, in the form of reps from the customer population) >I'm sure they'd ask. In any case, I have little appetite for assigning anyone >else to speak for me. This is Usenet - I'll speak for myself, thank you. Incidentally, the liaison is now Charles Keith-Stanley, who was hired for the express purpose of being the Cyberspace Liaison, whereas Kathy's main position was in Book Publishing. The address is still the same: lia...@wizards.com. This address is only for random messages that have no better place, though; most email to WotC should be going to cust...@wizards.com or ques...@wizards.com (or me, though non-rules questions will probably just get forwarded to custserv...) [ quoted text not captured ]

Mr F. Scott, Could you answer me a few questions (if you could please indulge such an insignificant sub-unit of a data point as myself)??? What position or proximity to the design team do you hold that you have such a detailed knowledge of their motives and of individuals within WOTC's reasons for making specific rulings and decisions. You seem to know Tom Wylie's reasons for saying the fateful "just because" better than he does. If you're perfectly happy with the rulings that have come out from the design team, then explain to me the logic behind their series of rulings on Rotschreck, as one instance. How long have you been playing Jyhad and how often do you play? This is important. I've been playing many times a week for 6 months and I still have many questions and queries. I won't claim to be an expert on anything. But there's my vested interest. I love the game, and love playing it. So why do you think I offer a suggestion for the possible submission of official rulings? Simply to try to help make things better. There are no-doubt hundreds of other Jyhad players on the net who have been playing longer and more often than myself. These people are of all ages, from numerous other countries. I'm Australian for example, and I've been playing extensively in England. If you consider that a forum that focuses discussion from such people that read this group is so insignificant and trifling that we should not be surprised if the design team ignores us altogether, then I really wonder where you're coming from. What is your relationship to Jyhad? If there's another single group of Jyhad players that is bigger, from a broader demographic cross-section, with more experience than the readers of this group, point them out to me, and tell me what attention WOTC pays to them. And all this stems from the seemingly misguided notion that some of us think we might be able to offer something useful to WOTC, and we'd really like to help. That's where I'm coming from anyway. I'd really like to get some feedback from DT/WOTC rep on my original thread. Because if genuine efforts to do something positive/constructive/pro-active to keep this game working are going to be met with either silence or big negative responses like Mr Scott's, then I'm wasting my time.

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >That's a perfectly reasonable rule. Would you have any problem using >statements like "That's not important enough to justify changing now, but >we'll consider fixing it in the next version."? No problem at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

g...@hceltd.demon.co.uk writes: >Mr F. Scott, > >Could you answer me a few questions (if you could please indulge such an >insignificant sub-unit of a data point as myself)??? > >What position or proximity to the design team do you hold that you have such >a detailed knowledge of their motives and of individuals within WOTC's >reasons for making specific rulings and decisions. You seem to know Tom >Wylie's reasons for saying the fateful "just because" better than he does. "Better than he does" is not correct. I apparently understand it better than you do and that's because I _read_ what he writes. I've been reading his rulings in this group and in the Magic groups since he's been a Netrep. While I have little doubt that there are other people who have read a great deal more rulings posts and follow them much closer than I do, I don't believe that any of those who have been criticizing the "just because" comment are members of that group. >If you're perfectly happy with the rulings that have come >out from the design team, then explain to me the logic behind their series >of rulings on Rotschreck, as one instance. > >How long have you been playing Jyhad and how often do you play? This is >important. No, it's not. Neither Rotschreck nor the length of time I've been playing Jyhad (since last summer is the answer but not very often) has anything to do with interpreting "just because" now, does it? So why are we dwelving into this particular side issue? I think you're missing the point. Please note: I do not suggest and have been careful NEVER to suggest that any of posted disagreements with the design team's rulings are wrong or bad. It's the amount of importance that some people are placing on their own opinions (however well-informed those opinions might be) that I think needs to be questioned a bit. >I won't claim to be an expert on anything. But there's my vested interest. I >love the game, and love playing it. I don't doubt it for a minute. And I do think that that's a good thing. >So why do you think I offer a suggestion for the possible submission of >official rulings? Simply to try to help make things better. I'll give you a 10 for motivations and a 3 for execution. We can all sit around here and make suggestions. That's fine. When we start _demanding_ responses on a timetable, that's going off the deep end. And there's also been a bit of "shooting the messenger" WRT this "just because" issue. >If there's another single group of Jyhad players that is bigger, from a >broader demographic cross-section, with more experience than the readers of >this group, point them out to me, and tell me what attention WOTC pays to >them. Ah, there's the problem. You think that they _must_ pay devoted attention to _some_ group - if not this one, then who? What I'm trying to say is that they probably cannot pay attention to _any_ particular group to the extent that they're negotiating with them over the detailed rules of the game. >And all this stems from the seemingly misguided notion that some of us think >we might be able to offer something useful to WOTC, and we'd really like to >help. That's where I'm coming from anyway. Look, I'm sorry you're as frustated as you are about these things. But the bottom line is: as much as you may want to help, it's STILL not your game. It's WotC's game and they have to make the decisions. >I'd really like to get some feedback from DT/WOTC rep on my original thread. >Because if genuine efforts to do something positive/constructive/pro-active >to keep this game working are going to be met with either silence or big >negative responses like Mr Scott's, then I'm wasting my time. (On a pratical level, I think you're much liklier to get replies if you keep you line length to less than 80 columns. Makes your posts a lot easier for others to read. Just a suggestion.) To clarify one thing: my negativity concerns your suggestion of creating some new readership liaison which I think in the end would create more problems than it solves. I am not the least bit negative about your concern for the game nor your willingness to make suggestions and point out problems with the current rules and rulings. Fred

sht...@herald.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >Frederick Scott (fre...@anthrax.cisco.com) wrote: >: js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: > >: > Tom has given this sort of answer in the MtG groups because he >: >first spent a lot of time giving the rationale for his answers and >: >established himself as an authority on the game by his knowledge and >: >reasoning. > >: Nonsense. Every time he's given that answer, it's meant essentially the >: same thing as it means here: that there's no particular reason or if there >: _was_ a reason, it was considered essentially unimportant. In some >: design situations, arbitrary decisions need to be made. They did it because >: it seemed like the thing to do at the time. It's part of the creative >: process. > > >Congratulations Frederick. You have managed to note _every_ instance of >Tom saying 'Just because', delve deeply into his mind by some arcane >means, and _know_ the reasons it was said? Wow. Even we-whom-you-ridicule >don't claim to have that kind of memory or abilities... All right - fair enough. I did not want to suggest I was a mind reader nor that I've read every post Tom's ever made. To clarify, what Mr. Cochrane suggested as the reasoning behind the use of "just because" simply does not correspond to even a _single_ instance of its use in my experience. >You are also giving the DT even less credit than we ever have; in effect, >it seems as though you think they flip a coin when presented with >questions. I believe that most of the people you lambaste think that there >is _some_ sort of structure to their 'creative process' whereby they try >and determine the best answer, even if it is short and superficial. Let me put it this way: why do _you_ think the design team chose to use RED and not ORANGE as the color for destructive mana in Magic? For that matter, why did they bother with colors - why not numbers? Why have seven houses and only a few Caitiff in Jyhad? Why not four and lots of Caitiff? Why did they choose to give the powers they did to the vampires they did? Why have animalism and not vegtablism? Are you getting the point? There are LOTS of arbitrary decisions that get made in designing a game. The reasons may be a bit more substantial than "just because" in many instances, but only a bit (for instance, "because we liked it better that way" or "because red is my favorite color") . And in many of those cases, it would be totally pointless for Tom to go dig up what IF ANY answer is behind some of these things. What is the _problem_ that some people can't simply accept that a decision got made for no particular reason. What's the matter - you fell into flame mode and now you can't get up?!? >If you _do_ have some inside source of information that you haven't >heretofore revealed, and things are truly as you say - arbitrary decisions, Note that I didn't all things were arbitrary - just SOME things... >following the whim of the moment because it 'felt right' without thinking >through the ramifications of these decisions - then how can you also >argue that these same people have _not_ failed the jyhad-buying populace? >If anyone responsible for something I cared about acted in this manner, >then I would consider them a failure... Then I would think you were wrong to consider them a failure. They created a game, they offered it in stores, you bought it. You didn't have to buy it - no one held a gun to your head. And yes, there were certainly some arbitrary decisions that no doubt had ramifications that were made in the course of creating that game. I say that with no particular knowledge of the design process they followed. I just know that there are always arbitrary decisions. Fred

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3n3p3t$g...@cronkite.cisco.com>, >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >>>all come to a general consensus on something that is broken within the >>>context of the game, this is a good indication (at least) that it may >>>actually be broken. >> >>Maybe. Or maybe it's a good indication that some of those people are >>mistaking their opinions on how they would like the game to be played >>with divine truth. > > He's talking about when all of us agree on something. That's exactly correct. I'm talking about situations where all of you folks agree. ... >to push them even onto Tom or the DT). But those are trhe cases Scott's >talking about, and frankly, I resent the implication. Resent what implication? That consensus here is simply not as important as some people here imagine it is. I'm sorry but I stand by my opinion on that. >>I would agree with that. I'm sure you all are genuinely with the game's >>survival and improvement. This does not, of course, confer any special >>powers on such a group which you seem to be claiming. > > But does well-thought out logic, good game balance >considerations, a careful reading of the rules and cards, and a >well-formed and insightful opinion confer any special powers on a >person? In a perfect world, that would be nice. But of course, all of this is just people's OPINIONS that their logic is well-thought out, that their view of game balance considerations is correct, or that their reading of the rules and cards is careful, etc. And when we're dealing with opinions, there's an old saying that compares them to certain bodily orifices and concludes that "everyone has one". Now, personally, I wouldn't be one to tell any of you that your particular suggestions on rules changes are wrong or not good. But I'm not on the DT and as I've been trying to point out, that's got to be a different situation to be in. I'm sure they have plenty of input to consider. >>>: The design team may have any number of considerations in doing what they >>>: do that you may or may not be aware of. >>> >>>One of our constant cries is, "Make us aware of these considerations!" ... > They did just that for Magic (cite WHY they ruled the way that >they did). I am still considered one of the local rules gurus because I >read those explanations as to why the rulings were made, and can use >those tools to answer further questions. And 99% of the time, I'm right >even if I haven't seen the specific details about a certain situation >pass through the net group. I would like to be able to do the same for >Jyhad, but without those explanations, it is difficult, if not >impossible. If there's a marked difference between the quality of the explanations in the rulings on the two games, I guess I hadn't noticed. I have noticed that there are certainly _fewer_ Jyhad rulings and my feelings had always been that that was because the game has a smaller following and hadn't been out as long and thus has not been "customer banged-on" as heavily. The quality of ruling posts and follow-ups doesn't look a bit different to me but sometimes perception is based on which threads you follow closely, read more, etc. I'll keep this point in mind in the future. > As to the idea that some game design considerations would be >difficult for us lowly players to understand: bullsh*t. Some of us >*are* game designers to one degree or another, and those that aren't are >certainly capable of taking a step back and looking at the game (or >being helped to do so by those of us that are game designers). I don't >think that WotC has that low of an opinion of us. That wasn't my point. You _personally_ may be able to understand everything and Scott and Curt and whoever. None the less, an unpalatable truth may not play well in public and thus lead them to be close-mouthed about certain things. The goal of making you "aware of all the considerations" may in fact put WotC in a bad position in terms of public relations once in a while. That's the point I was trying to make. >>>: Also, keep in mind that people here are only a narrow cross-section of >>>: their potential customers. >>> >>>What, people who play Jyhad and own a computer? People who play Jyhad ... > Our size is actually quite sufficient for a statistical >sampling. The question is whether our content is actually an accurate >cross-section of the population. In most cases, this is done via a >random sample. So, the big question is are we all geeks? :-) Hrmph. If being a geek were a crime, I'd be doing 20 to life... > However, we are not one data point, we are each data points in >the overall population. We may be one _demographic_, but that is a >different way of looking at things, and if you do look as us as one >demographic, you probably want us as happy as possible, as we are on the >'leading edge' of technology, and many of us are college students. That >makes us the male 18-29 demographic, a really important one to keep >happy, 'cause we spend lots of money, you know... This is all well and good and I agree with it as far as it goes. So we have a newsgroup with some consensuses of opinions by some rather good and experienced players on certain things about the game. Should the WotC design team note those opinions? Yes - I agree they should if they're smart. And if they don't seem to be and you want to criticize that, I don't have a problem with that, either. What I have a problem with is when it gets to a level where people are getting downright _offended_ by the lack of a direct response or even acknowledgement by the design team. That gets to the point of frenzied angst over a situation none of us know anything about. Fred

In article <3n8mas$d...@cronkite.cisco.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >g...@hceltd.demon.co.uk writes: >"Better than he does" is not correct. I apparently understand it better than >you do and that's because I _read_ what he writes. I've been reading his >rulings in this group and in the Magic groups since he's been a Netrep. >While I have little doubt that there are other people who have read a great >deal more rulings posts and follow them much closer than I do, I don't >believe that any of those who have been criticizing the "just because" comment >are members of that group. Bzzt. I'll show you a notarized statement from the retailer who sold me my alpha Magic deck, and you just need to look at my moderated newsgroup to see how long I've been around the net. I've read Bethmo, I've read Tom, I've read Paul, and even Stephen. I was even around for Snark's tenure as a netrep. Remember rec.games.board? I've got collected summaries of rulings sitting all over three or four different hard drives. I've got a pile of printouts and sets of rules from all kinds of things. In short, I have read and followed card gaming very closely. I still don't accept "just because." I've also learned that people want to look better than they are, even if that means fibbing a little. "Just because" and "I meant for it to be that way" are two of the first lines of defense when your authority is threatened. >>How long have you been playing Jyhad and how often do you play? This is >>important. > >No, it's not. Yes, it is. You have no experience from which to judge the BS from the truth if you have not played the game. >Please note: I do not suggest and have been careful NEVER to suggest that any >of posted disagreements with the design team's rulings are wrong or bad. It's >the amount of importance that some people are placing on their own opinions >(however well-informed those opinions might be) that I think needs to be >questioned a bit. After the immodesty of dredging up my credentials (that's just my player's credentials, not my designer's credentials, BTW), I'll say that I never have considered that the DT would do more than take any comments one or all of us make as more than customer feedback. And that is how it should be. That includes my own opinions and suggestions. As to the "shooting the messenger" comment: Tom made the mistake of saying "it was designed that way" when he didn't actually know that. That's what displeased me. He's now offering to take things to the DT and only offering official answers when he knows them. All in all a satisfactory solution to the situation. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3n8ohb$f...@cronkite.cisco.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >>>Maybe. Or maybe it's a good indication that some of those people are >>>mistaking their opinions on how they would like the game to be played >>>with divine truth. >> >> He's talking about when all of us agree on something. > >That's exactly correct. I'm talking about situations where all of you >folks agree. >... >>to push them even onto Tom or the DT). But those are trhe cases Scott's >>talking about, and frankly, I resent the implication. > >Resent what implication? That consensus here is simply not as important >as some people here imagine it is. I'm sorry but I stand by my opinion on >that. As one of the people who's been discussing the game and trying to help, you have implied (and only saying 'some' doesn't excuse the implication) that you know how I value my opinion and interpretations of gameplay. I resent that. As a matter of fact, I know exactly how important my opinion is. My ego is not as inflated as you give it credit for. Consensus here is a good indication that something is wrong. What WotC chooses to do is outside the influence of this group. I know that. But that doesn't change the fact that consensus here is often a good indicator to problems with the game. >> But does well-thought out logic, good game balance >>considerations, a careful reading of the rules and cards, and a >>well-formed and insightful opinion confer any special powers on a >>person? > >In a perfect world, that would be nice. But of course, all of this is just >people's OPINIONS that their logic is well-thought out, that their view of >game balance considerations is correct, or that their reading of the rules It's a little different here on the net. You *can* acheive an objective measure of logic, game balance, and rules compliance because there is a record of what you've said and it can be revised and picked at until there are no holes left. And many things have been. I'm not going to say that I believe opinion X is right, but I would argue that your assumption of subjectivity is invalid. >> As to the idea that some game design considerations would be >>difficult for us lowly players to understand: bullsh*t. Some of us > >That wasn't my point. You _personally_ may be able to understand everything >and Scott and Curt and whoever. None the less, an unpalatable truth may >not play well in public and thus lead them to be close-mouthed about certain >things. The goal of making you "aware of all the considerations" may in fact >put WotC in a bad position in terms of public relations once in a while. >That's the point I was trying to make. Ah, I see. The demands of image are that truth must be hidden to protect the public from hearing things that will hurt them. Yes, that rationale is used in many fields, particularly politics. If you subscribe to the "unwashed masses" theory, you're right. >This is all well and good and I agree with it as far as it goes. So we >have a newsgroup with some consensuses of opinions by some rather good >and experienced players on certain things about the game. Should the WotC >design team note those opinions? Yes - I agree they should if they're >smart. And if they don't seem to be and you want to criticize that, I don't >have a problem with that, either. What I have a problem with is when >it gets to a level where people are getting downright _offended_ by the >lack of a direct response or even acknowledgement by the design team. That >gets to the point of frenzied angst over a situation none of us know anything >about. From a company that prides itself on customer service and on being "responsive" to customer concerns, that becomes a very thin line to tread. I personally have no problems with the DT taking or leaving us as a group (I'll register my opinions with my $$ and with responses to surveys), but I don't think that it is unreasonable for Jyhad players to expect the same level of support that other WotC products receive. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3n3c3e$p...@tribune.usask.ca> sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >I have generally seen it echoed that Jyhad is believed to be the most >complex, most balanced, all-around best CCG on the market. Is it too >much to expect that the makers will continue to treat it that way, or to >assume tha the people playing it might actually have relevant or valuable >input on the game? No for the latter, but for the former, yes, you are expecting too much, Shane. Follow this logic: the game which makes the most money $$$ is the best game Jyhad is NOT the game that makes the most money $$$ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thus, Jyhad is NOT the best game Anyone disagree with this logic? -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <3n8o5b$e...@cronkite.cisco.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >sht...@herald.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >>Congratulations Frederick. You have managed to note _every_ instance of >>Tom saying 'Just because', delve deeply into his mind by some arcane >>means, and _know_ the reasons it was said? Wow. Even we-whom-you-ridicule >>don't claim to have that kind of memory or abilities... > >All right - fair enough. I did not want to suggest I was a mind reader nor >that I've read every post Tom's ever made. To clarify, what Mr. Cochrane >suggested as the reasoning behind the use of "just because" simply does not >correspond to even a _single_ instance of its use in my experience. It's Cochran. No 'e'. And Tom does not give nearly as much rationale on the Magic groups as he used to. That's because he's said it all before. I'm sorry if you haven't noticed it, but I've been around since the Alpha days of Magic, and it is most definitely the trend. And in Magic, that's fine, because Tom has established himself as an expert. That is not the case for Jyhad. That's why the Jyhad players want the reasons; we want to be able to qualify Tom's authority. That was what happened in Magic, it certainly seems like there's no reason the same can't happen for Jyhad. >Let me put it this way: why do _you_ think the design team chose to use >RED and not ORANGE as the color for destructive mana in Magic? For that >matter, why did they bother with colors - why not numbers? Why have seven Er, cultural connections between those forces and those colors? Not a science, to be sure, but more than arbitrary. >houses and only a few Caitiff in Jyhad? Why not four and lots of Caitiff? >Why did they choose to give the powers they did to the vampires they did? >Why have animalism and not vegtablism? All of the decisions you list here were NOT options, they were laws laid down by the decision to base the game on Vampire: the Masquerade. The game world was laid out long before Magic was even proposed to WotC. Go pick up a V:tM book. You'll find the 7 clans of the camarilla, Princes, Primogen, Justicars, Nosferatu, Gangrel, Obfuscate and even Rotschrek. Those were neither random nor open to change if the game was to be based on V:tM. >What is the _problem_ that some people can't simply accept that a decision >got made for no particular reason. What's the matter - you fell into flame >mode and now you can't get up?!? I can accept that a decision was made arbitrarily. However, I can also accept that some decisions weren't thought through, and that the DT may not want to admit that, and that Tom may sometimes say "just because" when the answer he means to give is "I'm not sure." If you're blindly accepting that everything everyone says is gospel (including "just because"), you're in for a rude awakening at some point. Nobody wants to admit to being imperfect. Even the Jyhad design team. Yes, some decisions in Jyhad were arbitrary. But if as many as the "just because" excuse covers were arbitrary, then the magnificent design that went into Jyhad was a fluke, and the proverbial barrel of monkeys actually invented nuclear fusion. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott (fre...@anthrax.cisco.com) wrote: : g...@hceltd.demon.co.uk writes: : I've been reading his : rulings in this group and in the Magic groups since he's been a Netrep. : While I have little doubt that there are other people who have read a great : deal more rulings posts and follow them much closer than I do, I don't : believe that any of those who have been criticizing the "just because" comment : are members of that group. As Joe and I are the only ones responding with any regularity, and Joe already gave his credentials, I'll give mine. I read Tom way back on rec.games.board when he was nothing more then than we are now - someone who answers questions to the best of their ability and tries to understand where the game designers are comong from. I continued to read rec.games.deckmaster after it was created, and read _every single post_ to that group for a good long time before I finally got tired of that game. I do not remember a time _ever_ when Tom came on that group in his official capacity and gave 'just because' as an answer. When he did not know, he usually said something like he is saying now on this group; "I don't know why - I'll try and find out," or, "A good question - I'll ask the DT." : >If there's another single group of Jyhad players that is bigger, from a : >broader demographic cross-section, with more experience than the readers of : >this group, point them out to me, and tell me what attention WOTC pays to : >them. : Ah, there's the problem. You think that they _must_ pay devoted attention : to _some_ group - if not this one, then who? What I'm trying to say is that : they probably cannot pay attention to _any_ particular group to the extent : that they're negotiating with them over the detailed rules of the game. The reason for this belief probably stems from past behaviour by WotC - they have implemented mailing lists at their own expense and trouble just for the purpose of facilitating discussion about the game. They have appointed official representatives to these lists and to Usenet groups specifically for the purpose of explaining rules and (in the past, and with Magic, anyway) taking feedback back to the people that make the rules - the Design Team. This feedback was responsible for many rules changes and card-fixes; I remember seeing things progress from suggestion by one party to mass support from many people to an official proclamation from the DT. Had this happened only once, I might have chalked it down to coincidence, but it happened too often for me to believe that it was anything but WotC paying attention to the feedback generated by the denizens of the Net. The point that I believe is being made (in general) is this; they have a track record of listening and either explaining or changing with Magic. People around here are/were frustrated because we weren't even sure that they were listening. As for explanations, they were few and far between. Do _you_ remember back far enough to know about the Clockwork Beast/counters issue that arose after the Clockwork Avian came out in AQ? That whole thing was precipitated by one person's suggestion, which resulted in a ruling, which resulted in general outrage (to which I remember Tom always giving the full answer when asked, "Why?") which eventually resulted in the overturning of the original ruling. Feedback in action. Why do you have a problem in understanding that most of the people here only want to see a similar level of feedback/response for WotC's other game? [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott (fre...@anthrax.cisco.com) wrote: : js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: : >In article <3n3p3t$g...@cronkite.cisco.com>, : >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: : >>sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: : In a perfect world, that would be nice. But of course, all of this is just : people's OPINIONS that their logic is well-thought out, that their view of : game balance considerations is correct, or that their reading of the rules : and cards is careful, etc. Not quite. When dealing with language, it is possible to be quite precise about exactly what one means when writing, and it is equally possible for someone reading that written message to determine exactly what is said. While I can never go inside the DT/Richard Garfield's head and know what they _meant_ to say, I can sure as heck analyse what they _did_ say and understand that. Example: Rotschreck. The card is quite clear in what it _says_ if one takes a literal and semantic reading of it, but that is apparently not what the designers _meant_ to say, as evidenced by the rules fixes. I will not listen if you tell me I don't understand what is printed on the card; I _will_ listen if you tell me that what was printed wasn't the way the card was meant to work and give me a few reasons behind that statement. The same sort of thing applies to logic. One person's logic may be open to interpretation, but when many people with similar knowledge or better read the same information and come up with the same conclusions, then the logic has withstood scrutiny and is that much closer to being called sound. Finally, opinions. Everyone has one. Some are more important than others, however: "When E.F.Hutton speaks, everybody listens," for example. Tom used to be nothing more than a guy who gave his opinions on Magic rules and rulings, and people respected them because they showed evidence of sound logic and much forethought. I still respect what he says about how Magic works, because I know that he has spent many, _many_ more hours thinking about that game than have I. Ditto with the DT, to some extent. This is not the case with Jyhad. I do not respect Tom/the DT as much as I do the opinions of frequent posters to this group, i.e. Curt, Scott, Joe, James, et al., as they [Tom/DT] do not show the same level of rules knowledge and thought as do the people I mentioned. To _me_, the opinions of the Net-gurus means far more i.t.o. logic and common sense than those of the DT. Unfortunately, these people do not have the capacity to make official rulings. Which brings right back to the original post. : I'm sure they [the DT] have plenty of input to consider. Didn't you just say that we have no reason to believe that they listen to _anyone's_ input, much less this group's? : If there's a marked difference between the quality of the explanations in the : rulings on the two games, I guess I hadn't noticed. When was the last time you saw, 'Just Because' given as an answer to why a certain ruling was made on any of the Magic groups? : That wasn't my point. You _personally_ may be able to understand everything : and Scott and Curt and whoever. None the less, an unpalatable truth may : not play well in public and thus lead them to be close-mouthed about certain : things. What sort of 'unpalatable truth' could it _possibly_ be necessary to protect the game-buying public from? That the DT toss a coin to determine the latest ruling on Rotschreck? We'd already pretty much figured that one out... :-) : The goal of making you "aware of all the considerations" may in fact : put WotC in a bad position in terms of public relations once in a while. It does, and it has - in the MtG groups. That is why many people are such fans of this company; they have not been afraid to admit in the past when they made a bad decision, take respnsibility and own up to it, and take their lumps. That they are not doing so for Jyhad (either justifying the confusing/bad/contradictory rulings) or changing them when people point out they _are_ bad/wrong/whatever is the source of all the frustration. [ quoted text not captured ]

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > > In article <3n3c3e$p...@tribune.usask.ca> sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: > > >I have generally seen it echoed that Jyhad is believed to be the most > >complex, most balanced, all-around best CCG on the market. Is it too > >much to expect that the makers will continue to treat it that way, or to > >assume tha the people playing it might actually have relevant or valuable > >input on the game? > > No for the latter, but for the former, yes, you are expecting too > much, Shane. Follow this logic: > > the game which makes the most money $$$ is the best game > > Jyhad is NOT the game that makes the most money $$$ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Thus, Jyhad is NOT the best game > > > Anyone disagree with this logic? Peace Alan, I'll not disagree with your logic [looks like a catagorical sylogism (sp) to me], but I'll argue that your premise is flawed. The X which makes the most money is not necessarily the best X. I have to agree with Shane that Jyhad is generally recongized as very balanced and a great game [the only complaint that I hear with any regularity is game length]. The best X does not always make the most $$$ [see comp.os.os2.advocacy, for example]. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >Frederick Scott (fre...@anthrax.cisco.com) wrote: >: g...@hceltd.demon.co.uk writes: > >: I've been reading his >: rulings in this group and in the Magic groups since he's been a Netrep. >: While I have little doubt that there are other people who have read a great >: deal more rulings posts and follow them much closer than I do, I don't >: believe that any of those who have been criticizing the "just because" >: comment are members of that group. > >As Joe and I are the only ones responding with any regularity, and Joe >already gave his credentials, I'll give mine. > >I read Tom way back on rec.games.board when he was nothing more then than >we are now - someone who answers questions to the best of their ability >and tries to understand where the game designers are comong from. I >continued to read rec.games.deckmaster after it was created, and read >_every single post_ to that group for a good long time before I finally >got tired of that game. I do not remember a time _ever_ when Tom came on >that group in his official capacity and gave 'just because' as an answer. Well, he has. I won't say I've seen it often, but I've seen it. As with Joe, I think it's a case where simple longevity is not what's important here. So, if you've never seen the answer before and don't understand it, my question is how you can take offense at it without simply asking for clarification? One would expect you to hold your complaints until you saw an explanation. Given the explanation that's been put forth, there is no reason for them at this point at all, IMHO. >: >If there's another single group of Jyhad players that is bigger, from a >: >broader demographic cross-section, with more experience than the readers of >: >this group, point them out to me, and tell me what attention WOTC pays to >: >them. > >: Ah, there's the problem. You think that they _must_ pay devoted attention >: to _some_ group - if not this one, then who? What I'm trying to say is that >: they probably cannot pay attention to _any_ particular group to the extent >: that they're negotiating with them over the detailed rules of the game. > >The reason for this belief probably stems from past behaviour by WotC - >they have implemented mailing lists at their own expense and trouble >just for the purpose of facilitating discussion about the game. They >have appointed official representatives to these lists and to Usenet >groups specifically for the purpose of explaining rules and (in the past, >and with Magic, anyway) taking feedback back to the people that make the >rules - the Design Team. First of all, the mailing lists are not Usenet. WotC did not create this newsgroup (nor r.g.deckmaster) nor have any part in its creation (except for explicitly permitting the use of their "Deckmaster" trademark name in r.g. deckmaster's creation) - as you must well know if you've been around for as long as you say you have. They simply appointed a Netrep to Usenet who's monitored and posted in the appropriate group(s) that existed at any given time. It probably doesn't matter a great deal but I do think it has to be pointed out that any offers of specific dialogue on their mailing lists - if they ever existed - are certainly and obviously not valid here. >This feedback was responsible for many rules changes and card-fixes; I >remember seeing things progress from suggestion by one party to mass >support from many people to an official proclamation from the DT. Had >this happened only once, I might have chalked it down to coincidence, but >it happened too often for me to believe that it was anything but WotC >paying attention to the feedback generated by the denizens of the Net. Oh, I'm sure many of them involved listening to the feedback and reacting to it. None the less, when you start expecting specific actions in response to specific concerns then you're getting into an area where you can't be guaranteed satisfaction. Why do I suspect that the process you described has not inevitably led to the kind of results you claim? Tell me - did anyone object to the Convocation's directive on card sleeves on the mailing lists? Frankly, I can't believe this works any different on the mailing lists than it does here. People weigh in their opinions and maybe something happens and maybe it doesn't. Evaluating whether it works better for Magic than Jyhad is always going to be problematic. (Not to say there isn't a difference. But how can you evaluate objectively?) >Do _you_ remember back far enough to know about the Clockwork Beast/counters >issue that arose after the Clockwork Avian came out in AQ? Yep. >That whole thing was precipitated by one person's suggestion, which resulted >in a ruling, which resulted in general outrage (to which I remember Tom >always giving the full answer when asked, "Why?") which eventually resulted >in the overturning of the original ruling. Feedback in action. Indeed, you are correct. And have you calculated how long it took for them to change that ruling? Months. Possibly longer than (or at least near as long as) Jyhad's existed. This board has only been around for 5 months as things stand. So perhaps you'll get some satisfaction on some of these things, yet. >Why do you have a problem in understanding that most of the people here >only want to see a similar level of feedback/response for WotC's other game? All right - that's a fair enough comment to make. I'm surprised to find a perception that there's a lot of difference between how the two games are treated by WotC. I'm certainly learning about that perception very fast. Fred

sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >Frederick Scott (fre...@anthrax.cisco.com) wrote: >: js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: > >: >In article <3n3p3t$g...@cronkite.cisco.com>, >: >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >: >>sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: > >: In a perfect world, that would be nice. But of course, all of this is just >: people's OPINIONS that their logic is well-thought out, that their view of >: game balance considerations is correct, or that their reading of the rules >: and cards is careful, etc. > >Not quite. When dealing with language, it is possible to be quite ... (I don't really care about the rest of it since "opinions" was the key word in what I wrote, so I'll just address this.) >Finally, opinions. Everyone has one. Some are more important than others, >however: "When E.F.Hutton speaks, everybody listens," for example. Tom >used to be nothing more than a guy who gave his opinions on Magic rules >and rulings, and people respected them because they showed evidence of >sound logic and much forethought. I still respect what he says about how >Magic works, because I know that he has spent many, _many_ more hours >thinking about that game than have I. Ditto with the DT, to some extent. First of all, I was not talking about whose opinions of the game factors themselves are important. I was talking about opinions of whose logic is well-thought out, whose view of game balance considerations is correct, or whose reading of the rules and cards is careful, etc. Please understand this distinction. >This is not the case with Jyhad. I do not respect Tom/the DT as much as I >do the opinions of frequent posters to this group, i.e. Curt, Scott, Joe, >James, et al., as they [Tom/DT] do not show the same level of rules >knowledge and thought as do the people I mentioned. To _me_, the >opinions of the Net-gurus means far more i.t.o. logic and common sense >than those of the DT. Unfortunately, these people do not have the >capacity to make official rulings. And perhaps you're right - but YOUR opinions on this matter are not important. The only opinions (of whose logic is correct, etc.) are the DT, and: 1) They do not necessarily have time to read this group extensively. 2) They have other potential sources of feedback and input. Some people who you don't know of may well be respected by the DT as much or more. 3) I do NOT speak for the DT, obviously, but it may be possible that they don't have as much respect for the top posters as you do. Developing respect for someone usually takes time and a fair amount of contact. You post regularly and can interact with these people in ways the DT cannot. >Which brings right back to the original post. > >: I'm sure they [the DT] have plenty of input to consider. > >Didn't you just say that we have no reason to believe that they listen to >_anyone's_ input, much less this group's? I'm not sure what you're quoting, exactly. I would never have said positively that they don't listen to anyone's input. I may very well have said "we don't _know_ that they read this group or worry about its input" and that is certainly true. So what's your point? >: If there's a marked difference between the quality of the explanations in >: the rulings on the two games, I guess I hadn't noticed. > >When was the last time you saw, 'Just Because' given as an answer to why >a certain ruling was made on any of the Magic groups? A month or two ago. And since "just because" is a perfectly reasonable answer - if it correctly and truthfully communicates that the reason is basically arbitrary - again, what's your point? >: That wasn't my point. You _personally_ may be able to understand everything >: and Scott and Curt and whoever. None the less, an unpalatable truth may >: not play well in public and thus lead them to be close-mouthed about certain >: things. > >What sort of 'unpalatable truth' could it _possibly_ be necessary to >protect the game-buying public from? Is this a difficult concept to understand? I wouldn't want to speculate on what sorts of facts might cause more public debate, hand wringing, and gnashing of teeth than they're worth, if revealed, but it's clearly possible to imagine them. >That the DT toss a coin to determine the latest ruling on Rotschreck? We'd already pretty much figured that one out... :-) Com'on - you can't snow me on that on. A flipped coin occasionally comes up the same way twice in row. :) >: The goal of making you "aware of all the considerations" may in fact >: put WotC in a bad position in terms of public relations once in a while. > >It does, and it has - in the MtG groups. That is why many people are >such fans of this company; they have not been afraid to admit in the past >when they made a bad decision, take respnsibility and own up to it, and >take their lumps. That they are not doing so for Jyhad (either >justifying the confusing/bad/contradictory rulings) or changing them when >people point out they _are_ bad/wrong/whatever is the source of all the >frustration. From what I've seen, though, there is _far_ more questioning and quibbling that goes on over the rulings in this group than in the Magic groups. Much of the stuff that gets questioned and criticized over and over here appears to me to be of the same quality as what gets accepted without question there (excepting the obvious miscues that happen in both groups). As for confusing/ bad/contradictory rulings, they happen in Magic, too. For instance, I still don't completely understand all the facets to the timing rulings in Magic. And there's no more particular reason why each individual point of Pestilence damage shouldn't have to be paid for to be prevented by the owner of a CoP: Black in spite of its owner's desires any more than it makes any sense why the abilities of some retainers have to used and others don't. It REALLY all looks the same to me. It could be better, in general, for both games. On the other hand, you could also give them a freakin' break once in while, keep talking, don't expect so much so quickly (you wouldn't get nearly as much from the vast majority of all game companies), and keep hoping for the best. Fred

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3n8mas$d...@cronkite.cisco.com>, >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>g...@hceltd.demon.co.uk writes: >>"Better than he does" is not correct. I apparently understand it better than >>you do and that's because I _read_ what he writes. I've been reading his >>rulings in this group and in the Magic groups since he's been a Netrep. >>While I have little doubt that there are other people who have read a great >>deal more rulings posts and follow them much closer than I do, I don't >>believe that any of those who have been criticizing the "just because" >>comment are members of that group. > > Bzzt. I'll show you a notarized statement from the retailer who ... >I've read Tom, I've read Paul, and even Stephen. I was even around for >Snark's tenure as a netrep. Remember rec.games.board? Yes, of course. I've been around since the beginning of time (collectible- trading-card-wise) on the net, too. But pure longevity was clearly not the only criteria I mentioned. I also raised the question of whether you really _read_ what Tom writes (or what I write, for that matter). >In short, I have read and followed card gaming very closely. I still don't >accept "just because." You are the person who suggested the "just because" explanation had to do with Tom "establishing himself as an authority on the game with his knowledge and reasoning" which I do not at all believe is correct. I don't think there's much point in our arguing whether "just because" is acceptable until we agree on what it's suppose to mean. Otherwise, we're just pointlessly harping on each other. >"Just because" and "I meant for it to be that way" are two of the first lines >of defense when your authority is threatened. They are the first lines of defense for some people. This does not automaticly associate that end and that situation to this usage. You shouldn't make such an assumption. Otherwise, you might take offense to something that was not intended to offend, as I believe is the case here. >>>How long have you been playing Jyhad and how often do you play? This is >>>important. >> >>No, it's not. > > Yes, it is. You have no experience from which to judge the BS >from the truth if you have not played the game. It is not correct to suggest that one needs to play Jyhad often or for a long time to understand the issues that I've raised. Therefore, the question - as he phrased it - was not important. >>Please note: I do not suggest and have been careful NEVER to suggest that any >>of posted disagreements with the design team's rulings are wrong or bad. >>It's the amount of importance that some people are placing on their own >>opinions (however well-informed those opinions might be) that I think needs >>to be questioned a bit. > > After the immodesty of dredging up my credentials (that's just >my player's credentials, not my designer's credentials, BTW), I'll say >that I never have considered that the DT would do more than take any >comments one or all of us make as more than customer feedback. And that >is how it should be. That includes my own opinions and suggestions. That's fine. But I notice a distinct tendency to mix issues here when you respond to a post I made in response to someone else. That person wants to create a special customer-selected liaison group to force feed the issues raised here back to the design team on the rationale that "these liaison's aren't proving to be too effective" - a conclusion that's impossible to come to if we regard newsgroup commentary as simple customer feedback. So if don't feel that way then I wasn't talking about you. > As to the "shooting the messenger" comment: Tom made the >mistake of saying "it was designed that way" when he didn't actually >know that. That's what displeased me. He's now offering to take things >to the DT and only offering official answers when he knows them. All in >all a satisfactory solution to the situation. OK, cool. Of course, if _their_ answer turns out to be "just because", then we're right back where we started... ( :), sort of...I think ) Fred

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3n8ohb$f...@cronkite.cisco.com>, >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >>>>Maybe. Or maybe it's a good indication that some of those people are >>>>mistaking their opinions on how they would like the game to be played >>>>with divine truth. >>> >>> He's talking about when all of us agree on something. >> >>That's exactly correct. I'm talking about situations where all of you >>folks agree. >>... >>>to push them even onto Tom or the DT). But those are trhe cases Scott's >>>talking about, and frankly, I resent the implication. >> >>Resent what implication? That consensus here is simply not as important >>as some people here imagine it is. I'm sorry but I stand by my opinion on >>that. > > As one of the people who's been discussing the game and trying >to help, you have implied (and only saying 'some' doesn't excuse the >implication) that you know how I value my opinion and interpretations of >gameplay. I resent that. As a matter of fact, I know exactly how >important my opinion is. My ego is not as inflated as you give it >credit for. I didn't mean for the word "some" to excuse anything. However, it is unspecific WRT to who I'm talking about. You cannot know if I'm talking about you. In fact I may not be. To clarify, I meant to refer to anyone who thought that any consensus here demanded discernable action and/or response from the design team. I believe some here do hold that (perhaps unspoken) opinion. > Consensus here is a good indication that something is wrong. It may be in many circumstances. Or it may also be that the Jyhad players who frequent this board happen to have a distinct preference in taste for a way of playing the game that isn't shared by the designers - for instance, you're going for play balance in a situation where the designers are interested in speed of play. Or that these same Jyhad players have a different definition of what "wrong" is as opposed to the designers - for instance, whether the occasion examples of wallpaper are actually a problem with the game or not. (Not suggesting real differences in opinion; just suggesting possible ones.) >>> But does well-thought out logic, good game balance >>>considerations, a careful reading of the rules and cards, and a >>>well-formed and insightful opinion confer any special powers on a >>>person? >> >>In a perfect world, that would be nice. But of course, all of this is just >>people's OPINIONS that their logic is well-thought out, that their view of >>game balance considerations is correct, or that their reading of the rules > > It's a little different here on the net. You *can* acheive an >objective measure of logic, game balance, and rules compliance because >there is a record of what you've said and it can be revised and picked >at until there are no holes left. I'm sorry, I don't agree. Logic frequently breaks down into semantic squabbles. Game balance is total art. And no record beyond the most recent few days is practically available. It's barely possible for a human being to read everything that's said, let alone pick it apart (though the occasional post does get picked apart). There's no objectivity here. >And many things have been. I'm not >going to say that I believe opinion X is right, but I would argue that >your assumption of subjectivity is invalid. We'll have to disagree, then. >>> As to the idea that some game design considerations would be >>>difficult for us lowly players to understand: bullsh*t. Some of us >> >>That wasn't my point. You _personally_ may be able to understand everything >>and Scott and Curt and whoever. None the less, an unpalatable truth may >>not play well in public and thus lead them to be close-mouthed about certain >>things. The goal of making you "aware of all the considerations" may in fact >>put WotC in a bad position in terms of public relations once in a while. >>That's the point I was trying to make. > > Ah, I see. The demands of image are that truth must be hidden >to protect the public from hearing things that will hurt them. Yes, >that rationale is used in many fields, particularly politics. If you >subscribe to the "unwashed masses" theory, you're right. I don't know what you mean by the "unwashed masses" theory. This isn't government. This is business. This is an utterly different question than one of "protecting the public from hearing things that will hurt them". I'm speaking of things that will hurt your employer. A bad spin on a PR issue costs people money. And not your money, mind you (at least, not necessarily your money) but your stockholders'. The spokesperson for a commercial organization is not doing his or her job correctly if they _always_ dutifully answer anyone's question in the most illuminating way they can. That is simply a fact of life. And it is certainly one possible reason why they might not always be willing to "make us aware of these considerations", as was demanded. > From a company that prides itself on customer service and on >being "responsive" to customer concerns, that becomes a very thin line >to tread. I personally have no problems with the DT taking or leaving >us as a group (I'll register my opinions with my $$ and with responses >to surveys), but I don't think that it is unreasonable for Jyhad players >to expect the same level of support that other WotC products receive. I agree. That sounds reasonable. Fred

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3n8o5b$e...@cronkite.cisco.com>, >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>sht...@herald.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >>>Congratulations Frederick. You have managed to note _every_ instance of >>>Tom saying 'Just because', delve deeply into his mind by some arcane >>>means, and _know_ the reasons it was said? Wow. Even we-whom-you-ridicule >>>don't claim to have that kind of memory or abilities... >> >>All right - fair enough. I did not want to suggest I was a mind reader nor >>that I've read every post Tom's ever made. To clarify, what Mr. Cochrane >>suggested as the reasoning behind the use of "just because" simply does not >>correspond to even a _single_ instance of its use in my experience. > > It's Cochran. No 'e'. (sorry) > And Tom does not give nearly as much rationale on the Magic >groups as he used to. That's because he's said it all before. I'm >sorry if you haven't noticed it, but I've been around since the Alpha >days of Magic, and it is most definitely the trend. I've noticed the trend but I don't think it means what you think it means. I think it means that the traffic concerning Magic on Usenet that grew from a smattering on r.g.b 18-20 months ago has become 3 full newsgroups with traffic approaching or surpassing 1000 articles a day (not counting sales/trades/auctions). Many of these articles are rules queries that Tom cannot possibly hope to read all of - let alone respond to. In view of this, is it not quite clear why he uses brevity whenever possible. Furthermore, many of the issues he deals with when he does respond have been discussed many times before. As each newbie gets into the game and begins to read the Magic newsgroups, he'll frequently raise questions that have come up umpteen times before. The answers are simple and well-known. If posters wish to make an issue of them, other more experienced posters can respond and answer questions about the rationale. This effect was clearly in evidence in the recent "Forked Timewalk" thread where a group of newbies demanded to know why Forking Timewalks had the precise effect they had. So this leaves only explaining the rationale behind new issues, such as when the recent multiplayer rulings came out and made some distinct and profound changes on certain card rulings. In these incidences, Tom's explainations are pretty much as detailed and verbose as ever they were, near as I can tell. This, at least, is my preception of the situation. >And in Magic, that's fine, because Tom has established himself as an expert. True. But that has never had a thing to do with the answer "just because", AFAIK. >>Let me put it this way: why do _you_ think the design team chose to use >>RED and not ORANGE as the color for destructive mana in Magic? > > Er, cultural connections between those forces and those colors? >Not a science, to be sure, but more than arbitrary. Close enough. The point is, it isn't valid to criticize them for not thinking of the implications of choosing red vs. orange. It was just someone's "place to start". >>Why have seven houses and only a few Caitiff in Jyhad? Why not four and >>lots of Caitiff? Why did they choose to give the powers they did to the >>vampires they did? Why have animalism and not vegtablism? > > All of the decisions you list here were NOT options, they were >laws laid down by the decision to base the game on Vampire: the >Masquerade. The game world was laid out long before Magic was even >proposed to WotC. Go pick up a V:tM book. You'll find the 7 clans of >the camarilla, Princes, Primogen, Justicars, Nosferatu, Gangrel, >Obfuscate and even Rotschrek. Those were neither random nor open to >change if the game was to be based on V:tM. OK. I'm at a disadvantage here with Jyhad because there are literary references which I haven't read. I still claim there are clearly arbitrary decisions that have been made and furthermore arbritrary decisions with more game implications than the "red" vs. "orange" issue I raised above. To go back to Magic (since there's no literary references to worry about, there), a better example would be, "Why did they make exactly one flying, non-tap-to attack 4/4 creature and give it to white?". The Serra Angel certainly has incredible game implications and I'll bet anything they never really planned it. Maybe it started as a 3/3 and they decided to bump it up in playtest or maybe it started as a 5/5 and they cut it back - but I'll bet almost all of the original cards (and many of the expansion cards) - were created totally arbitrarily, without thought to implications they would have. Playtesting may well have altered many of them on the way out the door and some others were undoubtably "purpose" cards with very tangible reasons behind them. But my point is that not every question "why" in game design has a profound answer. This seems obvious to me. > If you're blindly accepting that everything everyone says is >gospel (including "just because"), you're in for a rude awakening at >some point. Nobody wants to admit to being imperfect. Even the Jyhad >design team. I'm not blindly accepting anything. I must admit, I do tend to want to give them and Tom the benefit of the doubt. I guess I kind of thought some frustration may have boiled over the wrong way in response to that. Fred

Guy Keen <g...@hceltd.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Well, Tom/DT, this is where we need some sort of response from you guys. You >can't deny the>value of the discussions that take place here. How do you think >these ideas should be taken on board, and live in a world potentially free of >Fame and Rotschreck type confusion? Obviously the discussions that take place in the newsgroups provide valuable input to us. (This is one reason I think someone in the company should be NetRepping the newsgroups rather than an outside volunteer: the input from the discussions is direct rather than filtered.) We just want to make it clear that just because a bunch of people on the group agree that something should be different doesn't mean we're going to make it different, or that we're going to release changes immediately rather than in the next edition of the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >I read Tom way back on rec.games.board when he was nothing more then than >we are now - someone who answers questions to the best of their ability >and tries to understand where the game designers are comong from. I >continued to read rec.games.deckmaster after it was created, and read >_every single post_ to that group for a good long time before I finally >got tired of that game. I do not remember a time _ever_ when Tom came on >that group in his official capacity and gave 'just because' as an answer. >When he did not know, he usually said something like he is saying now on >this group; "I don't know why - I'll try and find out," or, "A good >question - I'll ask the DT." Actually, "just because" is given out as an answer occasionally, but I try to only do so when there really isn't a short and sweet reason for something, e.g. "BTW, why don't they print Sinkholes any longer?" "Just because." There are times when it's a reasonable answer to give, but I've been a bit flippant in using it on this group, something that I'll avoid in the future. >The point that I believe is being made (in general) is this; they have a >track record of listening and either explaining or changing with Magic. >People around here are/were frustrated because we weren't even sure that >they were listening. As for explanations, they were few and far between. Well, I'm starting to go to the Jyhad/V:TES design team meetings, so hopefully a lot of this will go away. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >I think it means that the traffic concerning Magic on Usenet that grew from >a smattering on r.g.b 18-20 months ago has become 3 full newsgroups with >traffic approaching or surpassing 1000 articles a day (not counting >sales/trades/auctions). Many of these articles are rules queries that Tom >cannot possibly hope to read all of - let alone respond to. In view of this, >is it not quite clear why he uses brevity whenever possible. By the way, I do read just about everything, though this site has a fairly liberal expire policy so some information gets lost that way. It's just that under the method I use, the easy questions are almost always answered by the time I see them, and I don't answer questions that are already answered (unless they were specifically addressed to me), so it can easily look like I'm not reading everything. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <fred_sD7...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >>>While I have little doubt that there are other people who have read a great >>>deal more rulings posts and follow them much closer than I do, I don't >>>believe that any of those who have been criticizing the "just because" >>>comment are members of that group. >> >> Bzzt. I'll show you a notarized statement from the retailer who >... >>I've read Tom, I've read Paul, and even Stephen. I was even around for >>Snark's tenure as a netrep. Remember rec.games.board? > >Yes, of course. I've been around since the beginning of time (collectible- >trading-card-wise) on the net, too. But pure longevity was clearly not the >only criteria I mentioned. I also raised the question of whether you really >_read_ what Tom writes (or what I write, for that matter). No, I have a well-trained monkey who reads the whole net and then EEP's at me when there's a message he thinks I should read. Don't you? [Further commentary deleted on the basis of its imflammatory and derisive nature.] I read. I think. I have an extensive background. I answer more questions on Magic than *all* other people who go to our game store. I am an expert on the game. And on Jyhad. Yes, it's immodest to say that, but you can ask anybody who's met me, and they'll agree with it. And I don't buy the "just because" line. If you want to further imply that I am a moron, please save your bandwidth. >>In short, I have read and followed card gaming very closely. I still don't >>accept "just because." > >You are the person who suggested the "just because" explanation had to do >with Tom "establishing himself as an authority on the game with his knowledge >and reasoning" which I do not at all believe is correct. I don't think In MAGIC. Not in Jyhad. >there's much point in our arguing whether "just because" is acceptable until >we agree on what it's suppose to mean. Otherwise, we're just pointlessly >harping on each other. [Further inflammatory commentary censored.] >>>>How long have you been playing Jyhad and how often do you play? This is >>>>important. >>>No, it's not. >> Yes, it is. You have no experience from which to judge the BS >>from the truth if you have not played the game. > >It is not correct to suggest that one needs to play Jyhad often or for a long >time to understand the issues that I've raised. Therefore, the question - >as he phrased it - was not important. You have defended the unimpeachability of the design team. You have suggested that we should not second guess their reasoning. You have suggested that "just becasue" was true every time that Tom's said it. We know that this is not the case, as Tom admitted that on at least one occassion he *did* use the "it was designed that way on purpose" line when he did not actually know that. However, unless you have experience with the game, you cannot accurately judge the truth of a given "just because" line. That is important and relevant to the discussion at hand. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <fred_sD7...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>got tired of that game. I do not remember a time _ever_ when Tom came on >>that group in his official capacity and gave 'just because' as an answer. > >Well, he has. I won't say I've seen it often, but I've seen it. As with >Joe, I think it's a case where simple longevity is not what's important here. I'm not sure what you mean, nor why it relates to my credentials (other than the fact that you assume that I've been here the whole time and haven't the retention of a five year old). >All right - that's a fair enough comment to make. I'm surprised to find >a perception that there's a lot of difference between how the two games are >treated by WotC. I'm certainly learning about that perception very fast. If you've been around, you have to have seen it. Tom has an admitted Magic bias, there have been months at a time when any questions or comments on this group have been unanswered. Jyhad appeals to a smaller market and makes less than its predecessor, and is treated more like a B title than an A title. This is just the way it is. The evidence has been here for months. It's a fact of life. The House rules list is the latest manifestation of what we're doing here to try and make the game a little better. It happens in every industry. The problem is that WotC doesn't *want* us to think that it's a B title. The comments about this have been veiled in messages for months among all of us here. If you've been around, you've seen them here and there, we haven't been secretive, just discrete. We like the game, and we appreciate the company who made it and don't want to shout from the rooftops that we know that they're exaggerating about the support they give some titles vs. others. The perception has been visible for months. You say you've been reading the newsgroup. It's been here all along for you to see. Then again, maybe you're right. Maybe reading the group doesn't necessarily mean that you know what's going on. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <fred_sD7...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >> Consensus here is a good indication that something is wrong. > >It may be in many circumstances. Or it may also be that the Jyhad players >who frequent this board happen to have a distinct preference in taste for a >way of playing the game that isn't shared by the designers - for instance, Look at the list. We agree on *very* few things because we all play differently. It's a random sampling of play styles. Statistically, when we agree on something, it's probably because something is wrong. >interested in speed of play. Or that these same Jyhad players have a different >definition of what "wrong" is as opposed to the designers - for instance, >whether the occasion examples of wallpaper are actually a problem with the >game or not. (Not suggesting real differences in opinion; just suggesting >possible ones.) Oh, they know it's a problem. Tom has said as much about the Chainsaw. That's a "we'll fix it for the next version" problem. Still, we agree and it *is* a problem, which is my point. >I'm sorry, I don't agree. Logic frequently breaks down into semantic >squabbles. Game balance is total art. And no record beyond the most You're basing your knowledge of game design on... ? >> Ah, I see. The demands of image are that truth must be hidden >>to protect the public from hearing things that will hurt them. Yes, >>that rationale is used in many fields, particularly politics. If you >>subscribe to the "unwashed masses" theory, you're right. > >I don't know what you mean by the "unwashed masses" theory. This isn't >government. This is business. This is an utterly different question than one >of "protecting the public from hearing things that will hurt them". I'm >speaking of things that will hurt your employer. You're the one who said that WotC doesn't tell us reasons for things because we couldn't handle it. Now you assert that WotC doesn't tell us reasons for things because they want to maximize profit. I guess that them saying "yeah, well, we didn't think through that Madness Network thing" is gonna cost, what, $400,000? Yeah. Sure thing. BTW, for many purposes (especially people management), government *is* business and vice versa. But we're in the wrong newsgroup for that discussion. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <fred_sD7...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >>This is not the case with Jyhad. I do not respect Tom/the DT as much as I >>do the opinions of frequent posters to this group, i.e. Curt, Scott, Joe, >>James, et al., as they [Tom/DT] do not show the same level of rules >>knowledge and thought as do the people I mentioned. To _me_, the > >And perhaps you're right - but YOUR opinions on this matter are not important. >The only opinions (of whose logic is correct, etc.) are the DT, and: The only "official" important opinions are the DT. If you assume that the stamp of WotC's authority holds sway, then you are correct. However, you many have noticed that the trend is moving away from that. Wonder if that's because people are beginning to place more importance on logic, reasoning, and gameplay than on the WotC name. Hmm. >3) I do NOT speak for the DT, obviously, but it may be possible that they >don't have as much respect for the top posters as you do. Developing respect >for someone usually takes time and a fair amount of contact. You post >regularly and can interact with these people in ways the DT cannot. Have you noticed that the group's lead posters came out of the woodwork *after* a long absence by WotC? It's because many of us had a lot of respect for WotC from Magic and the incredible customer support network that it has (of which I can only say good things). Over a fair amount of time and a long absence of contact (most of which was rulings that had little to do with discussions here and some of which was rulings that were very, um, irregular), that respect is lessening. And the idea that the DT cannot interact with us is ludicrous. WotC has 4 Suns and over 150 desktop machines, and every business card I've ever seen from them has an e-mail address. They *choose* not to. Never mistake that. {Time for an aside here: that they choose to work on new stuff rather than interact with us about the old stuff is a business decision, and is neither right nor wrong. It just is the way they choose to do things.} >From what I've seen, though, there is _far_ more questioning and quibbling >that goes on over the rulings in this group than in the Magic groups. Much >of the stuff that gets questioned and criticized over and over here appears >to me to be of the same quality as what gets accepted without question there It didn't start that way. Now let me think.... Maybe, perhaps, the lack of support from WotC engendered an environment where others needed to fill the gap and gave their best rulings. From there some people got contraditory answers and the answerers began to discuss why they interpreted things the way that they did. After a while, they even began to understand some of the subtle design points of the game and <gasp> *thought* about design and balance. Then the DT came out with rulings that were completely contrary to that design and balance and they realized that the DT wasn't some superior entity that magically knew all of the answers and that the DT sometimes made mistakes, too. So the discussion that started from their absence became a discussion that revealed their humanity, and now we're all a bit more thinking and a bit less into the blind acceptance thing. Then again, maybe we're all SOB's. >(excepting the obvious miscues that happen in both groups). As for confusing/ >bad/contradictory rulings, they happen in Magic, too. For instance, I still >don't completely understand all the facets to the timing rulings in Magic. And You've been here since the beginning and you haven't figured out the Magic timing rules, yet you're arguing Jyhad??? Wow. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3np2kc$2...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <fred_sD7...@netcom.com>, >Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>I don't know what you mean by the "unwashed masses" theory. This isn't >>government. This is business. This is an utterly different question than one >>of "protecting the public from hearing things that will hurt them". I'm >>speaking of things that will hurt your employer. > > You're the one who said that WotC doesn't tell us reasons for >things because we couldn't handle it. > Now you assert that WotC doesn't tell us reasons for things >because they want to maximize profit. I guess that them saying "yeah, >well, we didn't think through that Madness Network thing" is gonna cost, >what, $400,000? Yeah. Sure thing. I recall vaguely (because I don't read that group often) that on rec.games.trading-cards.misc, Steve Jackson himself sometimes openly admits design oversights, and then tries his best to fix the problems. People take that as responsible action by a game designer. Mature gaming audiences know that it is easy to overlook something (such as the Madness Network thingie) when composing the rules. What I personally prefer is a ruling based on the original design considerations that created the rules (the thing which Steve Jackson does), rather than some funny attempt of drawing an `interpretation' from the (in the first place) ill-written rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > If you've been around, you have to have seen it. Tom has an >admitted Magic bias, there have been months at a time when any questions >or comments on this group have been unanswered. Jyhad appeals to a >smaller market and makes less than its predecessor, and is treated more >like a B title than an A title. This is just the way it is. The >evidence has been here for months. It's a fact of life. The House >rules list is the latest manifestation of what we're doing here to try >and make the game a little better. It happens in every industry. The >problem is that WotC doesn't *want* us to think that it's a B title. I'd just like to say that what happened while I was at Microprose was not simply inattentiveness w.r.t this group. I couldn't connect reliably to netnews at all for about half the time I was there, so messages were expiring on me left and right, even moreso in the Magic groups than here. And when I did find some time to go through and clean up the newsgroups, I'd often find that about 5% of the messages here warranted a response from me, tops, given that I didn't want to jump into the card backs discussion or the discussions about D-bleeds, which together comprised about about 80% of the messages I was seeing. Just last week I went through about 50 messages in this group, and between card sales and auctions, threads about "help my deck" which I never comment on, rules questions that had already been answered perfectly well by the time I saw them (and I don't like to clutter up the group by posting redundant responses), a thread about whether I should give "just because" as a response long after I've said I probably shouldn't, and a few random posts, there were about 3 messages that I felt warranted a response from me. And that's a *high* percentage compared to the posts I was seeing this winter. The basic point here is that when I do take a more aggressive approach to getting through this group than through the Magic groups, I still don't find all that much that needs my attention. I can post redundant responses to rules questions if people really *want* me to, but even with that, there is simply going to be a lower percentage of replies from me here than on the Magic groups. [ quoted text not captured ]

Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >I recall vaguely (because I don't read that group often) that >on rec.games.trading-cards.misc, Steve Jackson himself sometimes >openly admits design oversights, and then tries his best to fix >the problems. People take that as responsible action by a game designer. And I'm sure others see it as irresponsible actions. Magic has repeatedly demonstrated that some people appreciate midstream fixes to a game, while others hates having to carry around rules other than the rulebook just so they can know what they're doing. We actually have Magic at the point where we hope not to have to change/clarify the rules at all between editions, and we'd like to just start Jyhad off on the right foot where that's concerned. Unfortunately, the rulebook makes it impossible to avoid clarifications every so often :-\ but we are reluctant to issue specific changes to the rules that don't appear in print anywhere. >Mature gaming audiences know that it is easy to overlook something >(such as the Madness Network thingie) when composing the rules. >What I personally prefer is a ruling based on the original design >considerations that created the rules (the thing which Steve Jackson >does), rather than some funny attempt of drawing an `interpretation' >from the (in the first place) ill-written rules. Obviously the design considerations that were developed while the game was in R&D are taken into consideration, and in fact the next set of Jyhad design team rulings will have a few statements on that. But just because something in the rules looks strange doesn't make it an accident. If we really don't want reactions to be playable during your turn, we really don't want reactions to be playable during your turn, even if these means that Madness Network breaks the game somewhat (for example). [ quoted text not captured ]

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <fred_sD7...@netcom.com>, >Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >>> Consensus here is a good indication that something is wrong. >> >>It may be in many circumstances. Or it may also be that the Jyhad players >>who frequent this board happen to have a distinct preference in taste for a >>way of playing the game that isn't shared by the designers - for instance, > > Look at the list. We agree on *very* few things because we all >play differently. It's a random sampling of play styles. >Statistically, when we agree on something, it's probably because >something is wrong. I'm sorry I do not agree. Random samplings are subject to, well, randomness. It's a small group in comparison to the overall population of players and is certainly subject to skids and spikes in the sample. Furthermore, many of the questions that get discussed are simply matters of opinion - "I would like the game better if....(fill in the black)" - not logical conclusion. In such matters, you can only say that the design team is "wrong" if you think the game rules should be governed by popularity contests. >>interested in speed of play. Or that these same Jyhad players have a >>different definition of what "wrong" is as opposed to the designers - for >>instance, whether the occasion examples of wallpaper are actually a problem >>with the game or not. (Not suggesting real differences in opinion; just >>suggesting possible ones.) > > Oh, they know it's a problem. Tom has said as much about the >Chainsaw. That's a "we'll fix it for the next version" problem. Still, >we agree and it *is* a problem, which is my point. As I said, those particular things were examples. On other issues, you and the DT may still disagree whether something is, in fact "wrong" or not. I do not believe the design team would concur that concensus here is the dictionary definition of word "wrong" WRT Jyhad. >>I'm sorry, I don't agree. Logic frequently breaks down into semantic >>squabbles. Game balance is total art. And no record beyond the most > > You're basing your knowledge of game design on... ? I've designed a few of my own. And simply participating in the discussion of the Convocation restriction lists in the Magic groups will tell the same thing: what is "game-balanced" is also a matter of opinion and taste in the extreme. I swear, some of those guys and I don't play the same game. >>> Ah, I see. The demands of image are that truth must be hidden >>>to protect the public from hearing things that will hurt them. Yes, >>>that rationale is used in many fields, particularly politics. If you >>>subscribe to the "unwashed masses" theory, you're right. >> >>I don't know what you mean by the "unwashed masses" theory. This isn't >>government. This is business. This is an utterly different question than >>one of "protecting the public from hearing things that will hurt them". I'm >>speaking of things that will hurt your employer. > > You're the one who said that WotC doesn't tell us reasons for >things because we couldn't handle it. No, I didn't say a thing about anyone "not being able to handle" anything. You apparently misunderstood what I was getting at. I meant that the truth of some things is not always very popular with your customer base. > Now you assert that WotC doesn't tell us reasons for things >because they want to maximize profit. That's a very negative way of putting it but yea, in some cases that may well be true. (And remember, I don't speak for WotC so I don't know - I'm just speculating about a possible explanation because it makes a certain amount of good sense.) That doesn't mean they've lied about anything or they're being basically dishonest. It just means that there will be some issues that a company just can't win with if they bother to discuss them openly and be totally forthcoming with all the hairy details. >I guess that them saying "yeah, well, we didn't think through that Madness >Network thing" is gonna cost, what, $400,000? Yeah. Sure thing. I wonder why you guess that. Thinking up a poorly-applied example doesn't disprove the concept. It just proves your lack of imagination. And no, I don't think you can put a hard price tag on bad publicity. None the less, it can still cost you money, whether you know exactly what that amount is or not. > BTW, for many purposes (especially people management), >government *is* business and vice versa. But we're in the wrong >newsgroup for that discussion. Government is government. Business is business. Conclusions to the contrary are unjustified - unless you think it's moral to run a government for purposes of increasing personal wealth or to run your boss's business for the customer's benefit rather than the owner's. Fred

In article <3o3mqj$g...@cronkite.cisco.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>>It may be in many circumstances. Or it may also be that the Jyhad players >>>who frequent this board happen to have a distinct preference in taste for a >>>way of playing the game that isn't shared by the designers - for instance, >> >> Look at the list. We agree on *very* few things because we all >>play differently. It's a random sampling of play styles. >>Statistically, when we agree on something, it's probably because >>something is wrong. > >I'm sorry I do not agree. Random samplings are subject to, well, randomness. >It's a small group in comparison to the overall population of players and is Oh no! I guess that we should stop polling people during elections, and the neilson ratings should be disregarded, and all work in statistics should be abandonded, since the random samples used in all of these cases are, well, random! I guess that thesis of mine is total garbage, too, since it relied on random samples. Or maybe you need a class in statistics. >certainly subject to skids and spikes in the sample. Furthermore, many of the >questions that get discussed are simply matters of opinion - "I would like >the game better if....(fill in the black)" - not logical conclusion. In such >matters, you can only say that the design team is "wrong" if you think the >game rules should be governed by popularity contests. We're not making popularity decisions when we all agree that the DT is wrong on something. Those "I would like the game better if" discussions are just that, wistful discussions. We're talking about times when we all agree that there's something wrong with the game from a balance perspective, not a popularity perspective. >>>I'm sorry, I don't agree. Logic frequently breaks down into semantic >>>squabbles. Game balance is total art. And no record beyond the most >> >> You're basing your knowledge of game design on... ? > >I've designed a few of my own. And simply participating in the discussion >of the Convocation restriction lists in the Magic groups will tell the >same thing: what is "game-balanced" is also a matter of opinion and taste in >the extreme. I swear, some of those guys and I don't play the same game. Mmm Hmm. So you think that Magic players and the five or six of us who have been dissecting Jyhad are on the same level. Okay. I'll remember that. It's the design theory that matters the most, not the player rantings. And the discussions I've had here center much more on design theory than the Magic discussions I've had. >> You're the one who said that WotC doesn't tell us reasons for >>things because we couldn't handle it. > >No, I didn't say a thing about anyone "not being able to handle" anything. >You apparently misunderstood what I was getting at. I meant that the truth of >some things is not always very popular with your customer base. Which implies that your customer base isn't smart enough to understand how your company runs. You're trying to tiptoe around it, but that's what you're implying. >>I guess that them saying "yeah, well, we didn't think through that Madness >>Network thing" is gonna cost, what, $400,000? Yeah. Sure thing. > >I wonder why you guess that. Thinking up a poorly-applied example doesn't >disprove the concept. It just proves your lack of imagination. And no, I >don't think you can put a hard price tag on bad publicity. None the less, >it can still cost you money, whether you know exactly what that amount is or >not. Well, WotC is getting enough bad publicity out of the name change to more than make up for any policies on rulings that they felt we were unable to cope with. Why is it, do you suppose, SJG gets good press out of making mistakes, while WotC would get bad press for it? >> BTW, for many purposes (especially people management), >>government *is* business and vice versa. But we're in the wrong >>newsgroup for that discussion. > >Government is government. Business is business. Conclusions to the contrary >are unjustified - unless you think it's moral to run a government for purposes As I said, wrong place, wrong time. That argument belongs elsewhere. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o3doc$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>the problems. People take that as responsible action by a game designer. > >And I'm sure others see it as irresponsible actions. Magic has repeatedly From what I have seen, Steve's policies have had *far* more people praising them than detracting them. I can't say the same for WotC. I'm sure there *are* people who see Steve's policies as irresponsible, but I've yet to meet them. >clarifications every so often :-\ but we are reluctant to issue specific >changes to the rules that don't appear in print anywhere. Except, of course, for Combat Ends. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joe Cochran writes: > We're not making popularity decisions when we all agree that the >DT is wrong on something. Those "I would like the game better if" >discussions are just that, wistful discussions. We're talking about >times when we all agree that there's something wrong with the game from >a balance perspective, not a popularity perspective. Sometimes also consistency and misprint perspectives. The active posters think very seriously about their suggestions, and keep clear distinctions between "I would like the game better" and "you'd better fix this". We also argue actively with each other and play a lot. Active disagreement, extensive experience, and serious thought often lead to correct conclusions. If WotC ignores well-advised comment from the net on rules, the net won't punish them, but the Jyhad cards will. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3o3mqj$g...@cronkite.cisco.com>, >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>It may be in many circumstances. Or it may also be that the Jyhad players >>>>who frequent this board happen to have a distinct preference in taste for a >>>>way of playing the game that isn't shared by the designers - for instance, >>> >>> Look at the list. We agree on *very* few things because we all >>>play differently. It's a random sampling of play styles. >>>Statistically, when we agree on something, it's probably because >>>something is wrong. >> >>I'm sorry I do not agree. Random samplings are subject to, well, randomness. >>It's a small group in comparison to the overall population of players and is > > Oh no! I guess that we should stop polling people during >elections, and the neilson ratings should be disregarded, and all work >in statistics should be abandonded, since the random samples used in all >of these cases are, well, random! > I guess that thesis of mine is total garbage, too, since it >relied on random samples. > Or maybe you need a class in statistics. ... > We're not making popularity decisions when we all agree that the >DT is wrong on something. Those "I would like the game better if" >discussions are just that, wistful discussions. We're talking about >times when we all agree that there's something wrong with the game from >a balance perspective, not a popularity perspective. I don't know why you think a very small population of posters on a Usenet board is either statistically, scientifically representive of all Jyhad players or has remotely the same status as an advertised, fair, and closely monitored election. That's just downright silly. Even apart from that, you also totally missed (and thereby did not address) the point that it is not appropriate to regard game rules as a subject for decisions made by a vote. I think it's likely that a game where all the rules were controlled by the sheer weight of numbers of people's opinions would be terrible. Yet that would be the result of what you're espousing. >>>>I'm sorry, I don't agree. Logic frequently breaks down into semantic >>>>squabbles. Game balance is total art. And no record beyond the most >>> >>> You're basing your knowledge of game design on... ? >> >>I've designed a few of my own. And simply participating in the discussion >>of the Convocation restriction lists in the Magic groups will tell the >>same thing: what is "game-balanced" is also a matter of opinion and taste in >>the extreme. I swear, some of those guys and I don't play the same game. > > Mmm Hmm. So you think that Magic players and the five or six of >us who have been dissecting Jyhad are on the same level. For these purposes, absolutely. Taste does not become hard and fast truth because Jyhad happens to be the game and your group is the one doing the opining. >Okay. I'll remember that. Please do, I have been posting a long time for you not to get my point. > It's the design theory that matters the most, not the player >rantings. And the discussions I've had here center much more on design >theory than the Magic discussions I've had. "Design theory" my butt. It all comes down to what you like and what you don't like. The DT's version is every bit as valid as your version, whether you care to admit it or not. Of course, I may very well prefer certain of the changes you would make make if you could and feel your reasons for making them quite sound, but if I - and 87 zillion other people (for that matter) did - that would still be opinion. Yes, you might gather your ideas up in a grand "theory" and call it "design theory" and that might be a very good description for it. But let's not get too carried away and confuse this terminology with a scientific theory or a provable mathematical theory. >>> You're the one who said that WotC doesn't tell us reasons for >>>things because we couldn't handle it. >> >>No, I didn't say a thing about anyone "not being able to handle" anything. >>You apparently misunderstood what I was getting at. I meant that the truth of >>some things is not always very popular with your customer base. > > Which implies that your customer base isn't smart enough to >understand how your company runs. You're trying to tiptoe around it, >but that's what you're implying. I'm not trying to tiptoe around it. I'm saying it straight out - with a slight mod. People, by and large, care about their own self-interests. They may very well know how a company runs to _some_ extent but a) they don't _really_ understand some of the most critical details because they don't do it themselves every day and b) even when they do understand, they're not always completely rational with respect to every decision the company makes because they're looking at things through their own self-interested eyes. > Well, WotC is getting enough bad publicity out of the name >change to more than make up for any policies on rulings that they felt >we were unable to cope with. > Why is it, do you suppose, SJG gets good press out of making >mistakes, while WotC would get bad press for it? Maybe SJG is better at listening and making decisions than WotC is, I don't know. Of course, INWO is a different game with a different customer base and different problems. But in any case, I am not for one minute trying to be a WotC apologist, as my stand on the card backs demonstrates. I just think that the concept that WotC should be using this group as an authority on the value of DT rulings - while not bad in general principal - has been overworked by some of the people here to an extent beyond which is valid. I don't think even Steve Jackson would let a newsgroup dictate to him what he must do on any given ruling - much as it may be true that he's more responsive to the people posting in the newsgroup where his game is discussed. (Or it may not be true, I couldn't say...) Fred

Frederick Scott (fre...@netcom.com) wrote: : Even apart from that, you : also totally missed (and thereby did not address) the point that it is not : appropriate to regard game rules as a subject for decisions made by a vote. : I think it's likely that a game where all the rules were controlled by the : sheer weight of numbers of people's opinions would be terrible. Yet that : would be the result of what you're espousing. Then why do they have a design _team_ instead of a design _person_ ? Could it be possible that when several people discuss something, and come to a concensus, that's actually _better_ than someone laying down commands from on high? Hmm... Larrx... Sorry, the DT was a bad example, but you get my point.

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>clarifications every so often :-\ but we are reluctant to issue specific >>changes to the rules that don't appear in print anywhere. > Except, of course, for Combat Ends. The combat ends ruling is a clarification of the rulebook, not a change to it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <fred_sD8...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >>>I'm sorry I do not agree. Random samplings are subject to, well, randomness. >>>It's a small group in comparison to the overall population of players and is >> >> Oh no! I guess that we should stop polling people during >>elections, and the neilson ratings should be disregarded, and all work >>in statistics should be abandonded, since the random samples used in all >>of these cases are, well, random! >> I guess that thesis of mine is total garbage, too, since it >>relied on random samples. >> Or maybe you need a class in statistics. > >I don't know why you think a very small population of posters on a Usenet >board is either statistically, scientifically representive of all Jyhad >players or has remotely the same status as an advertised, fair, and closely >monitored election. That's just downright silly. Even apart from that, you I didn't say a monitored election, I said election polls. Different beast entirely. And made up of a small random sample of people, not the whole electorate. I'm completely serious here: statistics are valid for a surprisingly small sample size. I have had two years of indepth study in the field, as well as performing several statistical experiments. >also totally missed (and thereby did not address) the point that it is not >appropriate to regard game rules as a subject for decisions made by a vote. I never said we had a vote. I said that we were an indicator that something was wrong. There's a difference. We're not voting on the most popular changes we want to see to Jyhad. The cases I'm talking about (as I've said before) are those times where we all agree *without excessive discussion* that there is a problem with the game. Statistically speaking, that *is* a good indication that there is a problem with the game. >I think it's likely that a game where all the rules were controlled by the >sheer weight of numbers of people's opinions would be terrible. Yet that >would be the result of what you're espousing. No, it would not. Look: I am saying that we are a good indication of where problem spots are. I am not saying that we should write the rules, nor am I saying that WotC MUST listen to us. If a game were to be written by committee, you're probably right: it would be gnarly. >For these purposes, absolutely. Taste does not become hard and fast truth >because Jyhad happens to be the game and your group is the one doing the >opining. > >>Okay. I'll remember that. > >Please do, I have been posting a long time for you not to get my point. You're missing *my* point. You're trying to lump the things we disagree about in with the things we all think are problems. Separate them. We're not talking about matters of taste, we're talking about game problems. They are two separate issues. >> It's the design theory that matters the most, not the player >>rantings. And the discussions I've had here center much more on design >>theory than the Magic discussions I've had. > >"Design theory" my butt. It all comes down to what you like and what you >don't like. The DT's version is every bit as valid as your version, whether >you care to admit it or not. Of course, I may very well prefer certain of Bite me. The places that we all agree are problems *are* problems. If you haven't played the game enough to realize that, you have no business in this discussion. >> Which implies that your customer base isn't smart enough to >>understand how your company runs. You're trying to tiptoe around it, >>but that's what you're implying. > >I'm not trying to tiptoe around it. I'm saying it straight out - with a >slight mod. People, by and large, care about their own self-interests. They >may very well know how a company runs to _some_ extent but a) they don't >_really_ understand some of the most critical details because they don't >do it themselves every day and b) even when they do understand, they're not >always completely rational with respect to every decision the company makes >because they're looking at things through their own self-interested eyes. The unwashed masses are incapable of understanding the higher ideals of the responsible and educated game company? You denyed that you were saying this, but it's *still* what you're saying... [ quoted text not captured ]

la...@bu.edu (Larry Harriman) writes: >Frederick Scott (fre...@netcom.com) wrote: > >: Even apart from that, you >: also totally missed (and thereby did not address) the point that it is not >: appropriate to regard game rules as a subject for decisions made by a vote. >: I think it's likely that a game where all the rules were controlled by the >: sheer weight of numbers of people's opinions would be terrible. Yet that >: would be the result of what you're espousing. > >Then why do they have a design _team_ instead of a design _person_ ? Could it >be possible that when several people discuss something, and come to a >concensus, that's actually _better_ than someone laying down commands from on >high? A few selected people who were screened, interviewed, and hired to do it, sure. Anyone and everyone who feels like posting on Usenet, no. Fred

In article <3ob8n5$h...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>>clarifications every so often :-\ but we are reluctant to issue specific >>>changes to the rules that don't appear in print anywhere. >> Except, of course, for Combat Ends. > >The combat ends ruling is a clarification of the rulebook, not a change to it. To you and the DT, maybe so. But not to the vast majority of people who read those rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <fred_sD8...@netcom.com>, >Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >>I don't know why you think a very small population of posters on a Usenet >>board is either statistically, scientifically representive of all Jyhad >>players or has remotely the same status as an advertised, fair, and closely >>monitored election. That's just downright silly. Even apart from that, you > > I didn't say a monitored election, I said election polls. >Different beast entirely. And made up of a small random sample of >people, not the whole electorate. > I'm completely serious here: statistics are valid for a >surprisingly small sample size. I have had two years of indepth study >in the field, as well as performing several statistical experiments. Then you should know that they select the subjects for such a sampling quite deliberately. It does not consist of "everyone who happens to have the right kind of access and wants to have a say". Without this selection, they have little or no idea how the "self-selection" of the participants skews the results. >>also totally missed (and thereby did not address) the point that it is not >>appropriate to regard game rules as a subject for decisions made by a vote. > > I never said we had a vote. I said that we were an indicator >that something was wrong. There's a difference. We're not voting on >the most popular changes we want to see to Jyhad. The cases I'm talking >about (as I've said before) are those times where we all agree *without >excessive discussion* that there is a problem with the game. >Statistically speaking, that *is* a good indication that there is a >problem with the game. I'm sorry, I do not agree at all. What you've got is called "ancedotal evidence" and is not at all a statistical indication of anything. Of course, different people have different opinions on the value of ancedotal evidence and I've indicated before that I certainly think WotC should consider it. But even if they do 1) there's no indication whatsoever of what degree of confidence they can have that the results are representative of the general population and 2) I still say popular will is often not a good basis for designing (or REdesigning) a game. For instance, everyone may agree there's a problem but any possible solution you can think up might create a worse problem - not all problems with games are solvable in a satisfactory way. (Diplomacy is a great example of a game with numerous problems that can't really be solved.) >>I think it's likely that a game where all the rules were controlled by the >>sheer weight of numbers of people's opinions would be terrible. Yet that >>would be the result of what you're espousing. > > No, it would not. Look: I am saying that we are a good >indication of where problem spots are. I am not saying that we should >write the rules, nor am I saying that WotC MUST listen to us. All right - then what are we actually arguing about? From what I can see, WotC has a NetRep hear listening to us talk. As much of it gets back to the DT as they want to hear. The NetRep posts what they want us to know when they want us to know it. I don't really see any room for improvement as far as communication goes. If the games itself isn't what you think is best, that might be because the DT isn't as good as we could hope they'd be or it can also mean that they have different tastes in how the game should play. I guess you can interpret it how you like. >>For these purposes, absolutely. Taste does not become hard and fast truth >>because Jyhad happens to be the game and your group is the one doing the >>opining. > > You're missing *my* point. You're trying to lump the things we >disagree about in with the things we all think are problems. Separate >them. We're not talking about matters of taste, we're talking about >game problems. They are two separate issues. That's just it, I don't think they are. I think that whether you define something in a game as a "problem" or not usually depends on your subjective opinion of what is constitutes a problem. Now, some people's tastes in games are quite a bit more refined than others - just as some people's tastes in art or wine or whatever can be discernably superior to others - but in the end, there's no objective statement to be made when consensus in this newsgroup differs from (what is apparently) consensus on the DT. >>> Which implies that your customer base isn't smart enough to >>>understand how your company runs. You're trying to tiptoe around it, >>>but that's what you're implying. >> >>I'm not trying to tiptoe around it. I'm saying it straight out - with a >>slight mod. People, by and large, care about their own self-interests. They >>may very well know how a company runs to _some_ extent but a) they don't >>_really_ understand some of the most critical details because they don't >>do it themselves every day and b) even when they do understand, they're not >>always completely rational with respect to every decision the company makes >>because they're looking at things through their own self-interested eyes. > > The unwashed masses are incapable of understanding the higher >ideals of the responsible and educated game company? > You denyed that you were saying this, but it's *still* what >you're saying... It is not what I'm saying. I am saying that any average Joe can express an opinion about how I should do my job. But unless Joe has to DO my job - and not just a job LIKE my job at another company but MY JOB PERIOD, with my boss in my environment dealing with the details I have to deal with - then he doesn't necessarily know what the hell he's talking about. He MIGHT be able to make a good suggestion every now and again but at the same time he might be way fuckin' out to lunch because of some detail or daily practicality of which he can have no clue (and not to blame him, he just doesn't know). And what is true of my job, I feel, is also likely to be true of the design team members' jobs. THAT'S what I'm saying. Fred

fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes: >>Could it >>be possible that when several people discuss something, and come to a >>concensus, that's actually _better_ than someone laying down commands from on >>high? >A few selected people who were screened, interviewed, and hired to do it, >sure. Anyone and everyone who feels like posting on Usenet, no. Do you think that's how the DT was created? The usenet posters have almost all displayed caution and humility. They don't provide ideas as gospel, and, if anything, underestimate their skills at analysis. I get lots of email from intelligent and analytical people saying things like "I don't have enough experience to participate in the rules discussion" when they do. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <fred_sD8...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>Then why do they have a design _team_ instead of a design _person_ ? Could it >>be possible that when several people discuss something, and come to a >>concensus, that's actually _better_ than someone laying down commands from on >>high? > >A few selected people who were screened, interviewed, and hired to do it, >sure. Anyone and everyone who feels like posting on Usenet, no. How about this: a few people who worked at WotC and happened to like the game volunteered to do it. But they also have other jobs at WotC which sometimes take time away. That's okay, though, because they work at WotC, which makes them better for the job than others... [ quoted text not captured ]

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes: > >>(someone else wrote) >>>Could it be possible that when several people discuss something, and come >>>to a concensus, that's actually _better_ than someone laying down commands >>>from on high? > >>A few selected people who were screened, interviewed, and hired to do it, >>sure. Anyone and everyone who feels like posting on Usenet, no. > >Do you think that's how the DT was created? Well, forgive me for being naive but that's how one would tend to expect that they hired for the job, yes. Do you have knowledge to the contrary? >The usenet posters have almost all displayed caution and humility. They >don't provide ideas as gospel, and, if anything, underestimate their >skills at analysis. I get lots of email from intelligent and analytical >people saying things like "I don't have enough experience to participate >in the rules discussion" when they do. I have had a great deal of experience of that sort with reasonable and sensible posters as well. I have also had a great deal of experience to the contrary. Yes, Curt, you and certain others here may very well have been superior choices for the membership of the DT than who's on it now. I wouldn't pretend to know. But my point is the door to Usenet is open to anyone...and that's great - I wouldn't have it any other way. It makes Usenet a great forum for the exchange of ideas. On the other hand, I think it makes a lousy way to control a game. Deciding whether the losing gladiator lived or died was probably a lot of fun for the crowds at the Coliseum but it was no system of justice. Fred