B****Y CARD LIMITS!!!

Hi, I have posted to and read this group (under "D.P.Hammersley" and "Super Ted") for almost a couple of years now and yet every now and again the same question of card limits pops up. The main protagonists of the opposing sides seem to be Scott Johnson and Ben Redmond - there are others but these two seem to be the most vociferous. The point I am making is does it really matter? I mean who cares? Each group should play as they see fit. Why does there have to be a right and a wrong way to play Jyhad? Both sides have valid arguments and neither side is going to back down so why bother? The debates continue to be increasingly acrimonious and I repeat, does there have to be a right way? As the saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Give us all a break!!! Oh yeah, and please no-one reply to me saying, 'but don't you see, NL/4CL is the way to go' - myself and many others just don't want to know. Peter

CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes: >The main protagonists of the opposing sides seem to be Scott >Johnson and Ben Redmond - there are others but these two seem >to be the most vociferous. Thanks, but I merely echo the wisdom of Corrupter, Curt Adams, et. al. I am not the most vocal supporter of NL - I usually leave it to the others who defend NL much more eloquently than I. >The point I am making is does it really matter? I mean who >cares? Each group should play as they see fit. Why does >there have to be a right and a wrong way to play Jyhad? Then why read the newsgroup at all? Why bother to find out if the errata on Blood to Water (close range only) affects game play? Why try to keep up with the implications of the latest DCI rules set? Why get a "as hand-strike" ruling on superior Rutor's Hand? The answer is: so that we can play the game properly, no matter where we go (even when we go to tournaments). I suspect that the CL crowd would prefer that the DCI adopted a card limit. That would be a good reason to lobby here (assuming that some representative of WotC reads this group). This group is a good forum for such issues - witness the DCI's adoption of Corrupter's SPTR (using a different fix for vote pushing, but still getting the job done). While the DCI has tried card limits in various forms, only to find that they didn't fix the problem, there is always the possibility that someone will come up with better arguments for CL - enough to make CL more effective than SPTR in creating a solid, fun game environment. >Both sides have valid arguments and neither side is going to >back down so why bother? The debates continue to be >increasingly acrimonious and I repeat, does there have to be >a right way? As the saying goes, there's more than one way >to skin a cat. We debated the resolution timing of S:CE and actually accomplished something. Debate (and other forms of free exchange of ideas) is usually a good thing. Only when people adopt the "stop countering my points! you're not paying attention!" does the process cease to be productive. >Give us all a break!!! Here's more of a tip than a break: configure your newsreader to kill articles with subjects matching 'CL' and 'card limit' and 'no limit' and 'NL' and you'll be spared the bulk of the exchanges that you find so bothersome. The debate on card limits falls well withing the charter of this newsgroup. Those that wish to avoid such a debate are welcome to skip the articles or to do something productive to decrease the need for such debate (like starting a FAQ on the card limit pros and cons - something already started in a sense at http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html#4-CARD I myself got tired of seeing the same old rules wuestions asked over and over on this group, and since WotC wasn't aroud at the time (deja vu), I started my errata summary sheets. Being productive feels better than just complaining about the current state of things. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Hard work has a future payoff. http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Laziness pays off now. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, D.P. Hammersley wrote: [Re: CL debate] > The point I am making is does it really matter? I mean who > cares? Each group should play as they see fit. Why does > there have to be a right and a wrong way to play Jyhad? It's not that the right/wrong way argument that matters (at least not for me). What matters is the effect that the house rule has on game play and popularity. If the game pushes people away, for various reasons, it will slowly die out. Currently, many aspects of the game make it unaccessable (people feel it takes too long, etc). There has not been clear uniform acceptance of tournament rules (though I expect this to soon change). But in playing, the main complaint I have heard from people who no longer play the game is this: "The game is broken. S&B dominates if people are playing to win." I usually ask if they played a CL, and inevitably the response is yes. Simply put, those people I know who were interested in Jyhad and dropped, dropped due to current lack of support from WotC, non-interest in long games, or their CL-based expectations on brokenness. > Both sides have valid arguments and neither side is going to > back down so why bother? There has yet to be a reasonable response to anti-CL arguments. Read B.D. Redmond's responses in defense of CL (one of the better attempt), and you'll find that he ignores some arguments, gives no proof or attempt at evidence in others, and disregards many as being unimportant. If you put that post in context with others by him, you'll find distinct contradictions. Again, simply put, CL has yet to answer NL attacks, while NL has successfully shown its superiority. I don't claim that this is an ultimate truth (I doubt that can ever be said about much), but I do claim that the current NL arguments are better than CL arguments. [His defense of CL is available at Judith and Mark's Jyhad Page, link available from URL in .sig below] > The debates continue to be > increasingly acrimonious and I repeat, does there have to be > a right way? As the saying goes, there's more than one way > to skin a cat. Yes, there are many ways to play. CL is really just another house rule. However, when WotC might change the tournament rules to CL by virtue of their voices, it is quite important to voice opposition (at least if you disagree). By making the SPTR well known (my sources at GenCon tell me that most every Jyhad player there (not all, mind you) knew of the rules, a majority preferred them), the DCI standard was changed. I feel it is important to make a reasonable rules set stay relatively constant. This changing of DCI rules has been detrimental to the game. > Give us all a break!!! > Oh yeah, and please no-one reply to me saying, 'but don't you > see, NL/4CL is the way to go' - myself and many others just > don't want to know. I promise not to bring up the point if not prompted, but I won't hesitate to respond to (foolish) CL posts. [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # P++ C(+++) USX+ N++ !w @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ X++ b++(+++) tv(+)> @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ e+* PS++@ PE@ z*++?

I think that its safe to assume that most people who argue vehemently for or against card limits play, within their own playgroup, using the rules that they support. It is probably safe to say that they do this because the honestly find those rules make the game more fun, which is what it is all about. Nothing forces all Jyhad/VTESH players to play with the same rules, so each group should play the way they find more entertaining. Argueing back and forth is of questionable value(although it IS fun in and of itself, and our group DOES have a lot more fun after we switched to NL/GT). However, some sort of consensus should be reached regarding which method is better for TOURNAMENT play. In a tournament setting there is a more "playing to win" mentality, and social considerations cannot be counted on to prevent loophole exploitation and other cheese(although a bit in the discriptive blurb about a 4CL tournament we ran here seemed to be pretty effective at keeping away unwanted malkavians... or maybe it was the fact that we realy did have enough dementias to make good on the threat of handing them out at the door.) Obviously, there could be "type II" tournament rules, but that means that every tournament would have to choose between two(or more) sets of "official" rules, which is only slightly better than having no official rules(or having official rules that are just too horible to actually play with : ) Thoughts?

>CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes: >>The main protagonists of the opposing sides seem to be Scott >>Johnson and Ben Redmond - there are others but these two seem >>to be the most vociferous. > >Thanks, but I merely echo the wisdom of Corrupter, Curt Adams, >et. al. I am not the most vocal supporter of NL - I usually >leave it to the others who defend NL much more eloquently >than I. > >>The point I am making is does it really matter? I mean who >>cares? Each group should play as they see fit. Why does >>there have to be a right and a wrong way to play Jyhad? > >Then why read the newsgroup at all? Why bother to find out >if the errata on Blood to Water (close range only) affects >game play? Why try to keep up with the implications of the >latest DCI rules set? Why get a "as hand-strike" ruling on >superior Rutor's Hand? > >The answer is: so that we can play the game properly, no matter >where we go (even when we go to tournaments). > >I suspect that the CL crowd would prefer that the DCI adopted >a card limit. That would be a good reason to lobby here (assuming >that some representative of WotC reads this group). This >group is a good forum for such issues - witness the DCI's >adoption of Corrupter's SPTR (using a different fix for vote >pushing, but still getting the job done). > >While the DCI has tried card limits in various forms, only to >find that they didn't fix the problem, there is always the >possibility that someone will come up with better arguments for >CL - enough to make CL more effective than SPTR in creating a >solid, fun game environment. > >>Both sides have valid arguments and neither side is going to >>back down so why bother? The debates continue to be >>increasingly acrimonious and I repeat, does there have to be >>a right way? As the saying goes, there's more than one way >>to skin a cat. > >We debated the resolution timing of S:CE and actually >accomplished something. Debate (and other forms of free >exchange of ideas) is usually a good thing. Only when people >adopt the "stop countering my points! you're not paying >attention!" does the process cease to be productive. > >>Give us all a break!!! > Did you actually READ my message? I mean properly READ - you know, take time to comprehend what I was actually saying? I don't think you did, did you? My argument was limited solely to the acrimonious card limit debate. Was this not clear enough? Has it not occurred to you also that the less time spent discussing such a fruitless topic could be time well spent debating all the other things you mentioned? "Then why read the newsgroup at all?" - erm...why not read my message properly? Of course I fully support the discussion of everything else - why else would I subscribe? Your only valid point (though it did appear rather tenuous) was the posting of card limit arguments to influence the DCI. If people want to do this then I suggest they mail them direct. But lets face it, there probably isn't going to be a ruling as one simply isn't required. There is no definitive right or wrong about card limits - why not accept this? When I named yourself as one of the protagonists along with B. Redmond, it was merely as an example with no other implication implied. Peter

On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, D.P. Hammersley wrote: > >CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes: [Re: CL] > >>The point I am making is does it really matter? I mean who > >>cares? Each group should play as they see fit. Why does > >>there have to be a right and a wrong way to play Jyhad? [LSJ's response] > >Then why read the newsgroup at all? [snipped example's of rules related questions (yet unanswered) that effect general game play.] > >The answer is: so that we can play the game properly, no matter > >where we go (even when we go to tournaments). [Snipped commentary on how lobbying here got the DCI to basicly be SPTR] > >While the DCI has tried card limits in various forms, only to > >find that they didn't fix the problem, there is always the > >possibility that someone will come up with better arguments for > >CL - enough to make CL more effective than SPTR in creating a > >solid, fun game environment. > >>Both sides have valid arguments and neither side is going to > >>back down so why bother? The debates continue to be > >>increasingly acrimonious and I repeat, does there have to be > >>a right way? As the saying goes, there's more than one way > >>to skin a cat. > >We debated the resolution timing of S:CE and actually > >accomplished something. Debate (and other forms of free > >exchange of ideas) is usually a good thing. Only when people > >adopt the "stop countering my points! you're not paying > >attention!" does the process cease to be productive. I have to agree here. While I haven't really seen comparative benefit to CL (even after playing it), the problem with the CL debates thus far has been this: - the NL group (mostly) has given reasons and evidence to support opinions - the CL group responds by saying "stop countering my points! You just don't get it!" rather than actually debating the points. > >>Give us all a break!!! No. Do the newsgroup a favor and either defend your opinions with supporting evidence rather than opinion. In short Debate, don't Discount. > Did you actually READ my message? I mean properly READ - you know, take time > to comprehend what I was actually saying? I don't think you did, did you? > My argument was limited solely to the acrimonious card limit debate. Was > this not clear enough? Your point may have been limited to that, but the implications go further than that. > Has it not occurred to you also that the less time spent discussing such a > fruitless topic could be time well spent debating all the other things you > mentioned? "Then why read the newsgroup at all?" - erm...why not read my > message properly? Of course I fully support the discussion of everything > else - why else would I subscribe? LSJ's point, if I understand it, is a perfectly reasonable and on-topic response to yours. He is comparing discussion of rules which have implications on the game as a whole to discussion of card limits. They both affect the way the game is played in a very concrete way. If discussion/debate about one is not considered good, how can you consider discussion debate about the other good. To go off on a tangent, and return to a previous point that both he and I are making, my _only_ problem with how these "debates" have been going is that they aren't really debates at all. They begin as such, but quickly break down into a refusal of one side to counter points with anything but opinion. The fun of a game is something where opinion is an issue, but when talking about fundamental issues of game balance, opinion is not important at all, only evidence is. > Your only valid point (though it did appear rather tenuous) was the posting > of card limit arguments to influence the DCI. If people want to do this then > I suggest they mail them direct. Why? So that they can be a solitary voice? I would hazard a guess that the DCI adopted an SPTR-like tournament rules set because of the group voice on it, not because I or any other supporter of the SPTR or Golden Tenets talked to them by ourselves. Change rarely happens because of the will of one person. It requires many, and as such, concerns like the above need to be talked about with more people on a wider scale. > But lets face it, there probably isn't > going to be a ruling as one simply isn't required. There is no > definitive right or wrong about card limits - why not accept this? "Why not accept this?" I don't simply "accept" anything. I feel to do so is foolhardy. After looking at the differences between CL and NL, I feel that NL is superior. It isn't morally "right", but the game mechanics, design intent, and numerous other issues make it a better choice. This isn't based solely on what I personally feel is better, but based on analysis of the environment. I can accept someone saying "Let's agree to disagree". I cannot accept someone proclaiming as truth that "X is better than Y" or "there really isn't a difference between X and Y" when the evidence suggests otherwise.. If someone chooses to play CL, that is their business. When I meet these people, I usually ask them why they play that way and if they have thought about NL. If they want to don't want to talk about it, we don't. If you don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up or use a killfile. Otherwise, please be prepared to give reasons for your opinions. You don't know how sick I am of hearing "Well that's just the way it is... Why don't you accept it." [ quoted text not captured ]

CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes: >>CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes: >>>The main protagonists of the opposing sides seem to be Scott >>>Johnson and Ben Redmond - there are others but these two seem >>>to be the most vociferous. >> >>Thanks, but I merely echo the wisdom of Corrupter, Curt Adams, >>et. al. I am not the most vocal supporter of NL - I usually >>leave it to the others who defend NL much more eloquently >>than I. >> >Did you actually READ my message? I mean properly READ - you know, take time >to comprehend what I was actually saying? I don't think you did, did you? >When I named yourself as one of the protagonists along with B. Redmond, it >was merely as an example with no other implication implied. You named me as one of the two "main" protagonists, and stated that I (and BDR) seem to be the most vociferous. This is not merely an example. There is not "impli-" anything about it - it's explicit. Or did you actually READ your message? [ quoted text not captured ]

CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes: >Has it not occurred to you also that the less time spent discussing such a >fruitless topic could be time well spent debating all the other things you >mentioned? "Then why read the newsgroup at all?" - erm...why not read my >message properly? Of course I fully support the discussion of everything >else - why else would I subscribe? Discussion of card limits has changed many minds on this group, including mine. I'd say the consensus for NL this group has formed has been useful and influential. Frankly, of all the many heated ongoing discussions I've seen on the net, this has been the only one in which substantial numbers of posters have changed sides. It's valuable for sociological reasons, if nothing else :-) Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Hi, I'm afraid I don't have much time so I'll try and be brief: One of your main points is freedom of debate. By my approach I don't mean to unduly disqualify all other debating topics. Quite simply I didn't like what I saw, i.e. an increasingly bitter and aggressive debate on this particular subject - card limits. I accept that each side has valid points (although we disagree on the extent of this). My original point was to try and put an end to the debate for the reason stated above and also because it tended to dominate the group more than any other issue with no resolution in sight. My action was prompted by a couple of fellow posters withdrawing from subscription to the group largely because of this point. Many other issues have been discussed profitably in the past and also I am sure in the future, but this point has shown no indication of going away and remains a point of contention. I think personally that one way to go on the subject is to have a frequently reposted article discussing the pros and cons of both systems: NL and CL. This would suit the committed advocates of each argument if their points were fairly made and newcomers could (perhaps) if they have any queries mail a person listed on the article. I would be glad to receieve any feedback on these points. Peter

CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes: >I think personally that one way to go on the subject is to have a frequently >reposted article discussing the pros and cons of both systems: NL and CL. >This would suit the committed advocates of each argument if their points were >fairly made and newcomers could (perhaps) if they have any queries mail a >person listed on the article. I would be glad to receieve any feedback on >these points. This is a good idea, and will reduce pointless rehashing of already-covered points. Are you volunteering? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

[ quoted text not captured ] There is a small but substantial collection of the more informed, polished, and eloquent articles against the 4 Card limit (as well as one article for it) at: http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html If anyone wants to review past articles, I suggest they start there. -Mark Langsdorf http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

On 24 Oct 1996, Thomas Doehne wrote: [Re: Making a NL/CL FAQ, with point-counterpoint given] > I'll volunteer, but I think it would be best for at least two > people to work on this, one with a CL bias, one with an NL bias, > if we want to achieve any kind of 'balanced' argument. I suggest people submit articles defending/attacking CL/NL to you or others, and they be available at a website. People's articles should be revisable, to take into account unthought of arguments that might be presented by readers, but the article format should be maintained to avoid loss of a cohesive topic that is so wont to happen in this forum. I would happily upon my site open to such a forum, if need be. > OTOH, the recurrent argument has convinced many former CL advocates > to play NL, and (AFAIK) none the other way, so perhaps a "balanced" > presentation is not really appropriate. It's likely the only way. I myself can recount most CL-arguments of the top of my head, and I'm sure many pro-CL know many of the NL-arguments. I know that I could maintain impartiality, for example, when actually presenting CL arguments on a website, though I _definately_ don't agree with them. The question is more this - without representatives from each side, is the topic being addressed to each side's liking. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <54jca9$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes: >>I think personally that one way to go on the subject is to have a >frequently >>reposted article discussing the pros and cons of both systems: NL and CL. > >>This would suit the committed advocates of each argument if their points >were >>fairly made and newcomers could (perhaps) if they have any queries mail a >>person listed on the article. I would be glad to receieve any feedback >on >>these points. > >This is a good idea, and will reduce pointless rehashing of >already-covered points. Are you volunteering? I'll volunteer, but I think it would be best for at least two people to work on this, one with a CL bias, one with an NL bias, if we want to achieve any kind of 'balanced' argument. OTOH, the recurrent argument has convinced many former CL advocates to play NL, and (AFAIK) none the other way, so perhaps a "balanced" presentation is not really appropriate. Thoughts? -- Tom Doehne

In article <54oqno$g...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] You reckon? I feel the general feeling was that nobody could agree to disagree. If some people in your area have changed then fair enough, but I can tell you most assuredly that not one person I know has changed from card limits after reading the arguement. Both styles have there merits, some will prefere card limit and some won't. I started on no card limit myself and introduced my friends to it. We changed to 4 card limit because we felt it was more challenging. It's that simple. I feel your statement above was meant merely in support of no card limit and not based on any facts gleaned on the net. This sort of biased approach is not needed. LOS

doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes: >I'll volunteer, but I think it would be best for at least two >people to work on this, one with a CL bias, one with an NL bias, >if we want to achieve any kind of 'balanced' argument. >OTOH, the recurrent argument has convinced many former CL advocates >to play NL, and (AFAIK) none the other way, so perhaps a "balanced" >presentation is not really appropriate. But an unbalanced presentation will not be respected by CL advocates and hence do little good. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)