Silence of Death format

Hi all, hope to not beat a dead horse with this, i did a little search on the group but i found nothing about it. What do you think about the idea of making the Silence of Death format official (both for standard constructed and limited event) in the VEKN rules ? I discussed this in my playgroup, and all of us agreed that this format could help a lot in getting new players introduced into the game at official tournaments, because the SoD spares the newbes from a lot of table talk, that at first usually scares a lot the newcomers of vtes. feedbacks appreciated regards Emiliano, vekn Prince of Rome

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> a écrit dans le message de news:u6Ndi.12637$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > What do you think about the idea of making the Silence > of Death format official (both for standard constructed and limited event) > in the VEKN rules ? it kills one of the best features of the game, namely table talk, so making the format official would be a bad thing. I had "co-designed" the format with Stephane Lavrut (nothing to brag about, really, my point is that I'm familiar with the format). The original and simple idea is that it makes games quicker (actually, the idea came up when the shop was like due to close within the hour, so we couldn't afford the usual long discussions) in average. The second (and last) benefit is that it attracts the pool of players who either are not good at deal-making or hate it (or both), and who therefore shun the regular sanctioned tournaments. If you happen to host sanctioned tournaments on a regular basis (i.e. 1/month), it can be nice for unsanctioned tournaments, just for the sake of a little change here and then, but that's the end of it. Stone

[ quoted text not captured ] The most attractive aspect (the social table talk-deal making) is making potential new players just to go away from the game however, at least here. The game in itself has lot of learning curve, being just complicated on its own, and the power of table-talk over the play of cards alone usually just make it less attractive from the start to new players (above all, the less-prone to table talk, as you remark). With a sanctioned SoD format, new players could feel they're playing still an official sanctioned event with its own ranking (a thing that players usually love), learning at the same time the game toward the "pro-game" of tournaments with table talk/deals. I really can't see how this could be a bad thing. Getting an official level of tournament in which less-experienced players can still play and learn the game at tournament-level, would improve the chanches of attracting new players in the game (a thing that vtes needs a lot, IMHO). To be clear: i'm not saying to swith to SoD as the only format x official events, just to have it has another format of sanctioned game (clearly more newbes/less-experienced oriented), in which newcomers can play deal-free, allowing them to learn better the mechanincs/interaction of cards and the situations on the table alone. regards Emiliano

On Jun 19, 7:45 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > With a sanctioned SoD format, new players could feel they're playing still > an official sanctioned event with its own ranking (a thing that players > usually love), While I'm a big fan of the idea of official VTES tournaments without the endless table prattle where some tool tries to make some long term deal every time someone takes an action ("Hey, grand predator, if I block this insignificant hunt action my prey takes, what will you do for me 6 turns in the future? No, really, think of something. I'll hold up the game while you consider. Let me take 10 minutes to explain to you how it is your best interest to make this deal with me now, though..."), it seems unlikely that this will happen if for no other reason that implementing another format to rate is unlikely to happen. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It's would be not just another format to rate - it would be a good chanche for WW/CCp too to make more money from the game, attracting players from the potential pool of magic-like, that are not prone to table talk/deals but maube are still interested in playing a multiplayer ccg. At the same time, the sanctioned SoD could create a "beginners" level of tournaments (with a ranking of its own), with the actual one (deals/table talk) to be raised somewhat at "pro" level. Imho, it would be a good chanche both for the vendor and the organizers to increase the player base. best regards Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] > Emiliano- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - Personally, I don't like long table discussions either. But I don't think that SoD is a good way for newbies to play the game. The mechanics of the game are to complicated for noobs to fully understand what is going on table balance-wise. In SoD no-one can explain either. It is perfectly possible in a normal game to explain a noob what the consequences of his actions (may) be. This way - assuming that he believes a cross table coach - he learns more about the game than playing SoD.

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> a écrit dans le message de news:JePdi.12948$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > To be clear: i'm not saying to swith to SoD as the only format x official > events, > just to have it has another format of sanctioned game (clearly more > newbes/less-experienced oriented), in which newcomers can play deal-free, > allowing them to learn better the mechanincs/interaction of cards and the > situations > on the table alone. Frankly, the point about newbie/less-experienced players shouldn't be an issue. When new players come to give a try to VtES in a shop, I'm ok to play with them, so long as it's a 3-player game. In a 5-player game, it's just not possible to play properly, because the newbie is manipulated by the rest of the table and takes too much time trying to grasp what the gazillion cards mean. Once the newbie is a bit familiar with the game, the rest (i.e. deal-making) just comes naturally. Even more, they learn a lot from experienced table talk, without doing anything : in our last game with a new player, the newbie was in bad shape due to his inexperience (all vamps in torpor, 3 pool). The other four started ripping each other's throat and it ended with the newbie getting cross-table rescue and the like, getting a way better position than he could have dreamt of. As for the false "newbies" that already have an experience of duel games (LoR, WoW etc.), they're often good enough with TCG mechanisms and tactics to just climb the learning curve in no time, and hop straight to deal making. Stone

Jeroen wrote: > On 19 jun, 13:45, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> Stone wrote: >>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> a écrit dans le message de >>> news:u6Ndi.12637$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >>>> What do you think about the idea of making the Silence >>>> of Death format official (both for standard constructed and limited >>>> event) in the VEKN rules ? >> >> Emiliano- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - >> >> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - > > Personally, I don't like long table discussions either. But I don't > think that SoD is a good way for newbies to play the game. The > mechanics of the game are to complicated for noobs to fully understand > what is going on table balance-wise. In SoD no-one can explain either. > Yes, but you should not be supposed to "explain" the game at a tournament. Bear in mind that on SoD format you still have the chanche to explain clearly what you're doing and the cards you're playing/controlloing, that's perfectly doable. > It is perfectly possible in a normal game to explain a noob what the > consequences of his actions (may) be. This way - assuming that he > believes a cross table coach - he learns more about the game than > playing SoD. I think that new plalyers usually are more prone to be scared enough in attending at a tournament with lots of table talks /vitrioles by deals, rather than being attracted by the chanche of someone "explaining" them how to play the game - with that usually ending up with the newbe to be manipulated by the most experienced/comunicative player at the table. Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > I think that new plalyers usually are more prone to be scared enough in > attending at a tournament with lots of table talks /vitrioles by deals, > rather than being attracted by the chanche of someone "explaining" them > how to play the game - with that usually ending up with the newbe to be > manipulated by the most experienced/comunicative player at the table. Probably a better solution would then be to run a "newbie" unsanctioned tournament. By keeping it unsanctioned, the experienced players don't have any rating or ranking to worry about, and can focus on having fun and helping the newbies have fun. I've run such tournaments before. It works.

Stone wrote: > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> a écrit dans le message de > news:JePdi.12948$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> To be clear: i'm not saying to swith to SoD as the only format x >> official events, >> just to have it has another format of sanctioned game (clearly more >> newbes/less-experienced oriented), in which newcomers can play >> deal-free, allowing them to learn better the mechanincs/interaction >> of cards and the situations >> on the table alone. > > Frankly, the point about newbie/less-experienced players shouldn't be > an issue. It is a lot - at least here. > When new players come to give a try to VtES in a shop, I'm Due cheap prices on the internet, at least here in Italy almost no local shop sells vtes, but this is another issue not directly related with my point now. > ok to play with them, so long as it's a 3-player game. In a 5-player > game, it's just not possible to play properly, because the newbie is > manipulated by the rest of the table and takes too much time trying > to grasp what the gazillion cards mean. Once the newbie is a bit > familiar with the game, the rest (i.e. deal-making) just comes > naturally. Even more, they learn a lot from experienced table talk, > without doing anything : in our last game with a new player, the > newbie was in bad shape due to his inexperience (all vamps in torpor, > 3 pool). The other four started ripping each other's throat and it > ended with the newbie getting cross-table rescue and the like, > getting a way better position than he could have dreamt of. May i ask you how many new players come to play vtes on regular basis at your local playgroup, in the last year ? Maybe we face different situations. > As for the false "newbies" that already have an experience of duel > games (LoR, WoW etc.), they're often good enough with TCG mechanisms > and tactics to just climb the learning curve in no time, and hop > straight to deal making. There would be not "false newbe" in this case: simply, people could play in a lesser "pro" format tournament, with the ease for less experienced players of being deal/table talk free. It could give the chanche to experienced players to play in the same event of the new one. Still i can't see how this could be bad for the game - i think that after so many years vtes could raise at a level in which there's a "pro" format tournament and somewhat a "beginners" one. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] You know that the game it's not so widespread - the stable players base, at least in italy, is about 10-15 people per city - most of them are people playing vtes from long long time, that are not so interested in playing an unofficial event. Besides this, in front of the already tournament structure, new players usually get not good feeling in having to play an unsactioned/unranked event just to play a "tournament"- More, in vtes they have a lot to learn with the game in itself, and the table talk/deals system just creates for them a very complicated level to deal with . Personally, it seems strange that a longstanding game such as vtes still has not a sanctioned tournament format more beginners/less experienced players oriented. (and with SoD, the "pro" gamers could still play it without being too much advantaged with their experience of table talk/deals). > I've run such tournaments before. It works. Not here, unluckily - for example, at the time i ran the gehenna prophecies league (that is a sort of longstanding unofficial tournament) especially for the newbes, but without any success - most of new players just went away pissed by table talk/deals ("ehy, i buy the cards to play, i can't buy deals/social table talk abilty"). Next september i will play it again under the SoD rules, to check if the reactions will be the same. just my 2 cent Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > You know that the game it's not so widespread - the stable players base, > at least in italy, is about 10-15 people per city - most of them are > people playing vtes from long long time, that are not so interested in > playing an unofficial event. > > Besides this, in front of the already tournament structure, new players > usually get not good > feeling in having to play an unsactioned/unranked event just to play a > "tournament"- Then you could make your own ratings -- Italian Newbie League Ratings or something -- if that's what it takes to get the players to play there.

[ quoted text not captured ] Would it be official ? The point lies in this - players get away from a ccg game in which there no real connection between the official game and the local structure supporting it.

On Jun 19, 7:59 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > It's would be not just another format to rate - it would be a good chanche > for WW/CCp > too to make more money from the game, attracting players from the potential > pool of > magic-like, that are not prone to table talk/deals but maube are still > interested in playing > a multiplayer ccg. Or, ya know, folks could just oust their prey and not worry so much about making deals. A good portion of the current tournament rules exist specifically to cut down on the endless wheeling and dealing that takes place some times in these games. The solution to table talk making the game take longer and putting newer players at a "disadvantage" is not to sanction a new format, but to talk less. > At the same time, the sanctioned SoD could create a "beginners" level of > tournaments > (with a ranking of its own), with the actual one (deals/table talk) to be > raised somewhat > at "pro" level. > Imho, it would be a good chanche both for the vendor and the organizers to > increase the player base. There isn't really a way to ensure that someone playing in the "beginners" level is a beginner. And there isn't really (short of, ya know, Silence of Death) way to keep folks from talking endlessly and making dubious cross table deals in the name of "table balance" or some such silliness anyway. -Peter

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>> You know that the game it's not so widespread - the stable players >>> base, at least in italy, is about 10-15 people per city - most of >>> them are people playing vtes from long long time, that are not so >>> interested in playing an unofficial event. >>> >>> Besides this, in front of the already tournament structure, new >>> players usually get not good >>> feeling in having to play an unsactioned/unranked event just to play >>> a "tournament"- >> Then you could make your own ratings -- Italian Newbie League Ratings >> or something -- if that's what it takes to get the players to play >> there. > > Would it be official ? To whom? It wouldn't be the official WW rating, no. It would be the official Italian League rating (assuming the Italian League agrees). Like V:EKN back in the DCI days. > The point lies in this - players get away from a ccg game in which > there no real connection between the official game and the > local structure supporting it. The official game uses table talk. Removing that breaks the connection. I'm trying to offer solutions within the premise given.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 19, 7:59 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> It's would be not just another format to rate - it would be a good >> chanche for WW/CCp >> too to make more money from the game, attracting players from the >> potential pool of >> magic-like, that are not prone to table talk/deals but maube are >> still interested in playing >> a multiplayer ccg. > > Or, ya know, folks could just oust their prey and not worry so much > about making deals. Yes, that exaclty the point. In an enviroment in which the local players base are 10-15 people playing the game for so long, it's almost impossible to get new players at tournament. The stable players know each other well, the new ones usually will just run away once they discover that they must have more abilty in social interaction at the game's table rather than learning how to play with the complex cards vtes system. This happened many times here. > A good portion of the current tournament rules > exist specifically to cut down on the endless wheeling and dealing > that takes place some times in these games. The intention was clear, yes, i appreciated it much - but this is not happening, however. > The solution to table talk > making the game take longer and putting newer players at a > "disadvantage" is not to sanction a new format, but to talk less. > Not if that "talk-less" isn't implied in the current tournament rules. Experienced players deals and do table talk as much as before (and experienced players are just the base keeping alive the game in every city) Don't get me wrong, i think this can be good because it gives an unique level of play for vtes - that's bad, on the other side, because beginners usually just feel cut from this all-consuming social interaction/deals at the table, because there's no other option left for sanctioned events (and it's pretty normal that experienced players are not prone to teach a "different" game to newbies other than the one suggested by the official tournament format). >> At the same time, the sanctioned SoD could create a "beginners" >> level of tournaments >> (with a ranking of its own), with the actual one (deals/table talk) >> to be raised somewhat >> at "pro" level. >> Imho, it would be a good chanche both for the vendor and the >> organizers to increase the player base. > > There isn't really a way to ensure that someone playing in the > "beginners" level is a beginner. And there isn't really (short of, ya > know, Silence of Death) way to keep folks from talking endlessly and > making dubious cross table deals in the name of "table balance" or > some such silliness anyway. At least in my experience, experienced players and less-experienced ones can co-exists better in a no-table deals enviroment rather than in an all-table-talk consuming one. The "problem" of telling beginners from "no beginners" just would not exist in this case (local official SoD tournament), given the relative small number (again, 10-15) of stable players attending at sanctioned events. For the big events (such as qualifiers and championship) the "pro" deals-table talk format would remain the same, with SoD format option left for would-be side event, as usual. just my 2 votes Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] It seems me more you're offering a cut from the official scene rather than considering effectively the point and the premises given. best Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] It can be the suggested guideline for an unsanctioned newbie tournament. > Experienced players deals and do table talk as much as before > (and experienced players are just the base keeping alive the game in every > city) > Don't get me wrong, i think this can be good because it gives an unique > level of play for vtes - > that's bad, on the other side, because beginners usually > just feel cut from this all-consuming social interaction/deals > at the table, because there's no other option left for sanctioned events > (and it's pretty normal that experienced players are not prone to > teach a "different" game to newbies other than the one suggested by the > official > tournament format). Silence of Death is a "different" game, cut off from the non-beginners game. >>> At the same time, the sanctioned SoD could create a "beginners" >>> level of tournaments >>> (with a ranking of its own), with the actual one (deals/table talk) >>> to be raised somewhat >>> at "pro" level. >>> Imho, it would be a good chanche both for the vendor and the >>> organizers to increase the player base. >> There isn't really a way to ensure that someone playing in the >> "beginners" level is a beginner. And there isn't really (short of, ya >> know, Silence of Death) way to keep folks from talking endlessly and >> making dubious cross table deals in the name of "table balance" or >> some such silliness anyway. > > At least in my experience, experienced players and less-experienced ones can > co-exists better > in a no-table deals enviroment rather than in an all-table-talk consuming > one. > The "problem" of telling beginners from "no beginners" just would not > exist in this case (local official SoD tournament), given the relative > small number (again, 10-15) of stable players attending at sanctioned > events. > For the big events (such as qualifiers and championship) the "pro" > deals-table talk format > would remain the same, with SoD format option left for would-be side event, > as usual. But Silence of Death doesn't help the newbies learn how to play at the non-beginners (table talking) tables. A regular (non-sanctioned) "newbie tournament" series would.

Tetragrammaton wrote: > It seems me more you're offering a cut from the official scene rather than > considering > effectively the point and the premises given. No. I'm offering a solution to the premise given (newbies having a hard time integrating to the "pro" level play). One of the solutions is to help the newbies work their way up to the pro level by practicing in unsanctioned "newbie tournaments". This is not a "cut from the official scene". A cut from the official scene would be using a non-bridging-the-gap format like Silence of Death (which doesn't help the newbie learn to play at the official scene).

[ quoted text not captured ] If the non sanctioned series would (and it wouldn't because experienced players that form the players base are not so interested in playing unofficial tournament, at least here, so there would be not players attending but 2-3 newbies) and the prince does the effort to set such event(s) just to get more players into the game, why not make it official and give a feeling to all the players (bot beginners and experienced) that the game has effectively different levels of skill (as it is) at which it can be played ? Can you explain how this could harm the game ? thanks Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] It does, because players have *a lot* of rules/cards/errata/clarifications to deal with alone - that's a lot of learning by its own already - then there's the deals/table talk system that raises the game to another level - Given that premise, imho at this point there's should be some form of official event in which players can play at such level - then some other in which they can play with another level of complexity, the one given by table deals system. I'm not telling this just out of speculation, having faced several real cases where new players run away once they knew there was no chanche of a "beginner" level of the official game - either the all-consuming table talk or nothing. The SoD is there, and many players have tested it as a pretty good format x tournaments. Sure making it an officially "beginner" tournament format would not harm the game, because it has been played several times as side event within official tournaments, end everything went just fine.

On Jun 19, 9:31 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Yes, that exaclty the point. Except you can do this *without* a new format. Just don't talk so much. > The stable players know each other well, the new ones usually > will just run away once they discover that they must have more > abilty in social interaction at the game's table rather than > learning how to play with the complex cards vtes system. > This happened many times here. So don't talk so much. > Not if that "talk-less" isn't implied in the current tournament rules. I play in VTES tournaments all the time. I don't spend that much time or effort involving myself in table talk or wheeling or dealing. I do ok. I mostly just try and, ya know, oust my prey. I do this without a "talk-less" rule implied in the tournament rules. I just don't talk so much. Most folks I run into at tournaments are the same way--there is some minor deal making (i.e. "hey, rescue my guy from torpor and I'll vote for your next vote" kinda stuff), but not much in the way some some guy using the game as his own personal game of diplomacy. So it is totally doable. Just, ya know, don't talk so much. I played a qualifier recently, and in 2 of my 3 games, there was virtually no significant table talk/dealing. One timed out 'cause one player was a political deck in a bad seat, and spent a huge amount of time trying to wheel and deal to get his votes to pass. And still, few of them did and he got ousted first, although a ton of time was spent trying to cut deals to pull himself out of a bad situation. None of which worked. And it wasted an awful lot of time in the round. Which was irritating (especially as I would have certainly won the table given 10 more minutes of play time :-) The end result is that in my experience, the less table talk the better, even at high levels of play. > At least in my experience, experienced players and less-experienced ones can > co-exists better > in a no-table deals enviroment rather than in an all-table-talk consuming > one. Sure. But the problem here is not "beginners" vs "experienced" it is just that people talk too much. It is easily fixable--just don't talk so much. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 19, 9:31 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> Yes, that exaclty the point. > > Except you can do this *without* a new format. Just don't talk so > much. > >> The stable players know each other well, the new ones usually >> will just run away once they discover that they must have more >> abilty in social interaction at the game's table rather than >> learning how to play with the complex cards vtes system. >> This happened many times here. > > So don't talk so much. > >> Not if that "talk-less" isn't implied in the current tournament >> rules. > > I play in VTES tournaments all the time. I don't spend that much time > or effort involving myself in table talk or wheeling or dealing. I do > ok. So, have ever faced a lenghty table deal discussion, in which you were not involved ? Put yourself in the shoes of a beginners in the same situation, and try to figure out what can be the mood in front of such long arguing-discussion (at big tournament likely to turn in bad blood, because it happens for people to not know each other at the table, so there's not even the friendship aspect to mitigate such discussions). Besides, i'm not speaking even at personal level - better, i'm trying to consider what's the status of current rules, if they second a no-table-talk approach (as you suggest) instead of lenghty all-consuming discussion, and what effect this causes in new players. At least here, it's very detrimental. > I mostly just try and, ya know, oust my prey. I do this without a > "talk-less" rule implied in the tournament rules. I just don't talk so > much. Most folks I run into at tournaments are the same way--there is > some minor deal making (i.e. "hey, rescue my guy from torpor and I'll > vote for your next vote" kinda stuff), but not much in the way some > some guy using the game as his own personal game of diplomacy. So it > is totally doable. It depends by many factor - if the rules allow it, people will do it. Question is: the rules allow it ? > > Just, ya know, don't talk so much. > > I played a qualifier recently, and in 2 of my 3 games, there was > virtually no significant table talk/dealing. One timed out 'cause one > player was a political deck in a bad seat, and spent a huge amount of > time trying to wheel and deal to get his votes to pass. And still, few > of them did and he got ousted first, although a ton of time was spent > trying to cut deals to pull himself out of a bad situation. None of > which worked. And it wasted an awful lot of time in the round. Which > was irritating (especially as I would have certainly won the table > given 10 more minutes of play time :-) The end result is that in my > experience, the less table talk the better, even at high levels of > play. > >> At least in my experience, experienced players and less-experienced >> ones can co-exists better >> in a no-table deals enviroment rather than in an all-table-talk >> consuming one. > > Sure. But the problem here is not "beginners" vs "experienced" it is > just that people talk too much. It is easily fixable--just don't talk > so much. > You can't tell players to play different, if rules allow it. It's up to you, yes, but as long as the whole system (as lsj confirms) involves deals/table talk a lot, you can't blame players for playing as the rules allow to play. Unless the rules will implement some sort of given time-limit for table talk/deals. Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Can you explain how this could harm the game ? Unnecessarily segments the player base, for example. As with the Swainbank draft format, a lot more (unsanctioned) testing of the format should be done before the issue of altering the official tournament rules is brought to the table. (Of course, Swainbank format had it a little easier in that it's a limited format, and the "limited" heading already has many variation points, and Swainbank draft was really just extending one of the points of variation -- number of packs -- into the smaller number range). There are quite a few unsanctioned variations out there besides Silence of Death, many of which were created to address some failing or other with the core game.

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> Can you explain how this could harm the game ? > > Unnecessarily segments the player base, for example. > But this is already a matter of fact: the experienced players base (that actually keep the game alive) is just cut from would be beginners, i hope you realize this. There's too much complexity with the big corpus of the rules/errata/cards/etc (after all we're dealing with a 13 years old ccg, with lot of reprints, rewords, re-rules etc) PLUS the deal system as a whole, to learn for a newbe in the perspective to play a rated tournament. New people simple get discouraged, usually, by this two level of complexity (1: lot of rules/errata etc ; 2: deal/table talk system) and no chanche of learning them one at once in official event - Imho there must be some kind of official sanctioned level for beginners at some point, unless expanding the player base isn't in the interest of the manufacturer of the game (and of the vekn too), of course. I think many organizers can see that the local player base is dwindling with few (if not at all) new entries each year. At least here (italy) this is the situation, discussed with other italian princes as well. > As with the Swainbank draft format, a lot more (unsanctioned) testing > of the format should be done before the issue of altering the > official tournament rules is brought to the table. (Of course, > Swainbank format had it a little easier in that it's a limited > format, and the "limited" heading already has many variation points, > and Swainbank draft was really just extending one of the points of > variation -- number of packs -- into the smaller number range). > There are quite a few unsanctioned variations out there besides > Silence of Death, many of which were created to address some failing > or other with the core game. > I can see that further playtesting should be considered with any alternate-way of playing vtes at official event - But this is a thing that imho must be done, unless we're not interested in putting the best premises for getting new players into the game. thanks Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] hi Peter! As much as I tend to agree that competitive VTES would be better (more fun) with less use of the "whining phase", I don't think it's likely to work to try to solve that problem with the approach "don't talk so much". That seems to me very much like the idea of "social engineering" people out of playing with "broken" decks - e.g. "we have a gentlemen's agreement to not play stealthy bleed decks" to make a four-card-limit environment palatable. Much like that, I don't think it would ever work in a VTES tournament environment where people want to win: the usefulness of talking during games is in evidence every day for a lot of skilled VTES players, and they're not going to quit doing it if it helps them win. And I do think it helps them win. That's why it keeps going on: there's no competitive advantage to remaining silent. (Unless you can browbeat everyone else into being quiet too. But you probably can't do that without using words... :-) Josh veiled in silence

On Jun 19, 10:20 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > So, have ever faced a lenghty table deal discussion, in which you > were not involved ? Yeah, and I was all like "would guys just, ya know, play already and cut it out..." > Put yourself in the shoes of a beginners in the same situation, > and try to figure out what can be the mood in front of such long > arguing-discussion (at big tournament likely to turn in bad blood, because > it happens for people to not know each other at the table, so there's not > even the friendship aspect to mitigate such discussions). I don't have to put myself in the shoes of a beginner. I can put myself in the shoes of an experienced player and have the same reaction--two guys start having some absurd lengthy discussion of some deal or another while the rest of the players at the table sit around and watch? It is a huge pain in the ass. Not just for new players. And the solution, again, is not to have a special format where this doesn't happen (although that certainly is a good way to make for a nice, quick game). The solution is for people not to do this in the first place. I realize that you, Emiliano, are just trying to come up with a solution to a perceived problem (new players getting scared away by excessive table talk), and yes, while a special tournament structure might fix this, so would fixing the actual problem (excessive table talk, which is just as irritating/offputting to experienced players as it is new players). And the way to fix the actual problem is just to not talk so much. > It depends by many factor - if the rules allow it, people will do it. > Question is: the rules allow it ? Sure, the rules allow it to some extent (at a certain point, delay of game comes into play, I'm sure). But then, a lot of the tournament rules also exist to minimize deal making. I do think it is incubment upon *the players* to realize that it is better for everyone to minimize deal making, which fixes everything. > You can't tell players to play different, if rules allow it. Sure you can. The rules also alow for playing an all Werewolf Pack deck. You can point to that and say "Ya know, you'd probably do better if you played a deck that could, ya know, actually win..." When folks start excessively table talking, say "ya know, this game would actually go somewhere if, ya know, you shut the hell up and tried to, ya know, oust your prey..." > It's up to you, yes, but as long as the whole system (as lsj confirms) > involves deals/table talk a lot, you can't blame players for playing > as the rules allow to play. It doesn't involve it "a lot". I play plenty of VTES and don't spend much time making deals or trying to make deals. As it isn't really necessary. I mean, some folks like to play that way, but then some folks like to play like a "crazy malkavian" and do stupid shit for no good reason too. Does VTES involve table talk? By defenition, as it is a multi player game, yes. But you can take this to one extreme (i.e. Silence of Death format, where you are only allowed to communicate what action you are taking or what card you are playing) or another (sitting down for a game, playing one turn, and then spending the next hour dealmaking to determine who is going to win based on what decks are on the table), neither of which are necessarily good for the game. As the tournament rules specifically spend effort to *minimize* the effect of deal making (i.e. making folks play to win, leveraging Game Wins as opposed to VPs, negating all previous deals when the game gets down to 2 players), I'd gather that the intention of the tournament rules is *already* to try and downplay deal making. -Peter

In article <1182268946....@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@gmail.com> wrote: > As much as I tend to agree that competitive VTES would be better (more > fun) with less use of the "whining phase", I don't think it's likely > to work to try to solve that problem with the approach "don't talk so > much". There is a certain amount of discussion that is necessary in a game of VTES. Then there is a certain amount that is advantageous. For my money, most of the talking/deal making I see in tournament VTES tends to land somewhere between "necessary" and "reasonable but advantageous", and virtually none of it is enough that it would scare anyone away--I suspect that what Emiliano is envisioning (experiencing?) is a kind of table talk that is way past the line of "reasonable but advantageous". > Much like that, I don't think > it would ever work in a VTES tournament environment where people want > to win: the usefulness of talking during games is in evidence every > day for a lot of skilled VTES players, and they're not going to quit > doing it if it helps them win. Ah, see, they don't need to stop doing it if it helps them win. Everyone else needs to stop helping them win :-) > And I do think it helps them win. That's why it keeps going on: > there's no competitive advantage to remaining silent. (Unless you can > browbeat everyone else into being quiet too. But you probably can't > do that without using words... :-) Oh, I'm not talking about silence. Again, there is a level of discourse in the game that is reasonable (in the sense that it doesn't hinder the game or scare anyone off) and advantageous (in the sense that it helps them win). But I don't get the sense that this is what Emiliano is talking about. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 19, 10:20 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> So, have ever faced a lenghty table deal discussion, in which you >> were not involved ? > > Yeah, and I was all like "would guys just, ya know, play already and > cut it out..." > >> Put yourself in the shoes of a beginners in the same situation, >> and try to figure out what can be the mood in front of such long >> arguing-discussion (at big tournament likely to turn in bad blood, >> because it happens for people to not know each other at the table, >> so there's not even the friendship aspect to mitigate such >> discussions). > > I don't have to put myself in the shoes of a beginner. I can put > myself in the shoes of an experienced player and have the same > reaction-- Yes - the reaction maybe it's the same, but the effect, for all that that i witnessed in year, it's different. An experience player learnt to deal, over the years, with this necessary evil of long table talk - an unexperienced one, in front of the big amount of rules and mecanichs alone (not even considering the deals system) will be prone to give up the game. Also, it seems me that you see the question as a player - i'm trying to point this from an organizer point of wiev. > two guys start having some absurd lengthy discussion of some > deal or another while the rest of the players at the table sit around > and watch? It is a huge pain in the ass. Not just for new players. And > the solution, again, is not to have a special format where this > doesn't happen (although that certainly is a good way to make for a > nice, quick game). In my experience, SoD can be as long as a standard round - you will se just lots of more play of cards rather than table talk, that's all. > The solution is for people not to do this in the > first place. > Again - but this isn't a solution as long as the tournament game allow it. > I realize that you, Emiliano, are just trying to come up with a > solution to a perceived problem (new players getting scared away by > excessive table talk), and yes, while a special tournament structure > might fix this, so would fixing the actual problem (excessive table > talk, which is just as irritating/offputting to experienced players as > it is new players). And the way to fix the actual problem is just to > not talk so much. > I don't get this - you say that the alternative format could fix the problem. So why to count just on the good will of singles experienced players (like you) and not on an official format ? As long as such format would remain unsanctioned/not official, it's unlikely that players will be prone to use it - because lots of players, like you, are not eager to put in the shoes of unexperienced ones (and that makes perfect sense to me). >> It depends by many factor - if the rules allow it, people will do it. >> Question is: the rules allow it ? > > Sure, the rules allow it to some extent (at a certain point, delay of > game comes into play, I'm sure). But then, a lot of the tournament > rules also exist to minimize deal making. Which ones ? Really, i can't find evidence to this. > I do think it is incubment > upon *the players* to realize that it is better for everyone to > minimize deal making, which fixes everything. > >> You can't tell players to play different, if rules allow it. > > Sure you can. The rules also alow for playing an all Werewolf Pack > deck. You can point to that and say "Ya know, you'd probably do better > if you played a deck that could, ya know, actually win..." When folks > start excessively table talking, say "ya know, this game would > actually go somewhere if, ya know, you shut the hell up and tried to, > ya know, oust your prey..." > But that's not a pertinent parallel: actually (as joshua duffin also pointed out) deal making *gives* an experienced player more chanche to do better- the werewolf-only deck in your example would not make, likely, the player to do better at the table. You can't "force" or even persuade experienced players towards a style of play that, under a certain set of rules (actual one), will make them to lessen their chanches to win, as long as other players will go on with a style of play (heavily deals-oriented) that the rules clearly allow them. >> It's up to you, yes, but as long as the whole system (as lsj >> confirms) involves deals/table talk a lot, you can't blame players >> for playing >> as the rules allow to play. > > It doesn't involve it "a lot". The rules does not specify a given quantity, afaik, i'm sorry. >I play plenty of VTES and don't spend > much time making deals or trying to make deals. As it isn't really > necessary. I mean, some folks like to play that way, but then some > folks like to play like a "crazy malkavian" and do stupid shit for no > good reason too. You seem very fixed on your way to play the game - but there are plenty of playing styles and playgroups that *do* use a lot that deals-intensive approach - and that's perfectly doable by the rules and normal, after all. > Does VTES involve table talk? By defenition, as it is a multi player > game, yes. But you can take this to one extreme (i.e. Silence of Death > format, where you are only allowed to communicate what action you are > taking or what card you are playing) or another (sitting down for a > game, playing one turn, and then spending the next hour dealmaking to > determine who is going to win based on what decks are on the table), > neither of which are necessarily good for the game. As the tournament > rules specifically spend effort to *minimize* the effect of deal > making Which specifications you are referring to ? Maybe i'm missing something. > (i.e. making folks play to win, leveraging Game Wins as opposed > to VPs, negating all previous deals when the game gets down to 2 > players), Nothing of this however discourages players from deals a lot with lot of table talk (quite the contrary) > I'd gather that the intention of the tournament rules is > *already* to try and downplay deal making. > That's a good approach i think - but the rules allow also other intensive, deal-making approaches - and this can't be denied - A format like SoD could be easliy implemented to fix that x newbies, just for the sake of "beginners", with an easier tournament format to deal with both for players and judges.. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] Just (experienced) players playing with a deals-intesive approach. Here for example is the common way to play at tables, especially at tournaments - it's perfectly doable by the official rules, and no one can complain experienced players for playing that way (nor i ever would, either as a judge or as a player). But that just pisses so much off the begginers on the other side- they have still to learn somewhat the cards mechanics, and a flood of words by deals-making usually just wipes out any chanche to see them at next tournament (this is real, and i've witnessed such happening several times).

In article <hXWdi.13864$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Yes - the reaction maybe it's the same, but the effect, for all that > that i witnessed in year, it's different. > An experience player learnt to deal, over the years, with this necessary > evil of long table talk Sure, but what I'm trying to point out is that long table talk *isn't* a necessary evil. As Josh (and you) pointed out, yes, people who think that a lot of table talk helps them win will table talk a lot, as they think it helps them win. But in a grand sense, it isn't really necessary--I play a lot of VTES with a lot of good players, and really don't see much table talk a great deal of the time. Again, at the recent qualifier I was at, I played games with Ben Peal, Jeff Thompson, Josh Duffin, and many other recognizably good players, and ran into very little table talk/deal making--the only significant attempts at deal making (significant in the sense that someone both was trying to salvage a virtually unwinnable situation through cutting a deal and taking a great deal of time to do it) failed. All the rest of the game/games involved "reasonable" levels of table talk and minimal quid-pro-quo dealing ("rescue my guy from torpor and I'll help you pass your next vote")--I didn't see anything that would scare away new players, in terms of deal making. I think in the long run, my basic point is that the level of deal making/table talk that I am familiar with on a grand scale is perfectly reasonable is is unlikely to scare anyone off while any kind of deal making/table talk that would scare someone off is something that shouldn't be going on anyway (as the PTW, anti-collusion, and "all deals are off when you get to 2 players" tournament rules exist to attempt to curtail). > Again - but this isn't a solution as long as the tournament > game allow it. I don't think the tournament rules actually *do* allow the kind of deals/table talk that would scare people off. > I don't get this - you say that the alternative format could fix the > problem. By not allowing anyone to talk. Which is unecessary, most of the time. I mean, yeah, if you can't talk, then you can't do the things that you have seen scare away new players. But I don't think that the kind of activity that scares folks off should be happening anyway, so making a new sanctioned format just to stop it seems unneccesary. > So why to count just on the good will of singles experienced players (like > you) and not on an official format ? It isn't a matter of good will. > Which ones ? > Really, i can't find evidence to this. -Play to Win: A great deal of significant deal making comes specifically at the expense of one's ability to win, based on someone pre-emptively deciding that they can't win, so they give up their ability to win in the name of the losing end of a deal, justifying it by saying "I couldn't win anyway". Deals like this tend to benefit one player by another player arbitrarily deciding to not play to win. -All Deals are Off in the End Game: A great deal of significant deal making comes down to one player helping another player win which, in theory, should not happen, and this rule is an ironclad example of an attempt to curtail such activity. In practice, this rule is virtually meaningless (as you can accept the losing end of a deal when there are 3 players, and when you get to 2 players, due to you helping someone else get into a stronger position, the likelyhood of the "losing end" player being able to now oust the "winning end" player is pretty low). -Play in a Timely Fashion: Any kind of deal making that is excessively long (i.e. the kind of table talk that scares people away from the game) is not playing in a timely fashion, and should be called on for delay of game. Especially in a game with a 2 hour time limit. > But that's not a pertinent parallel: actually (as joshua duffin also pointed > out) > deal making *gives* an experienced player more chanche to do better- > the werewolf-only deck in your example would not make, likely, the player to > do better at the table. But it doesn't necessarily, any more than simply playing and trying to oust your prey. See, in my experience, most of the attempts at serious deal making come from the people who are losing, and generally don't make them win--they make the losing player lose a bit less and make someone else win. As the goal of the game is to win the game, not just lose less, people shouldn't be making deals that make them lose less while making someone else win. As that is not playing to win. > You can't "force" or even persuade experienced players towards a style of > play that, > under a certain set of rules (actual one), will make them to lessen their > chanches to win, as long as other players will go on with a style of play > (heavily deals-oriented) that the rules clearly allow them. Again, I don't think the rules actually allow the type of table talk that is likely to scare folks away from the game. And you don't need to force or pursuade anyone to do anything. Just don't enable them. > The rules does not specify a given quantity, afaik, i'm sorry. The rules on timely game play and delay of game specify that people play in a timely fashion and not delay the game. Talking a lot is delaying the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <m2Xdi.13879$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Just (experienced) players playing with a deals-intesive approach. Which, if it is scaring of new players, is probably crossing the line from "reasonable but advantageous" into "probably breaking some tournament rule somewhere", be it PTW or delay of game. > Here for example is the common way to play at tables, especially at > tournaments - it's perfectly doable by the official rules, and > no one can complain experienced players for playing that way (nor i ever > would, either as a judge or as a player). I suspect that someone probably could complain that people involved are both delaying the game and someone is not playing to win. Both of which are against the tournament rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] There's no evidence in this - i can find nothing in the official rules that states that player should not take their time in dealing one with the another, making them to be understood by all the table about a deal, being perfectly clear, more than anything else with a vps deal - Of course there's a delaying in this process (sometimes pretty notable), but isn't intentional, it's just the natural consequence of the games as they are played under the actual rules - The basic of any deal it's at least 2 ending up agreeing on something with at least, usually, one third player that will try *a lot* to discourage that with more table talk. There's no break of tournament rules in this - actually it's the normal way the things go when dealing it's involved at such complicated level as the one of a multi-player ccg game with in-depth strategies like vtes. Or, if lsj will state here that there's a maximun given time for players to set up a deal, i'll change my mind about this best

This argument seems to be running at cross purposes. Peter is making the valid point that for there to be less deal making, talk less. Awooha! Totally in agreement. However Peter, to be fair, you have how many TWDA decks? And how many tournament wins? (Can you remember numbers that big? :) Tetra is saying that the core group they have IS highly deal orientated, as they are allowed to be by the current rules of the sanctioned environment. Why are these 2 arguments contradictory? The suggestion of an amateur and Pro tournament circuit is actually quite a sensible and practically useful one. Allowing players a format in which they can play in officially sanctioned events, where they have a less steep learning curve to the Pro circuit could very probably help alleviate VtES's greatest problem, the slow growth of new players. I would like to know if the admin involved in having 2 separate levels of tournament competition is a strong enough counter-argument to the one of creating a more newbie friendly environment.

Peter Bakija pointed out a lovely aspect of the VEKN rules: > -Play in a Timely Fashion: Any kind of deal making that is excessively > long (i.e. the kind of table talk that scares people away from the game) > is not playing in a timely fashion, and should be called on for delay of > game. Especially in a game with a 2 hour time limit. I was going to point this out myself, but Peter beat me to it. The rules do allow a judge to tell people they need to shut up and play, whether or not she suspects that player of intentionally stalling. Unfortunately, I have never seen this rule implemented by any tournament judge other than myself. If possible, I would suggest that you run your own tournaments (it's fairly easy to become a prince, and not even necessary at that) and enforce this rule as strictly as you feel is appropriate. Alternatively, point out the existence of this rule (and the listed penalties for violating it) to your local prince or tournament organizer, and ask her to implement it more strictly, perhaps describing times you beleive you've seen it violated.

On Jun 19, 8:34 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Still i can't see how this could be bad for the game - i think that after > so many years vtes could raise at a level in which there's a "pro" format > tournament and somewhat a "beginners" one. > > Emiliano RE: Way too much scary table talk for newbies I offer the following for what it's worth: I don't play in many sanctioned events, primarily because games become less about the game and more about "gamesmanship". In the little tournament experience I have, I have noticed that there is somebody at every table who tries to control it through interpersonal manipulation, which is annoying (though certainly fitting given the game's theme). Then, heaven forbid, the game breaks and there is a perceived power shift and now it has to be debated more and blah blah. Give me a few of my good friends, a few beers, and an evening to kill and I'm pleased as punch, my official ranking be damned. [/two cents] For your situation, Emiliano, since it seems a SoD format is about . 00001% likely to be implemented, perhaps you could impose a shift in your tournament's talking by more strictly enforcing the delay of game rule. If, as judge, you see/hear a bunch of talk going on, watch that game closely and, if it gets to the "scary levels of talk" (whether or not there are any noobs at the table), simply inform the table that they are delaying the game and you are giving them 30 seconds for a card to be played or an action to be taken, or the player who's turn it is will pay a 1 pool penalty and an additional 1 pool for each additional 30 seconds that pass without the game going forward. If it were me, I would make an announcement before the tournament even started warning the players of your intentions. When they groan, let them know they can still make deals and talk them out, but need to be more efficient at it or do it in a manner that allows the game to progress. Best of Luck, Wookie

In article <KTXdi.13951$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > There's no evidence in this - i can find nothing in the official rules that > states that player should not take their time in dealing one with the > another, > making them to be understood by all the table about a deal, being perfectly > clear, > more than anything else with a vps deal - The rules on slow play: 5.3. Slow Play Players must take their turns in a timely fashion. Whereas taking a reasonable amount of time to think through game strategy is acceptable, playing excessively slowly or stalling for time is not. If a judge determines that a player is stalling for time or playing excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. The judge is perfectly free to determine that a player is playing excessively slowly. Using their judgement. If excessive deal making is taking an excessive amount of time (i.e. enough to scare new players away from the game), then the judge is free to put a stop to it. > Of course there's a delaying in this process (sometimes pretty notable), > but isn't intentional, it's just the natural consequence of the games as > they > are played under the actual rules Playing slowly also isn't usually intentional, but the Judge can tell folks to speed up their unintentionally slow play if it is hindering the tournament. Excessive deal making isn't any different than unintentionally, yet excessively slow, play. > Or, if lsj will state here that there's a maximun given time for players > to set up a deal, i'll change my mind about this There is no hard and fast rule. It is up to the Judge's judgement. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1182288726.3...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > However Peter, to be fair, you have how > many TWDA decks? And how many tournament wins? (Can you remember > numbers that big? :) Only six, apparently. And none from the last two years. I used to be good at this game. I think everyone else has gotten better, and I have stayed the same. Or, ya know, gotten worse. Maybe I should try some excessive deal making... :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] You can't just second the social aspect of the game and the moment thereafter limit it by some undefined terms (timely is very subjective - some people talk slow, some take time to consider and evaulate the game state about a deal, some argue, some count-argue etc) - If there's not a given amount of maximum time for social interaction (it's clear that a deals *do* need lot of time to be discussed and set up, usually) every judge will end up judging in a different way such matter, and that's not a good thing, IMHO. So, as long as i've the feeling players *are* just discussing and set up thing verbally (in a polite way) i'll let them the social interaction implied in a deals, because a deals it's not the act of a single players, but involves usually at least two methuselah (while more often it makes all the table to get into table talk). Unless do you want to intend some kind of given, defined time limit for this. >> Or, if lsj will state here that there's a maximun given time for >> players to set up a deal, i'll change my mind about this > > There is no hard and fast rule. It is up to the Judge's judgement. > Ok, so this should be handled on on personal judge's whim about this matter too. Sounds no good to me. Emiliano

On Jun 20, 3:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > The rules on slow play: > > 5.3. Slow Play > Players must take their turns in a timely fashion. Whereas taking a > reasonable amount of time to think through game strategy is acceptable, > playing excessively slowly or stalling for time is not. If a judge > determines that a player is stalling for time or playing excessively > slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible player will > be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. > > The judge is perfectly free to determine that a player is playing > excessively slowly. Using their judgement. If excessive deal making is > taking an excessive amount of time (i.e. enough to scare new players > away from the game), then the judge is free to put a stop to it. Hi folks, Surely excessive deal making slowing down the game to the point it's going to time out is a completely separate issue from table talk scaring away new players. Experienced players may spend more time dealing, but less experienced players also spend more time asking questions. There seems to be a big assumption here that events in which new players can be encouraged to learn the game must be sanctioned tournaments in which experienced players will wish to win for the sake of their ratings. If you want to learn football, you don't put a team together from your friends who've never played before and expect to be able to compete in a major league. Assuming you don't have some friendly regular meetings in the area newbies can go along to, the simplest and most obvious solution in my eyes is to run "newbie events" which encourage new players to take part without encouraging experienced players to come along and destroy them with their powerful decks of doom. If your local players are unwilling to turn up to such things, I appreciate you would have to rely on other means (i.e. material rewards) to encourage them or you could simply be glad they're not around to dispirit the newbies. Let's face it, nobody enjoys trying a new game and being trounced by a group of experienced players who give you no chance. In a tournament environment, that is precisely what new players can expect, and rightly so. Hence the solution is not to change tournament rules for the experienced players, but to target newbies with a separate and less-competitive event.

RocketEddy wrote: > On Jun 20, 3:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> The rules on slow play: > Let's face it, nobody enjoys trying a new game and being trounced by a > group of experienced players who give you no chance. In a tournament > environment, that is precisely what new players can expect, and > rightly so. Hence the solution is not to change tournament rules for > the experienced players, but to target newbies with a separate and > less-competitive event. That's exaclty my intention, indeed - to see if there's can be a sanctioned format for beginners/less competitive players, and i'm happy that you see the point. Emiliano

On Jun 20, 1:14 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > You can't just second the social aspect of the game and the > moment thereafter limit it by some undefined terms (timely is very > subjective -some people talk slow, some take time to consider and evaulate > the game state about a deal, some argue, some count-argue etc) - That is why a judge is there. To use judgement. Which is by defenition subjective. If excessive table talk is scaring away players, it is hindering the game. If the judge feels that this hinderance of the game is problematic, he is free to fix it as he sees fit. > If there's not a given amount of maximum time > for social interaction (it's clear that a deals *do* need lot of time > to be discussed and set up, usually) every judge will end up judging > in a different way such matter, and that's not a good thing, IMHO. That is what judges are for. If I'm sitting at a table, and three people have been discussing some dumb ass deal for 15 minutes, I'm calling the judge to stop them. If excessive deal making is hindeirng the game (and scaring folks away is as much of a hinderance to the game as unsportsmanlike behavior scaring away players), it is usually a good idea to stop it. > Ok, so this should be handled on on personal judge's whim about this matter > too. > Sounds no good to me. That is what judges are for. If someone is using foul language and verbally abusing other players, the judge uses their judgement/whim to put a stop to it. How is that any different? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] The "make it sanctioned" part of the proposal to get SoD sanctioned doesn't make it a format for less competitive players -- all that does is remove the table talk. The competitive inducer (ratings) is still there as much as in the standard VEKN constructed tournament scene. Unless the idea is that the competitive players won't play in SoD. In which case it's just setting up a division with "toy" ratings. Players who don't play in non-sanctioned tournaments for the reason that "the results don't count" would have the same reason not to play in a tournament division where the ratings were seen as "toy" (non-competitive) ratings.

On Jun 20, 10:21 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > That's exaclty my intention, indeed - to see if there's can be > a sanctioned format for beginners/less competitive players, > and i'm happy that you see the point. Everyone understands this point, I'm sure. And in theory, sure, it would be good to have a "beginners" level for competition (that doesn't neccessarily include table silence, but ya know, whatever) and an "expert" level, or whatever. Other games with much bigger fields of players do this (Bridge, Chess more or less). But they have the advantage of a much bigger field of players to operate with, and having two (or three or ten) levels of official competition doesn't fracture the player base significantly. As the player base is *huge*. We don't have that advantage. We have a fairly small player base. And running two levels of tournaments (i.e. beginner and expert) generally means that what should be a nice and solid 12 person tournament becomes two sub optimal 6 person tournaments. If as a judge, you find that excessive table talk is scaring away new players, as a judge, you have the ability to curtail excessive table talk through the existing tournament rules. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] In the fact hat, in front of original point, normal table talk to set up a deal can *take* lot of time anyway (it happened so many times, and i hope you want not to counter even this argument), with people arguing and counter-arguing - so in the end the newbie will pissed off most the time, and the experienced player will make his way. In my experience, newbies at this point really *do* need some kind of sanctioned format in which they can test well their learning of all of the game mechanics, without being forced to face continous table-deals talk. If this can be implemented in the standard format it's nice anyway - but please do not tell me that rules enforce somehow "timely" table talk for deals, because that's pretty counter-intuitive given the big impact they have in the game right now - as it stands, players just have to talk a lot, to discenrn all the counter-arguments made in front of a vp deal (ahd that happens often). regards Emiliano

On Jun 20, 10:53 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > In the fact hat, in front of original point, normal table talk to set up a > deal can *take* lot of time anyway If it is taking a lot of time, then it isn't normal table talk. It is the delay of a game. Two people spending 15 minutes in a 2 hour time limit game debating the merits of a VP split deal is not acceptable, as there is at least 1 other person (and up to 3 other people) having their time wasted excessively. If you can't broker your deal in a couple minutes, you are wasting my time and delaying the game. > (it happened so many times, and i hope > you want not to counter even this argument), with people arguing and > counter-arguing - so in the end the newbie will pissed off most the time, > and the experienced player will make his way. And if you are a judge, you have the ability to curtail this. > In my experience, newbies at this point really *do* need some kind of > sanctioned > format in which they can test well their learning of all of the game > mechanics, without > being forced to face continous table-deals talk. Which is indication that something has gone wrong in the game as a whole--if significant numbers of people are being frightened away from the game due to excessive table talk (and I suspect that just as many experienced players have been scared away as newbies, really), the solution is not to make a table talk free format. It is to curtail the table talk. > If this can be implemented in the standard format it's nice anyway - but > please do not tell > me that rules enforce somehow "timely" table talk for deals, because that's > pretty > counter-intuitive given the big impact they have in the game right now - as > it stands, > players just have to talk a lot, to discenrn all the counter-arguments made > in front of > a vp deal (ahd that happens often). As a judge, you say "Enough talk, play the game". How much time is too much? That is subjective. A couple minutes of discussion is ok for my money. 10 minutes is not. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 20, 10:21 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > >> That's exaclty my intention, indeed - to see if there's can be >> a sanctioned format for beginners/less competitive players, >> and i'm happy that you see the point. > > Everyone understands this point, I'm sure. And in theory, sure, it > would be good to have a "beginners" level for competition (that > doesn't neccessarily include table silence, but ya know, whatever) and > an "expert" level, or whatever. Other games with much bigger fields of > players do this (Bridge, Chess more or less). But they have the > advantage of a much bigger field of players to operate with, and > having two (or three or ten) levels of official competition doesn't > fracture the player base significantly. As the player base is *huge*. > We don't have that advantage. Indeed - and exactly for this point i see a format with no-table-talk/deals like SoD the only option doable, given the average number of players in each city. Why to keep that number relative small, forcing beginners to play in the same format as experienced-table deals players ? With no deals, things tend to get even both for experienced players and beginners, deckbuiding apart: you have only to learn well the card mechanics - later then you can learn the level of deal making and big social interaction - Standardized as a format, would give options for both and a ranking, a thing that players (less or more experienced) love to check. > We have a fairly small player base. And > running two levels of tournaments (i.e. beginner and expert) generally > means that what should be a nice and solid 12 person tournament > becomes two sub optimal 6 person tournaments. > Or, 12 players enjoying to play the two formats. We could even test what format brings more players, maybe we could get surprises (with lots of beginners buying the cards willing to introduce themselves in a simpler tournament format), could we ? > If as a judge, you find that excessive table talk is scaring away new > players, as a judge, you have the ability to curtail excessive table > talk through the existing tournament rules. > Indeed - but i have not the power to stop what's the normal table talk involved in deals - it requires time anyway, sometimes lot of time for players to set up a vp deal, that's normal.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 20, 10:53 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> In the fact hat, in front of original point, normal table talk to set up a >> deal can *take* lot of time anyway > > If it is taking a lot of time, then it isn't normal table talk. It is > the delay of a game. Two people spending 15 minutes in a 2 hour time > limit game debating the merits of a VP split deal is not acceptable, > as there is at least 1 other person (and up to 3 other people) having > their time wasted excessively. If you can't broker your deal in a > couple minutes, you are wasting my time and delaying the game. That's not quite right. Equivalent: your prey with 20 weenies bleeding against a wall deck and taking 15 minutes in his minion phase (to plan and execute his bleed swarm and resulting combats) is not "wasting your time". He's playing the game. If he's doing so to take advantage of the time limit (instead of simply "playing the game"), then you'd have a case. Similarly, two players earnestly brokering a deal are playing the game (rather than striving to take advantage of a time limit), not stalling. Curtail the ones taking advantage of a time limit. But you cannot curtail the ones playing the game simply for playing the game.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 20, 10:53 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> In the fact hat, in front of original point, normal table talk to >> set up a deal can *take* lot of time anyway > > If it is taking a lot of time, then it isn't normal table talk. It is > the delay of a game. Two people spending 15 minutes in a 2 hour time > limit game debating the merits of a VP split deal is not acceptable, > as there is at least 1 other person (and up to 3 other people) having > their time wasted excessively. If you can't broker your deal in a > couple minutes, you are wasting my time and delaying the game. > That's your opinion , however usually there's at last one more player involved in the deal process (the one that will get big disavantage from the deal of the other two) - do you think you can stop his counter argument legally ? Players must have the option to counter-deal, eventually - unless you see the deal system as an "istant" thing just to be set between two and only two players alone. But thing usually aren't and don't go that way. >> (it happened so many times, and i hope >> you want not to counter even this argument), with people arguing and >> counter-arguing - so in the end the newbie will pissed off most the >> time, and the experienced player will make his way. > > And if you are a judge, you have the ability to curtail this. > >> In my experience, newbies at this point really *do* need some kind of >> sanctioned >> format in which they can test well their learning of all of the game >> mechanics, without >> being forced to face continous table-deals talk. > > Which is indication that something has gone wrong in the game as a > whole--if significant numbers of people are being frightened away from > the game due to excessive table talk (and I suspect that just as many > experienced players have been scared away as newbies, really), the > solution is not to make a table talk free format. It is to curtail the > table talk. No, because some other players *do* love this social aspect, and wants to play it to the fullest extent, as long as vps deals (or the like) are allowed and can really make the difference in a game. > As a judge, you say "Enough talk, play the game". How much time is too > much? That is subjective. A couple minutes of discussion is ok for my > money. 10 minutes is not. It seems me that you're advocating some kind of time limit, between 10 and 15 mins for deals / discussion, are you ? - Why then this should not be officialized in the rules ? Imho, to left this to the subjectivness of a judge can lead to many problems (ehy, i want my time to counter his argument - and i want mine too..and i want mine) - This way it seems more to turn the judge in a teacher, imho.

[ quoted text not captured ] Thank for you clarification very much - i'll kept this as a reminder in case of player stalling with table talk to one side, and as a counter to players arguing against others that are instead honestly table-talking to set up a deal for the best. Emiliano

On Jun 20, 11:16 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Curtail the ones taking advantage of a time limit. But you cannot curtail the > ones playing the game simply for playing the game. At a certain point, however, dealmaking becomes a hinderance to actually playing the game--if two players are monopolizing my time by spending an inordinate amount of it brokering some deal, that are, in fact, wasting my time, even if they are, at least in their heads, playing the game. If dealmaking becomes a hinderance to the other people playing the game (i.e. 3 people feel their time is being wasted by the table talk of the other two), even if those two feel they are playing the game, something is wrong. And yes, even regular game play can take a long time, which is why this is subjective, but much like two players spending too long debating the merits of a deal is not good, so is someone who spends an inordinate amount of time simply analyzing the table--if someone spends 15 minutes simply debating his options in his head, that too is disruptive to the game. Even if he thinks he is just playing the game. -Peter

On Jun 20, 11:28 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > No, because some other players *do* love this social aspect, and > wants to play it to the fullest extent, as long as vps deals (or the like) > are allowed and can really make the difference in a game. But even you admit that this is scaring people away from the game. And sure, some folks love that social aspect of the game and want to play it to the fullest extent, which is fine, until it prevents other people from enjoying the game also. Much like some people really like the roleplaying aspect of the game, but if someone spends 20 minutes each of their turns using funny voices and describing the adventures of each of their minions in excrutiating detail in the name of roleplaying, that is an unecessary delay of game too, and I'd expect a judge to do something about it (especially if someone complained about it). There is a certain level of discourse that is necessary in this game and a certain amount that is entertaining in this game. At a point however, it crosses the line from acceptable and entertaining to time wasting and disruptive to game play. Excessive deal making, just like excessive role playing (or excessive verbal abuse of opponents or excessive lack of personal hygine) are disruptive to the game. And if they are scaring folks away from the game, they should be dealt with by the organizer. > It seems me that you're advocating some kind of time limit, between 10 > and 15 mins for deals / discussion, are you ? Nope. I'm advocating judges using their judgement. And players behaving in a way that is not disruptive to the game overall. A couple of people spending a couple minutes making a deal is fine. A couple people spending 20 minutes making a deal is not. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 20, 11:16 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Curtail the ones taking advantage of a time limit. But you cannot >> curtail the ones playing the game simply for playing the game. > > At a certain point, however, dealmaking becomes a hinderance to > actually playing the game--if two players are monopolizing my time by > spending an inordinate amount of it brokering some deal, that are, in > fact, wasting my time, even if they are, at least in their heads, > playing the game. > > If dealmaking becomes a hinderance to the other people playing the > game (i.e. 3 people feel their time is being wasted by the table talk > of the other two), even if those two feel they are playing the game, > something is wrong. > The problem is that, in most cases, there are *not* only two players involved in the (long) table talk for a deal: usually there's at least a third one that is willing to counter-argue about the two setting the deal. That way, even if you're right, you would be anyway in a minority report (3 are discussing for the deal or for a counter-deal, 2 witnessing) That way, it's obvius that you, as a player, have the right to feel pissed off - but while you're experienced and you found your way to cope with that, beginners willing to play a rated tournament just to learn better the game are not likely to get back next time. > And yes, even regular game play can take a long time, which is why > this is subjective, but much like two players spending too long > debating the merits of a deal is not good, Again, at least in my experience, almost *never* i saw only two players debating with lot of table talk- the normal is at least three, if not the whole table trying to get the best, with lot of discussions and counter-arguments, from the incoming deal set-up. That's normal i think - everyone wants to grant for him/herself the best situation available. Emiliano

On Jun 20, 1:16 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > The problem is that, in most cases, there are *not* only two players > involved in the (long) table talk for a deal: usually there's at least a > third > one that is willing to counter-argue about the two setting the deal. Three people wasting the time of the other two isn't any more valid that 2 people wasting the time of the other three. It is still wasting people's time. Again, where does "reasonable discussion" become "wasting people's time"? It is subjective. But certainly when a given activity in a game is scaring players away, it has crossed a line. Just like when one player's habit for insulting his opponents scares people off (or starts fist fights), it has clearly crossed a line and moved from someone enjoying the social aspects of the game to being disruptive. > That way, it's obvius that you, as a player, have the right to feel pissed > off - but while you're experienced and you found your way to cope with that, > beginners willing to play a rated tournament just to learn better the game > are not likely to get back next time. And then it is disruptive to the game. Just like if someone spent every turn swearing obscenities at their opponents. > Again, at least in my experience, almost *never* i saw only two players > debating > with lot of table talk- the normal is at least three, if not the whole table > trying to get > the best, with lot of discussions and counter-arguments, from the incoming > deal set-up. > That's normal i think - everyone wants to grant for him/herself the best > situation available. If everyone is involved and enjoying the discussion, then no one is having their time wasted. If 3 people are enjoying the discussion and it goes on for an excessive amount of time, and 2 people are feeling that their time is being wasted, that is bad. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 20, 11:16 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Curtail the ones taking advantage of a time limit. But you cannot curtail the >> ones playing the game simply for playing the game. > > At a certain point, however, dealmaking becomes a hinderance to > actually playing the game--if two players are monopolizing my time by > spending an inordinate amount of it brokering some deal, that are, in > fact, wasting my time, even if they are, at least in their heads, > playing the game. No. If they are, in fact, playing the game (and making deals is part of playing the game), then they are not a hinderance to actually playing the game, even if in your mind they are wasting your time.

On Jun 20, 1:42 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > If they are, in fact, playing the game (and making deals is part of playing the > game), then they are not a hinderance to actually playing the game, even if in > your mind they are wasting your time. I disagree with this. Excessive deal making can be just as much a disruption to the game as excessive roleplaying (which is just as much part of playing the game as dealmaking is). Excessive deal making that wastes the time of other players, slows the game down to a crawl, and involves some players dominating the time spent in the game is downright disruptive. And should be curtailed. Especially if it is, as in the original post, scaring people away from the game. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 20, 1:42 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> If they are, in fact, playing the game (and making deals is part of playing the >> game), then they are not a hinderance to actually playing the game, even if in >> your mind they are wasting your time. > > I disagree with this. Excessive deal making can be just as much a > disruption to the game as excessive roleplaying (which is just as much > part of playing the game as dealmaking is). No, roleplaying is not part of the game at all. And we're talking about non-excessive deal-making. Excessive deal-making is, by definition of excessive, unwarranted. > Excessive deal making that > wastes the time of other players, slows the game down to a crawl, and Playing the game does not slow the game down to a crawl. See the 20+ combats example given earlier. "Excessive" deal making is excessive. Real playing-the-game deal making, even if it is excessive in your mind, is not excessive. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 20, 2:25 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > No, roleplaying is not part of the game at all. I could find nowhere in the VTES rulebook where deals and dealmaking are covered. Or even mentioned. I could find, however, the first scentence of the rulebook that says: "Vampire: The Eternal Struggle is a trading card game in which two or more players take on the roles of ancient vampires known as Methuselahs." "Take on the roles" can easily be interpreted as "role-playing". That being said, I can't find anything in the rulebook that can be interpreted as meaning that "deal making" is part of the game. > And we're talking about non-excessive deal-making. Excessive deal-making is, by > definition of excessive, unwarranted. The trick is determining what "excessive deal making" is. I accept that a certain amount of dealmaking is warranted and acceptable. But excessive deal making is just that--excessive. As we are discussing a level of dealmaking that other players find onerus to the point that they quit the game, I'd say that is excessive. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 20, 2:25 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> No, roleplaying is not part of the game at all. > > I could find nowhere in the VTES rulebook where deals and dealmaking > are covered. Or even mentioned. I could find, however, the first > scentence of the rulebook that says: > > "Vampire: The Eternal Struggle is a trading card game in which two or > more players take on the roles of ancient vampires known as > Methuselahs." > > "Take on the roles" can easily be interpreted as "role-playing". Sure, if you're using "role-playing" in a sense other than the one normally meant by "role-playing". Yes, everything that is part of playing this game (or any other game, really, except maybe tic-tac-toe) is "role-playing" in the "what is this modeling?" sense. Fortunately, that is immaterial to the discussion at hand, since actively playing the game (doing the thing that is the method of modeling the backstory provided by the game) is playing the game, and cannot be considered "excessive" in any event. > That > being said, I can't find anything in the rulebook that can be > interpreted as meaning that "deal making" is part of the game. And yet, it is. Table talk / deal making is part of most multi-player games (two team games notwithstanding). That's enough smoke, if you don't mind. Let's stick to the point, please. >> And we're talking about non-excessive deal-making. Excessive deal-making is, by >> definition of excessive, unwarranted. > > The trick is determining what "excessive deal making" is. I accept > that a certain amount of dealmaking is warranted and acceptable. But > excessive deal making is just that--excessive. Yes. If the deal-making exceeds the "earnestly attempting to strike a deal" boundary (and goes into the "attempting to take advantage of a time limit" range), then it is excessive. Deal making that confines itself to the "earnestly attempting to strike a deal" boundary, however, is not excessive, despite how the other players feel about it. > As we are discussing a level of dealmaking that other players find > onerus to the point that they quit the game, I'd say that is > excessive. It has nothing to do with how the other players feel. It has only to do with "playing the game". Deal making is an allowed part of playing the game. Some players find NCL a level of card permissiveness that is onerous to the point that they quit the game. NCL is not excessive, however, despite how those players feel.

On Jun 19, 5:05 pm, Wookie813 <veknpont...@yahoo.com> wrote: > For your situation, Emiliano, since it seems a SoD format is about . > 00001% likely to be implemented, perhaps you could impose a shift in > your tournament's talking by more strictly enforcing the delay of game > rule. I agree, but I see a contradiction in the existing "Slow Play" rules Currently, if a player wants to 'activate' the slow play rule, there's two ways to do it. You can interrupt the conversation and ask folks to move along, or you can call over a judge and complain. This system works great in games like Scrabble, where whether or not your opponent likes you is 100% irrelevant to the gameplay. But VTES isn't like that. Not by a long-shot. There's a social consequence to "calling the cops" on other players for playing slow. Everyone reacts differently to it. Some people *like* acts of social aggression like that, and will shift their faction allegiance based on it. Some people get resentful, and take revenge on you later for calling them out. Some people don't even notice. Some people shut down, as if their dad had just yelled at them. It's tough to know what the result is going to be. These real-world consequences change the social dynamics of the game being played. If your cross-table buddy is playing slow, none of the other players are being willing to call the cops, and you know that he's a grumpy fellow who gets mad when the Slow Play rule is called, as a player you are put in a very strange position. Either you can let him continue to be rude, and keep his (flimsy) alliance, or you can call him out and potentially make a cross-table enemy. How does one play to win in this scenario? The political nature of VTES means that when players are being slow, requiring the players to speak out to point out possible delays means that double-binds often emerge that are, in my opinion, inappropriate in this game. I may be missing the boat here, but that's the contradiction I see in the existing Slow Play rule. If this is true (and I'm not saying I'm sure that it is), what would a solution look like? I'm not sure, but I *can* think of ways to soften this effect. At the next event I hold, I intend to experiment with something like the following system: 1) Each player will be given a "boredom indicator". I'll probably use little flags, or Warhammer vampire counts, or something. Something visible from a judge's level. 2) Any player can, at any time, move their boredom indicator in front of their spread (for best effect, this will be done with eye rolling and muffled groans, to reinforce the message). This indicates that player is officially bored, and wants the discussion to move on, but lacks the "excuse me, but can we move along here?" factor. 3) If 2 or more players express their boredom in this way, the other players will be obligated to begin to wrap up their discussion. If, after a reasonable amount of time (say 2-3 minutes) they do not wrap it up, the judge may choose to begin to exact penalties. This is not a change in the rules. It's simply a more gentle way for players to communicate the current game state (no flags = "not delayed", 1 flag = "becoming delayed", 2 flags = "delayed"). I'm sure there are ways to use this as a "mafia" mechanic, to try to force people to not make deals at all, but that's why the penalties ultimately have to fall to the judge. Am I on crack? -Jason

On Jun 20, 3:50 pm, paladin_brand <jason.vandenber...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 5:05 pm, Wookie813 <veknpont...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > For your situation, Emiliano, since it seems a SoD format is about . > > 00001% likely to be implemented, perhaps you could impose a shift in > > your tournament's talking by more strictly enforcing the delay of game > > rule. > > I agree, but I see a contradiction in the existing "Slow Play" rules > > Currently, if a player wants to 'activate' the slow play rule, there's > two ways to do it. You can interrupt the conversation and ask folks > to move along, or you can call over a judge and complain. If I'm in an endgame situation where time will be a factor, and especially if its a tournament finals and/or a timeout would be bad for me -- I don't wait for slow play or call a judge to accuse someone of "stalling". What I do, regularly, is point out to the judge that timing may be critical to the game (or tournament) and invite him to observe the endgame, watch for slow play, and exercise his judgment and award extra time if he observes stalling or slow play. Generally, this can be done without accusing anyone of anything or offending anyone. And if everyone knows the Judge is there, watching for slow play, things tend to move along briskly. I am also and advocate of a 2:30 hour time limit on finals. > > At the next event I hold, I intend to experiment with something like > the following system: > > 1) Each player will be given a "boredom indicator". I'll > probably use little flags, or Warhammer vampire counts, or something. > Something visible from a judge's level. That's an interesting idea. It sounds a little extreme. Is long-winded talking and deal making so rampant that these will get used? Do you have that many tables going to time now? If so, this sounds like something that might be worth a try. -Ben Swainbank

In article <pNeei.17194$y_7....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Yes. If the deal-making exceeds the "earnestly attempting to strike a deal" > boundary (and goes into the "attempting to take advantage of a time limit" > range), then it is excessive. What if someone is earnestly attempting to strike a deal for 45 minutes? Is that ok? Or is that disruptive to game play? > Deal making that confines itself to the "earnestly attempting to strike a > deal" > boundary, however, is not excessive, despite how the other players feel about > it. I find it hard to fathom that "earnestly attempting to strike a deal" has no bounds. It is perfectly possible that two or three players could spend a full hour of a game earnestly attempting to strike a deal. And not be attempting to take advantage of a time limit. And that strikes me as incredibly disruptive to game play. And as such, something that is worth curtailing. > It has nothing to do with how the other players feel. It has only to do with > "playing the game". Deal making is an allowed part of playing the game. And yet the rules of the game also indicate that one should play in a timely fashion. Spending an inordinate amount of time trying to broker a deal, regardless of how earnest the attempt, is not playing the game in a timely fashion, and as such, is breaking rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 21, 9:37 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <pNeei.17194$y_7.5...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Yes. If the deal-making exceeds the "earnestly attempting to strike a deal" > > boundary (and goes into the "attempting to take advantage of a time limit" > > range), then it is excessive. > > What if someone is earnestly attempting to strike a deal for 45 minutes? > Is that ok? Or is that disruptive to game play? Er - I think you two are actually saying the same thing here. Deal making is OK unless it's taking too long, aren't you just arguing semantics here... Like, I'm totally with you on less talk is better thing, and I don't really see what the problem is here and all, but I think you're going round in circles now. Not that I care seeing as work is slow today but thought I'd mention it :-) Simon

Blooded Sand wrote: > > I would like to know if the admin involved in having 2 separate levels > of tournament competition is a strong enough counter-argument to the > one of creating a more newbie friendly environment. > From my understanding, yes. Oscar is pretty much our only paid OP person, and he handles Eve CCG, Camarilla, and other OP stuff as well as VTES (I think). Robyn is a volunteer. And a damn good one, and under appreciated to boot. Robyn, you rule! There would need to be another volunteer to handle the amateur circuit's rankings etc. Don't know if there is one out there who could do it well. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <pNeei.17194$y_7....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Yes. If the deal-making exceeds the "earnestly attempting to strike a deal" >> boundary (and goes into the "attempting to take advantage of a time limit" >> range), then it is excessive. > > What if someone is earnestly attempting to strike a deal for 45 minutes? > Is that ok? Or is that disruptive to game play? Gameplay is not disruptive to gameplay. >> Deal making that confines itself to the "earnestly attempting to strike a >> deal" >> boundary, however, is not excessive, despite how the other players feel about >> it. > > I find it hard to fathom that "earnestly attempting to strike a deal" > has no bounds. It has the bounds of "earnestly", which tends to keep it in the range of what you call non-excessive. But rarely, it will be longer (and into what you call excessive without actually being excessive). > It is perfectly possible that two or three players could > spend a full hour of a game earnestly attempting to strike a deal. And > not be attempting to take advantage of a time limit. And that strikes me > as incredibly disruptive to game play. And as such, something that is > worth curtailing. > >> It has nothing to do with how the other players feel. It has only to do with >> "playing the game". Deal making is an allowed part of playing the game. > > And yet the rules of the game also indicate that one should play in a > timely fashion. Spending an inordinate amount of time trying to broker a > deal, regardless of how earnest the attempt, is not playing the game in > a timely fashion, and as such, is breaking rules. Earnest precludes inordinate.

On Jun 21, 6:54 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Gameplay is not disruptive to gameplay. It is if it is keeping other people from playing the game. Two people having an earnest discussion of how they can best split the table that prevents three other people from taking actions for a long period of time is certainly disruptive. A tournament round has 2 hours in it. In a 5 player game, that gives each player about 24 minutes of play time. If a significant portion of player A's play time is taken away by players B and C by actions that are arguably unecessary, that is bad. Spending a long time actually playing the game (taking actions, playing cards) is always acceptable, given that it is done is a reasonably timely fashion. Spending a long time talking about playing the game, during the game, is not always going to be. For my money. Again, I accept that a certain level of dealmaking and bargaining is inevitable in any multi-player game (even though the rulebook does not recognize it at all). But at a certain point, table talk can, even if done in earnest, cross from reasonable to disruptive. And if it is scaring people away from the game (as per the original discussion), it may very well have crossed that point. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 21, 6:54 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Gameplay is not disruptive to gameplay. > > It is if it is keeping other people from playing the game. No. The sentence above is a tautology. Breathing is not disruptive to breathing. Playing the game does not pose an obstacle to playing the game. It *is* playing the game.

On Jun 21, 7:57 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Playing the game does not pose an obstacle to playing the game. It *is* playing > the game. So I can sit down at a table and on the first turn not play a single card and procede to earnestly discuss a table split deal with 2 of my opponents for 2 hours straight. And then the round ends, we all time out, and not a single card has been played, and that is ok, as it is playing the game? This strikes me as a obstacle to playing the game. Even if someone might think it is playing the game. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 21, 7:57 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Playing the game does not pose an obstacle to playing the game. It *is* playing >> the game. > > So I can sit down at a table and on the first turn not play a single > card and procede to earnestly discuss a table split deal with 2 of my > opponents for 2 hours straight. Highly improbably to meet the "earnest" definition. > And then the round ends, we all time > out, and not a single card has been played, and that is ok, as it is > playing the game? It it were earnest, yeah. But that's a fantasy. > This strikes me as a obstacle to playing the game. Even if someone > might think it is playing the game. Playing the game is playing the game, even if you think it isn't.

On Jun 21, 8:07 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Highly improbably to meet the "earnest" definition. And yet if it did, you'd be ok with that? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I do not have a problem with playing the game as far as playing the game is concerned, no. That applies even in this torturedly contrived fantasy example. See responses above, where this is stated multiple times.

On Jun 21, 8:15 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > I do not have a problem with playing the game as far as playing the game is > concerned, no. That applies even in this torturedly contrived fantasy example. > > See responses above, where this is stated multiple times. That strikes me as unadulterated madness, but ok. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] The schizophrenic fragmenting of playing the game into playing the game and anti playing the game seems more readily labeled as madness.

On Jun 19, 4:04 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1182268946.890537.74...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As much as I tend to agree that competitive VTES would be better (more > > fun) with less use of the "whining phase", I don't think it's likely > > to work to try to solve that problem with the approach "don't talk so > > much". > > There is a certain amount of discussion that is necessary in a game of > VTES. Then there is a certain amount that is advantageous. For my money, > most of the talking/deal making I see in tournament VTES tends to land > somewhere between "necessary" and "reasonable but advantageous", and > virtually none of it is enough that it would scare anyone away--I > suspect that what Emiliano is envisioning (experiencing?) is a kind of > table talk that is way past the line of "reasonable but advantageous". My take is that you're right that what he's talking about is table talk that *you* would consider (from what you've said elsewhere in this thread) far beyond "reasonable and advantageous". (Very possibly far beyond what *I* would consider reasonable too.) But I am not at all sure that you (or I) would be right to think it's no longer advantageous at that point. If a group's style has evolved into one that requires lots and lots of discussion during each game, it seems quite plausible that that style is in equilibrium in terms of "talking less would leave you out of important negotiations and reduce your chances of winning these games" as much as "talking more would waste time and reduce your chances of winning these games". I think this is a phenomenon that you should probably recognize: you're likely to remain steelily tenacious in this argument (with LSJ and Emiliano) until everyone else gets tired or admits defeat, right? The same thing is sometimes possible in a game of VTES. :-) Josh make.coffee.fast

On Jun 21, 9:36 am, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think this is a phenomenon that you should probably recognize: > you're likely to remain steelily tenacious in this argument (with LSJ > and Emiliano) until everyone else gets tired or admits defeat, right? > The same thing is sometimes possible in a game of VTES. :-) See the difference is that this is the internet, and the sole purpose of the internet is to argue with people. The purpose of a game of cards is, at least for my money, competely different. Which is why I endlessly argue on the internet. And not so much while I am playing cards. -Peter

On Jun 20, 1:52 pm, Ben Swainbank <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > If I'm in an endgame situation where time will be a factor, and > especially if its a tournament finals and/or a timeout would be bad > for me -- I don't wait for slow play or call a judge to accuse someone > of "stalling". What I do, regularly, is point out to the judge that > timing may be critical to the game (or tournament) and invite him to > observe the endgame, watch for slow play, and exercise his judgment > and award extra time if he observes stalling or slow play. > > Generally, this can be done without accusing anyone of anything or > offending anyone. And if everyone knows the Judge is there, watching > for slow play, things tend to move along briskly. Ah-ha!! A useful alternative suggestion! Outstanding. > That's an interesting idea. It sounds a little extreme. Is long-winded > talking and deal making so rampant that these will get used? Do you > have that many tables going to time now? If so, this sounds like > something that might be worth a try. Yeah, not so much, actually -- around these parts folks tend to move along and play the game. But I like the notion anyway, and although it might be extreme, it seems like it could also be fun. :) -Jason

[ quoted text not captured ] Heh! That is an excellent rebuttal, but I think it also illuminates a possible source of this issue in VTES. To some people, a game of VTES is *also* all about arguing with people. Since it's a multiplayer game and subject to multiplayer dynamics as much as most (and more than a lot of them), they may very well be right. Josh btw, you know what you should do with some of your "internet vtes time"? join the #vtes channel on irc!! it is teh b0mbz0r. if you don't have an irc client you can do it through the web at http://www.sorcery.net/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=416, but you also could download any irc client and just do it that way (channel #vtes on the sorcery.net server... the ever-reliable kevin mergen recommends "icechat" as a free client...)

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:Zkuei.2655$vi5....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] But that isn't what Peter is doing. He's just implying that "playing the game" should include the idea that _each_ player has an opportunity to participate. In a game with a time limit, deal-making discussions which don't involve the total table subtract valuable time from all players at the table. Take his example of 24 minutes of time average per player. If a game has a 10 minute discussion about a deal, that effectively subtracts two minutes (2/24 = ~8%) from _each_ player's total time to get things done. No other in-game activity takes anywhere near this long. This leads me to the idea that one could argue that dealmaking is significantly different from other examples of easrnest "playing the game" in the strictest sense, because it consumes a finite game resource (time), sometimes a lot of time, without an accompanied change in the game state. Is there another example of in-game play that has a similar effect? I'd say that alone is a compelling reason to at least consider treating deal- making as a special sub-set of "playing the game", possibly with some kind of restriction on how much of that resource it is allowed to consume. DZ AW

atomweaver wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > news:Zkuei.2655$vi5....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net: > >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> On Jun 21, 8:15 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> I do not have a problem with playing the game as far as playing the >>>> game is concerned, no. That applies even in this torturedly >>>> contrived fantasy example. >>>> >>>> See responses above, where this is stated multiple times. >>> That strikes me as unadulterated madness, but ok. >> The schizophrenic fragmenting of playing the game into playing the >> game and anti playing the game seems more readily labeled as madness. > > But that isn't what Peter is doing. Yes, it is. > He's just implying that "playing the > game" should include the idea that _each_ player has an opportunity to > participate. And that other point has also been addressed. See the 20+ combat example.

atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Xns995670B3CA...@207.115.33.102: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > news:Zkuei.2655$vi5....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net: > >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> On Jun 21, 8:15 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> I do not have a problem with playing the game as far as playing the >>>> game is concerned, no. That applies even in this torturedly >>>> contrived fantasy example. >>>> >>>> See responses above, where this is stated multiple times. >>> >>> That strikes me as unadulterated madness, but ok. >> >> The schizophrenic fragmenting of playing the game into playing the >> game and anti playing the game seems more readily labeled as madness. > > But that isn't what Peter is doing. He's just implying that "playing > the game" should include the idea that _each_ player has an > opportunity to participate. In a game with a time limit, deal-making > discussions which don't involve the total table subtract valuable time > from all players at the table. Take his example of 24 minutes of time > average per player. If a game has a 10 minute discussion about a > deal, that effectively subtracts two minutes (2/24 = ~8%) from _each_ > player's total time to get things done. No other in-game activity > takes anywhere near this long. > > This leads me to the idea that one could argue that dealmaking is > significantly different from other examples of 'easrnest' ugh. 'earnest'... DZ AW

On Jun 21, 7:57 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > On Jun 21, 6:54 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Gameplay is not disruptive to gameplay. > > > It is if it is keeping other people from playing the game. > > No. The sentence above is a tautology. But Peter's qualification changes it to a different sentence. > Playing the game does not pose an obstacle to playing the game. It *is* playing > the game. But "you" playing the game certainly CAN pose an obstacle to "us" playing the game. (Where "you" refers to a subset of the game's participants - 2 of the 5, say - and "us" refers to the game as a whole, in which three other players are having their time frittered away. - D.J.

[ quoted text not captured ] I know posts like this are frowned upon, but Dave - Good points! best - chris (Peter and Scott looked like they could have gone on for a long time on this theme) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:5Bwei.413$K44.68 @newssvr13.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] It does in part, but what you snipped past the above advanced that discussion a bit. I'd be interested in your comment on it; "This leads me to the idea that one could argue that dealmaking is significantly different from other examples of earnest "playing the game" in the strictest sense, because it consumes a finite game resource (time), sometimes a _lot_ of time, ***without an accompanied change in the game state***. Is there another example of in-game play that has a similar effect? I'd say that alone is a compelling reason to at least consider treating deal-making as a special sub-set of "playing the game", [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 21, 10:27 am, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Heh! That is an excellent rebuttal, but I think it also illuminates a > possible source of this issue in VTES. To some people, a game of VTES > is *also* all about arguing with people. Since it's a multiplayer > game and subject to multiplayer dynamics as much as most (and more > than a lot of them), they may very well be right. Me arguing on the internet does not detract from someone else's ability to use the internet--they can freely ignore me, killfile me, or just go look at the internet somewhere else. Even then, there are places on the internet where even though I think the purpose is just to argue with people, I will be shut down by the "judge" (i.e. moderator) 'cause they think my arguing on the internet is detracting from other folks being able to use the internet. Conversely, two people consuming a significant amount of my limited time in a game of VTES as they debate the fine points of a VP deal for half an hour while I sit there waiting for my turn with my thumb up my ass and am unable to progress my part of the game certainly detracts from my ability to play VTES. That is a significant difference, for my money. > btw, you know what you should do with some of your "internet vtes > time"? join the #vtes channel on irc!! it is teh b0mbz0r. Yeah, I tried that a couple times, and it kept not working right-- Kevin could see the messages I wrote, but I couldn't see what he wrote back. Maybe that was when I was using system 9, and now I am on OSX which might work better. But I dunno... -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: >> btw, you know what you should do with some of your "internet vtes >> time"? join the #vtes channel on irc!! it is teh b0mbz0r. > > Yeah, I tried that a couple times, and it kept not working right-- > Kevin could see the messages I wrote, but I couldn't see what he wrote > back. Maybe that was when I was using system 9, and now I am on OSX > which might work better. But I dunno... I use Conversation on OSX, FWIW. http://homepage.mac.com/philrobin/conversation/index.html

atomweaver wrote: > It does in part, but what you snipped past the above advanced that > discussion a bit. I'd be interested in your comment on it; > > "This leads me to the idea that one could argue that dealmaking is > significantly different from other examples of earnest "playing the > game" in the strictest sense, because it consumes a finite game resource > (time), sometimes a _lot_ of time, ***without an accompanied change in > the game state***. Is there another example of in-game play that has a > similar effect? I'd say that alone is a compelling reason to at least > consider treating deal-making as a special sub-set of "playing the game", > possibly with some kind of restriction on how much of that resource it is > allowed to consume." I didn't see this as advancing the discussion, since it is not relevant. If the deal-making part of playing the game is significantly different from other parts of playing the game, that wouldn't suddenly make it "not playing the game". "A special sub-set" of playing the game is still playing the game, and there's no indication that an arbitrary restriction on any sub-set of playing the game is needed. And it was touched on in the 20+ combat example -- taking time to plan out your turn (or even just decide on your next card play or analyze the game state to determine how best to set the terms of a referendum) is playing the game.

On 20 Jun, 16:21, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > RocketEddy wrote: > > On Jun 20, 3:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> The rules on slow play: > > Let's face it, nobody enjoys trying a new game and being trounced by a > > group of experienced players who give you no chance. In a tournament > > environment, that is precisely what new players can expect, and > > rightly so. Hence the solution is not to change tournament rules for > > the experienced players, but to target newbies with a separate and > > less-competitive event. > > That's exaclty my intention, indeed - to see if there's can be > a sanctioned format for beginners/less competitive players, > and i'm happy that you see the point. Yes, I see your point, though you seem to have completely missed mine. As I said in my previous post: "There seems to be a big assumption here that events in which new players can be encouraged to learn the game must be sanctioned tournaments in which experienced players will wish to win for the sake of their ratings." But new players don't need sanctioned tournaments. If you reduce or take away entirely the *must* win factor, then the experienced players will be more inclined to behave in a manner which doesn't scare away the new players.

Howdy, [ quoted text not captured ] Or, alternatively, 'actively' playing vs. 'passively' playing. For the real life reduction ad absurdum that this distinction can lead to, see the CCG version of Illuminati. The demise of that game came, in part, from the fact that a player wishing to do so could construct a deck capable of winning the game on the first turn of play. If that player went first, then he would be the only 'active' participant in the game at all. Which seems like a pretty big problem for game 'play', though, in that case, the 'active' player is actually 'playing' using the rules, cards, etc. and not 'deal-making' or 'negotiating' or 'meditating on strategic issues' or otherwise engaging in other 'rules-neutral' activities. (By 'rules-neutral' I mean 'neither allowed nor disallowed by the rules'.) Which is to say that Peter (and Emiliano have) a point. If permitted play styles are regularly and predictably destroying a large subset of players' enjoyment of the game, it is not good for the game. (Well, unless the same is also attracting a similar amount of new players, I suppose.) OTOH, I don't think anyone (except maybe Emiliano) is arguing that V:TES has reached this point. Alex

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:o0yei.441$K44...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net: > atomweaver wrote: >> It does in part, but what you snipped past the above advanced that >> discussion a bit. I'd be interested in your comment on it; >> >> "This leads me to the idea that one could argue that dealmaking is >> significantly different from other examples of earnest "playing the >> game" in the strictest sense, because it consumes a finite game >> resource (time), sometimes a _lot_ of time, ***without an accompanied >> change in the game state***. Is there another example of in-game play >> that has a similar effect? I'd say that alone is a compelling reason >> to at least consider treating deal-making as a special sub-set of >> "playing the game", possibly with some kind of restriction on how >> much of that resource it is allowed to consume." > > I didn't see this as advancing the discussion, since it is not > relevant. If the deal-making part of playing the game is significantly > different from other parts of playing the game, that wouldn't suddenly > make it "not playing the game". Goog thing I didn't say that, then. > "A special sub-set" of playing the > game is still playing the game, and there's no indication that an > arbitrary restriction on any sub-set of playing the game is needed. > Its not arbitrary. A restriction of deal-making time consumption should be based on the very real fact that deal-making negotiations are unique in that they can consume a lot of time, without changing the game state. Two ten-minute dealmaking negotiations in a 120 minute round result in no game state change, and removes 17% of the table's total available time to accomplish in-game objectives. Even the example of resolving 20+ block- combats takes less time, and the game state is constantly changing throughout the string of actions. Deal-making is (can be) uniquely and disproportionately time consuming, in a game with time limits. > And it was touched on in the 20+ combat example -- taking time to plan > out your turn (or even just decide on your next card play or analyze > the game state to determine how best to set the terms of a referendum) > is playing the game. > If the lack of change of game state is not taken into account, then I can (in earnest) plan out my turn for an amount of time equivalent to a typical deal-brokerage attempt, or longer, and further disproportionately (and legally) squander the time available to the whole table. Like Peter, I was under the (apparently mistaken) assumption that the Slow Play rules were in place, at least in part, to ensure that the limited time resource was allocated a bit fairly (if not evenly) across all players. What you're telling us here is, that is not the case. The position of "any amount of time is OK, so long as you are playing the game in earnest" in a timed multi-player game is unreasonable, and too easily exploited. Anyone can make better decisions when they stop to think about all the possiblities, and VTES is a very complex game. Since it appears from this thread that there is no particular limit on how much earnest contemplation one can make, and, for me anyways, more consideration always results in better decisions, from now on I'll be taking at least 10 minutes per turn once the mid-game is reached (by about turn 4-6, things usually get complicated), just to be sure I've considered all my options fully. What fun. DZ AW

atomweaver wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> "A special sub-set" of playing the >> game is still playing the game, and there's no indication that an >> arbitrary restriction on any sub-set of playing the game is needed. >> > Its not arbitrary. [...] Two ten-minute dealmaking > negotiations [... something that seems like it may be "is too much"]. So apparently the arbitrary limit you have in mind is less than 20. Is it less than or greater than 10? 5? 15? 2.5? 7.5? 12.5? 17.5? 1.25? ... 18.75? If my guess that you have it figured as less than 20 is incorrect, then 25? 30? 45? 60? 90? (and so on from there). Arbitrary. >> And it was touched on in the 20+ combat example -- taking time to plan >> out your turn (or even just decide on your next card play or analyze >> the game state to determine how best to set the terms of a referendum) >> is playing the game. > > If the lack of change of game state is not taken into account, then I can > (in earnest) plan out my turn for an amount of time equivalent to a typical > deal-brokerage attempt, or longer, and further disproportionately (and > legally) squander the time available to the whole table. "earnest" and "squander" are at odds. Unless you consider any time taken to go through the mechanics of any turn "squandered". > Like Peter, I was under the (apparently mistaken) assumption that the > Slow Play rules were in place, at least in part, to ensure that the limited > time resource was allocated a bit fairly (if not evenly) across all > players. What you're telling us here is, that is not the case. That's an odd assumption. Any basis? Any hope of logistical application (i.e., of determining what is a fair allocation of time given widely disparate needs of the players re: options available, deals discerned or hoped for, minimum time required to physically manipulate the game state, etc.)? Anyway, I see no indication from Peter's posts in this thread that he harbored that assumption. The rule is in place to ensure that players take their turns (meaning their impulses -- turns to act in the sequence) in a timely fashion. > The position of "any amount of time is OK, so long as you are playing the > game in earnest" in a timed multi-player game is unreasonable, and too > easily exploited. Anyone can make better decisions when they stop to think > about all the possiblities, and VTES is a very complex game. Since it > appears from this thread that there is no particular limit on how much > earnest contemplation one can make, and, for me anyways, more consideration > always results in better decisions, from now on I'll be taking at least 10 > minutes per turn once the mid-game is reached (by about turn 4-6, things > usually get complicated), just to be sure I've considered all my options > fully. What fun. Good luck to you in finding a judge who believes that those 10 minutes are spent earnestly.

RocketEddy wrote: > On 20 Jun, 16:21, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> RocketEddy wrote: >>> On Jun 20, 3:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> The rules on slow play: >>> Let's face it, nobody enjoys trying a new game and being trounced >>> by a group of experienced players who give you no chance. In a >>> tournament environment, that is precisely what new players can >>> expect, and rightly so. Hence the solution is not to change >>> tournament rules for the experienced players, but to target newbies >>> with a separate and less-competitive event. >> >> That's exaclty my intention, indeed - to see if there's can be >> a sanctioned format for beginners/less competitive players, >> and i'm happy that you see the point. > > Yes, I see your point, though you seem to have completely missed mine. > As I said in my previous post: "There seems to be a big assumption > here that events in which new players can be encouraged to learn the > game must be sanctioned tournaments in which experienced players will > wish to win for the sake of their ratings." But new players don't need > sanctioned tournaments. Care to explain why ? A beginner usually loves to test his learning (growing) ability with the game in an official tournament enviroment. It's curious how VTES player base does not recognize that, after 14 years of printed cards, massive rulings, plenty of cards rewordings, deal system officialized even in tournament rules, it should be the time to get an official format for beginners / less experienced players. Do you realize that, given the picture, a beginner has an enormous amount of stuff to learn at this point ? >If you reduce or take away entirely the *must* > win factor, then the experienced players will be more inclined to > behave in a manner which doesn't scare away the new players. Players play the game following the tournament rules and its format. You can't rely on the good will of single experienced players to "hold back" their skill in the official game and at deals-making, just to make newbies to feel more confortable. The official system should consider a more friendly format for newbies; getting rid of deals with an already tested (and nice) format seems to be the best option available, and still no-one here pointed a valid argument about how this could hurt the existing tournament scene, that's all. Emiliano

In article <sAAei.463$K44...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Anyway, I see no indication from Peter's posts in this thread that he > harbored hat assumption. No, no. I harbored that assumption. My comments about a portion of the players in the game monopolizing the limited time resources and preventing another portion of the players in the game from playing their game as a result indicates that assumption on my part, I'd think. > Good luck to you in finding a judge who believes that those 10 minutes are > spent earnestly. I can easily see someone earnestly spending 10 minutes weighing all possible options in a given situation. Just like I can see 2 or 3 people spending half an hour earnestly debating the merits of a VP deal. I don't think either one is condusive to timely game play, however. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:sAAei.463$K44...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net: > atomweaver wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >>> "A special sub-set" of playing the >>> game is still playing the game, and there's no indication that an >>> arbitrary restriction on any sub-set of playing the game is needed. >>> >> Its not arbitrary. [...] Two ten-minute dealmaking > > negotiations [... something that seems like it may be "is too > > much"]. > > So apparently the arbitrary limit you have in mind is less than 20. > I haven't even gotten that far. At this point I'm only trying to get to the recognition that "infinite, in earnest" is not practical, and difficult in the majority of cases to enforce. > Is it less than or greater than 10? > 5? 15? > 2.5? 7.5? 12.5? 17.5? > 1.25? ... 18.75? > > If my guess that you have it figured as less than 20 is incorrect, > then > > 25? 30? 45? 60? 90? > (and so on from there). > > Arbitrary. > The twenty minute example was solely to hang some numbers on a single example of how much table time is used up. A less arbitary time limit for the amount of time that the game state can remain motionless could be based on any number of methods used to assess the global tournament scene, and determine a reasonable timeframe. At this point, I'm only saying that the problem should be looked at, because "infinite, in earnest" is not practical, and diffuclt to enforce. >>> And it was touched on in the 20+ combat example -- taking time to >>> plan out your turn (or even just decide on your next card play or >>> analyze the game state to determine how best to set the terms of a >>> referendum) is playing the game. >> >> If the lack of change of game state is not taken into account, then >> I can >> (in earnest) plan out my turn for an amount of time equivalent to a >> typical deal-brokerage attempt, or longer, and further >> disproportionately (and legally) squander the time available to the >> whole table. > > "earnest" and "squander" are at odds. You are right, its a biased term. Substitute "consume", then. Its largely irrelevant to the point. One player is consuming a very limited resource disproportionately. > Unless you consider any time > taken to go through the mechanics of any turn "squandered". > Again, all other mechanics (other than contemplating one's next action or actions) alter the game state, and no other mechanic consumes as much time. >> Like Peter, I was under the (apparently mistaken) assumption that >> the >> Slow Play rules were in place, at least in part, to ensure that the >> limited time resource was allocated a bit fairly (if not evenly) >> across all players. What you're telling us here is, that is not the >> case. > > That's an odd assumption. Any basis? As you are fond of saying, only an assumption that is found in all games. In a game with a time limit, time is a finite resource. Typically, games with finite resources distribute those resources roughly equally amongst players, or provides the players a means of redress for the disproportionate consumption of those finite resources. Do you know of another game with time limits, where one player is allowed to spend all of the time as they will, so long as they are playing the game "in earnest"? > Any hope of logistical > application (i.e., of determining what is a fair allocation of time > given widely disparate needs of the players re: options available, > deals discerned or hoped for, minimum time required to physically > manipulate the game state, etc.)? > Then maybe the limit should be on how much time may pass with the game state left unaltered. *shrug* That has obvious problems, too. I don't have a perfect answer in hand as to what is best for addressing this issue. If i did, I would have put it in my first reply. I am only certain that there is very likely to be a better answer than the one you suggest here, and I'd like to continue to explore the possibilities. > Anyway, I see no indication from Peter's posts in this thread that he > harbored that assumption. > My mistake then. I derived that opinion from this quote: "-Play in a Timely Fashion: Any kind of deal making that is excessively long (i.e. the kind of table talk that scares people away from the game) is not playing in a timely fashion, and should be called on for delay of game. Especially in a game with a 2 hour time limit." Peter should please correct me if I'm wrong about that. > The rule is in place to ensure that players take their turns (meaning > their impulses -- turns to act in the sequence) in a timely fashion. > >> The position of "any amount of time is OK, so long as you are >> playing the >> game in earnest" in a timed multi-player game is unreasonable, and >> too easily exploited. Anyone can make better decisions when they >> stop to think about all the possiblities, and VTES is a very complex >> game. Since it appears from this thread that there is no particular >> limit on how much earnest contemplation one can make, and, for me >> anyways, more consideration always results in better decisions, from >> now on I'll be taking at least 10 minutes per turn once the mid-game >> is reached (by about turn 4-6, things usually get complicated), just >> to be sure I've considered all my options fully. What fun. > > Good luck to you in finding a judge who believes that those 10 minutes > are spent earnestly. > I've been a strong advocate for your past decisions about judging using ones' Judgement, Scott. I really hope you'll please pause and listen when I ask you to consider that something so completely an internal, mental process as "considering ones options" when paired with "infinite, in earnest" play would result frequently in a completely un-judgable circumstance, once the game has reached a level of complexity typically found by mid-game (all five players in, with the majority of their permanent resources on the board, and some number of cards played to the ash heap). I can judge all sorts of things, Play to Win, legality of a Deal, etc. based on the state of the game and input from the players. I find myself having a difficult time figuring out how to fairly judge a mental process completely internal to the player against the metric you've provided. I don't have an answer as to what would work better. I'm only saying your particular response is IMO just not adequate, and that we should try to hash something better out. DZ AW

In article <Xns9956AD5C2C...@207.115.33.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Peter should please correct me if I'm wrong about that. No, no--good assumption. (And my offer for marriage still stands. Damn polygamy rules...) [ quoted text not captured ]

atomweaver wrote: > I don't have an answer as to what would work better. I'm only saying > your particular response is IMO just not adequate, and that we should try > to hash something better out. So far the problem seems to be one of terminology and personal taste. Deal-making time should not be curtailed just because one of the players at the table doesn't like it (just like you wouldn't keep someone from untapping all of her cards just because it takes 10x as long as someone else's untap phase). That is, playing the game is allowed. Excessive time used in any fashion (taking longer than necessary to conclude deal-making, analysis, or whatever) is already prohibited.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 21, 6:54 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Gameplay is not disruptive to gameplay. > > It is if it is keeping other people from playing the game. Two people > having an earnest discussion of how they can best split the table that > prevents three other people from taking actions for a long period of > time is certainly disruptive. A tournament round has 2 hours in it. In > a 5 player game, that gives each player about 24 minutes of play time. > If a significant portion of player A's play time is taken away by > players B and C by actions that are arguably unecessary, that is bad. Hmm, I think a possible solution is forming. If each player should equitably get about 24 minutes play time, why not formalise it? Chess clocks for tournament VTES! Throw away the 2 hour time limit. Each player gets 25 minutes on their clock. Spend as long as you like "earnestly" trying to broker a deal. Spend as long as you like "earnestly" weighing your options given the current game state. If your flag falls, you are ousted. "Hey, dude, can we work together? I just want one VP. If you were to rescue Smudge, then I could-" "Sorry, we're not discussing this on my clock. I bleed..." Appolonius

Appolonius wrote: > Hmm, I think a possible solution is forming. If each player should > equitably get about 24 minutes play time, why not formalise it? Chess > clocks for tournament VTES! > Because a player's turn is not his own. Other players are involved in the turn.

Just out of curiosity, I've been told that it is within the tournament rules to monitor how long it takes each player to have their turn and if they spend an inordinate amount of time in one round as opposed to their other rounds you are within your rights to call over a judge to "hurry things along" , is this correct or not? (apologies for the long sentence) Cheers Sutekh_23

On 21 Jun, 22:35, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > RocketEddy wrote: > > As I said in my previous post: "There seems to be a big assumption > > here that events in which new players can be encouraged to learn the > > game must be sanctioned tournaments in which experienced players will > > wish to win for the sake of their ratings." But new players don't need > > sanctioned tournaments. > > Care to explain why ? > A beginner usually loves to test his learning (growing) ability with the > game in an official tournament enviroment. Umm. You started this whole thread by saying "(the social table talk-deal making) is making potential new players just to go away from the game". So either the tournament environment is loved... or it's making them quit and never return. If player is testing his ability and loses, so be it. But I don't think you can class such people as "potential new players". Anybody ready to test themselves at a tournament should be at least competent already, imho. Of course, this requires there to be an alternative environment for new players - here I agree with you. I always try to introduce new players on a "friendlier" level until they feel ready for the exposure to the tournament scene. But that doesn't need to be any kind of "offically sanctioned event" which seems to be what you're pushing for. > It's curious how VTES player base does not recognize that, after 14 years of > printed cards, massive rulings, plenty of cards rewordings, deal system officialized > even in tournament rules, it should be the time to get an official format > for > beginners / less experienced players. > Do you realize that, given the picture, a beginner has an enormous amount > of stuff to learn at this point ? Of course, but why does a beginner need to learn in a tournament environment? You don't need any kind of official sanctioned structure for a non-tournament event/game/thing. > >If you reduce or take away entirely the *must* > > win factor, then the experienced players will be more inclined to > > behave in a manner which doesn't scare away the new players. > > Players play the game following the tournament rules and its format. > You can't rely on the good will of single experienced players to "hold back" > their > skill in the official game and at deals-making, just to make newbies to feel > more > confortable. In a tournament, I would agree. But in an event geared specifically at encouraging new players to play? Of course you can! Any players who are so obsessed with their own vanity that they'd deliberately discourage new players in a non-sanctioned event should be "asked" not to attend. If somebody is *learning* the game, they should be allowed to bend rules when they make mistakes (take back cards they didnt realise they couldnt play, etc) - it's a learning environment, and it doesn't matter. If they're at a level where restrictions need to be applied to the rules or they stop playing, then they're clearly not ready for tournament play yet. If you're saying that in a non-tournament game your players will deliberately act in a way that has been seen to be putting new players off the game, then the problem lies in the attitude of your local playgroup. > The official system should consider a more friendly format for newbies; > getting rid of deals with an already tested (and nice) format seems to be > the > best option available, and still no-one here pointed a valid argument about > how > this could hurt the existing tournament scene, that's all. I simply don't see why you need an official system. If you feel table- talk is too off-putting for new players, have a non-sanctioned event which limits it. If there's too many cards for your players, limit it to just 3rd Ed precons or something. If the mechanics are confusing people, limit it to standard bleed/politics/combat with no "trick" decks, or hell, you could even ban political actions. Whatever you feel works to help people LEARN the game. There's nothing stopping you doing that which I am aware of. But why must there be a single all- encompassing official system for learning how to play? What comes next? An official step-by-step order in which card texts must be memorized? :p If players aren't ready for tournaments, they don't need sanctioned tournaments. If they are, then they are.

[ quoted text not captured ] "Compared with other rounds" is immaterial, so the above is not correct. What matters is whether the time hu's* spending is excessive (i.e., more than what is reasonably used to play the game from hu position -- play state and player knowledge). *Hu -- the latest "he/she" replacement suggestion. Pronounced "huh". "Hu" can mean "he" "his" or "him" or "she" "hers" or "her". Suggested by DeAnn DeLuna at John Hopkins.

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:pdb6- 0DCF00.170...@news-server.stny.rr.com: > In article <Xns9956AD5C2C...@207.115.33.102>, > atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Peter should please correct me if I'm wrong about that. > > No, no--good assumption. > > (And my offer for marriage still stands. Damn polygamy rules...) > Sorry dude. I've already got three nouths to feed. You'll make someone a damned fine Trophy: Wife one day (hey! Somebody make a Red List card outta that, quick!) DZ AW

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:K3Oei.5689$bP5....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: > *Hu -- the latest "he/she" replacement suggestion. Pronounced "huh". > "Hu" can mean "he" "his" or "him" or "she" "hers" or "her". Suggested > by DeAnn DeLuna at John Hopkins. > Ick, that's awful. DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] I like "one" myself, but everyone seems to think that's too snooty. "huh" definitely passes the snooty test, at least. I don't think it's a good idea to use "hu" as-is for possessive, though. "hus" seems better suited for that. It also seems a poor decision to spell it hu and say to pronounce it "huh". Just spelling it like it sounds would be better if you want it to stick. But I'm not the linguist. Anyway, I'll try anything to kill the "they" as singular abomination. :-)

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:73Qei.5911$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net: > atomweaver wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> news:K3Oei.5689$bP5....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: >> >> >>> *Hu -- the latest "he/she" replacement suggestion. Pronounced "huh". >>> "Hu" can mean "he" "his" or "him" or "she" "hers" or "her". >>> Suggested by DeAnn DeLuna at John Hopkins. >>> >> >> Ick, that's awful. > > I like "one" myself, Me too, lets issue errata!! > but everyone seems to think that's too snooty. Bah. Plebian phillistines, all of them... > "huh" definitely passes the snooty test, at least. > > I don't think it's a good idea to use "hu" as-is for possessive, > though. "hus" seems better suited for that. > > It also seems a poor decision to spell it hu and say to pronounce it > "huh". Just spelling it like it sounds would be better if you want it > to stick. > I can see the origin of it; take "man" off of the back end of "human"... Its damned awkward in the spoken language, though, particularly in the sentence where you happened to use it ("...the time hu's spending...") follow "hu's" up with anything sibilant, and you end up sounding like a leaky air line. > But I'm not the linguist. > > Anyway, I'll try anything to kill the "they" as singular abomination. :-) I think that the perfect answer has already been created decades ago in Brooklyn and North Jersey; "dem", posssessive "dem's" :-) DZ AW

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:coCei.5565$bP5...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: > atomweaver wrote: >> I don't have an answer as to what would work better. I'm only >> saying >> your particular response is IMO just not adequate, and that we should >> try to hash something better out. > > So far the problem seems to be one of terminology and personal taste. > No, I'm really having a time more with wrapping my mind around what I should be looking at for context, in terms of enforcement. Game state is mostly useless, except as a gross metric for how complex the game state is. And again, what is fair in terms of one or two people consuming the limited amount of time disproportionately. > Deal-making time should not be curtailed just because one of the > players at the table doesn't like it (just like you wouldn't keep > someone from untapping all of her cards just because it takes 10x as > long as someone else's untap phase). That is, playing the game is > allowed. > > Excessive time used in any fashion (taking longer than necessary to > conclude deal-making, analysis, or whatever) is already prohibited. Even that statement changes the metric from time spent "in earnest", to time spent that is "necessary", which IMO is a step in the right direction. Although in a complex game situation, you can still claim that a half-hour is necessary to fully discuss the aspects that factor into a deal. I'd rather that we still at least consider the possibility of a some non-binding guidelines as to what is necessary and/or reasonable. Such as, a "three-minute*" guide for the duration that the game state can remain unaltered for the purpose of dialogue, and a "thirty second*" guide for a single player's contemplation of the game state before changing it. These could be extended by the Judge for mitigating circumstances, but are (I think) useful for getting all players to make their deals and consider their options without a disproportionate consumption of the total time available for the round. I know our international players won't like (and possibly won't follow**) the analogy, but i see a lot of similarities to the VTES judge's responsibilities, and that of a baseball umpire defining the strike zone. But, the difference is that we have a lot less of a written guide as to how to call balls and strikes. I don't think its a bad thing to quantify judging a bit more than we have, so long as its understood to be alterable at the discretion of the judge. DZ AW *Please, pick some number more appropriate... ** for not-baseball fans abroad; in baseball, the strike zone is the area over the width of home plate that reaches roughly from the bottom of the batter's knees to the mid-torso (a horizontal line midway between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants). A pitcher tries to throw the ball into the strike zone three times, without the batter hitting the ball into the field of play, in order to get the batter out. Missing the strike zone four times allows the player to advance to first base. In practice (but with limits), baseball umpires have discretion to alter the strike zone (due to height of the batter, stance, etc.), much in the same way that VTES Judges can use their discretion in assinging different severity of penalties, and ruling on things like Play to Win and Deal Legality, based on the particular circumstances of each incident. Baseball umpires have pretty extensive training and written guidelines, to keep the strike zone consistent. Of course, there is always controversy, game to game, but there is less variation in consistency today than at many times in the past.

atomweaver wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> atomweaver wrote: >>> I don't have an answer as to what would work better. I'm only >>> saying >>> your particular response is IMO just not adequate, and that we should >>> try to hash something better out. >> So far the problem seems to be one of terminology and personal taste. >> > > No, I'm really having a time more with wrapping my mind around what I > should be looking at for context, in terms of enforcement. Game state is > mostly useless, except as a gross metric for how complex the game state > is. > And again, what is fair in terms of one or two people consuming the > limited amount of time disproportionately. Again, it is immaterial how the time is portioned. The player's aren't "owed" a certain number (or percentage) of minutes, actions, card plays, or whatever each game. They're owed only as much as the game progression drops in their laps. Some might get (or use) more than others. What is fair is allowing the players to play the game. If they're making deals, OK.

atomweaver wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > news:73Qei.5911$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net: > >> atomweaver wrote: >>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >>> news:K3Oei.5689$bP5....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: >>> >>> >>>> *Hu -- the latest "he/she" replacement suggestion. Pronounced "huh". >>>> "Hu" can mean "he" "his" or "him" or "she" "hers" or "her". >>>> Suggested by DeAnn DeLuna at John Hopkins. >>>> >>> >>> Ick, that's awful. >> >> I like "one" myself, > > Me too, lets issue errata!! > >> but everyone seems to think that's too snooty. > > Bah. Plebian phillistines, all of them... I like "one" too. :) -- salem three four!

On Jun 19, 9:52 am, "Tetragrammaton" wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Probably a better solution would then be to run a "newbie" > > unsanctioned tournament. By keeping it unsanctioned, the experienced > > players don't have any rating or ranking to worry about, and can > > focus on having fun and helping the newbies have fun. > > You know that the game it's not so widespread - the stable players base, > at least in italy, is about 10-15 people per city - most of them are > people playing vtes from long long time, that are not so interested in > playing an unofficial event. Emiliano, Just out of curiosity, how are your casual games like? As I player, I wouldn't find a lot of incentive to play in non- sanctioned constructed tournaments (storylines are great, though), but I always make a point of teaching stuff to newbies on friendly tables. And even on official tournament tables. Our casual games are played according to the VEKN tournament rules*, as we implicitly feel that our weekly gaming sessions are an opportunity to "prepare" ourselves to tournaments - besides being a pleasant way to spend our time, of course. In our casual tables deals are made, play to win is enforced, strategies are discussed, and advice/explanations are given to newer players. Also, one of us is ready to sit out of a table once in a while, to teach someone new that might be interested on learning the game. Most of the time, this is enough preparation for our newbies to face the less relaxed (more competitive) atmosphere of tournaments. Abraço, Luiz Mello Brazil VTES NC * Except for the time limit, that we may or may not use, depending on how many tables we intend to play in a given afternoon, on how many decks people want to test etc.

Clément wrote: > On Jun 19, 9:52 am, "Tetragrammaton" wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Probably a better solution would then be to run a "newbie" >>> unsanctioned tournament. By keeping it unsanctioned, the experienced >>> players don't have any rating or ranking to worry about, and can >>> focus on having fun and helping the newbies have fun. >> >> You know that the game it's not so widespread - the stable players >> base, at least in italy, is about 10-15 people per city - most of >> them are people playing vtes from long long time, that are not so >> interested in playing an unofficial event. > > Emiliano, > > Just out of curiosity, how are your casual games like? > We play following the tournament rules at our weekly games, since that gives sense in the perspective of playing the monthly tournament. > As I player, I wouldn't find a lot of incentive to play in non- > sanctioned constructed tournaments (storylines are great, though), but > I always make a point of teaching stuff to newbies on friendly tables. > And even on official tournament tables. > > Our casual games are played according to the VEKN tournament rules*, > as we implicitly feel that our weekly gaming sessions are an > opportunity to "prepare" ourselves to tournaments - besides being a > pleasant way to spend our time, of course. Same here, yes > > In our casual tables deals are made, play to win is enforced, > strategies are discussed, and advice/explanations are given to newer > players. Also, one of us is ready to sit out of a table once in a > while, to teach someone new that might be interested on learning the > game. > Same here, yes. > Most of the time, this is enough preparation for our newbies to face > the less relaxed (more competitive) atmosphere of tournaments. > What i'm trying to make understand is that the step between the unskilled level and the level of play of the SC tournament format has turned too big for a newbie to be taken. As long as you have, as sanctioned format, *only* the level of play implied with the deals system *plus* all the big corpus of rules and errata/rewordings etc, that simply gives little sense to newbies in motivating them to the "pro" level of the game. At least in my experience here: with the game becoming more complex at every release (slave, infernal, anarchs, cold iron, burn option, events, trophy, red list, advanced vampires etc etc) the table talks implied with the deals system has come to scare new players - at the start, maybe they get fashinated by game mechanics, cards and its inherent complexities (clan, sect, vote system, combat system, bleed bounce system, prey-predator relantionship etc) but when it come to realize that there's somewhat a *mandatory* level of long arguing trough table talks to make it up out of deals, they tend to go away: simply too much of stuff to handle in the perspective of playing the only format of sanctioned tournament available (that is, the one with lot of table talks by the deal system). That's my point.. Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:rXYei.41424$5j1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] You might read on from where you snipped. What was cut doesn't conflict with what you say here. I suggested that Judges need some (non-binding) guidelines as to how to assess how much time "the game's progression has dropped in a dealing player's lap". My question wrt time usage is, where the hell is the strike zone? When do deal discussions, or any other time-consuming activity, pass from necessary to slow play? There are too few constraining factors, too few extant examples, and too vague a description of appropriate vs. inappropriate time use to judge time consumption at all reliably. I still have almost no clue when to Judge that deal-making has passed from time used that is "necessary", to time used that is in excess of what if "necessary". > What is fair is allowing the players to play the game. If they're > making deals, OK. > We agree, but when judging I'll still expect Judges will be asked on occasion to Judge time use in deal-making, based on the tournament rules. It'd be helpful to have an vague idea as to how to treat those cases consistently... DZ AW

On Jun 22, 9:23 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > atomweaver wrote: > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > >news:K3Oei.5689$bP5....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: > > >> *Hu -- the latest "he/she" replacement suggestion. Pronounced "huh". > >> "Hu" can mean "he" "his" or "him" or "she" "hers" or "her". Suggested > >> by DeAnn DeLuna at John Hopkins. > > > Ick, that's awful. > > I like "one" myself, but everyone seems to think that's too snooty. > "huh" definitely passes the snooty test, at least. > > I don't think it's a good idea to use "hu" as-is for possessive, though. "hus" > seems better suited for that. > > It also seems a poor decision to spell it hu and say to pronounce it "huh". Just > spelling it like it sounds would be better if you want it to stick. > It would make a lot more sense pronounced "hugh". > But I'm not the linguist. > > Anyway, I'll try anything to kill the "they" as singular abomination. :-) That's what they want you to do. One is want to do whatever hu wants. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Heh. I was just about to recommend using the plural forms to indicate the singular with an undertain gender. It's still better than 'hu' I guess. Or you could go with the he/she, he or she forms (more typing, but it probably offers the best clarity). Or you could circumvent the reference in phrasing the sentences in a way that you use few references (and then you can use "the/a player", "the/a Methuselah", etc.). Though this can get tyring if you write a lot (like, a NetRep, kind of does...) While I fully realize that nothing I write is new information in terms of the options available, I am sincerely hoping that the effort spent in composing this post will contribute to you abandoning (or better yet, never really adapting) the horrible "hu" reference. It a-hurtin ma ears, so to speak (and I'm not even a native speaker). If none of the above qualify - I'm a full supporter of the "one" reference myself in the "second worst thing that is still much better than the worst worst thing" kind of way... :) -- Regards, Daneel

librarian wrote: > Blooded Sand wrote: > >> >> I would like to know if the admin involved in having 2 separate levels >> of tournament competition is a strong enough counter-argument to the >> one of creating a more newbie friendly environment. >> > > > From my understanding, yes. > > Oscar is pretty much our only paid OP person, and he handles Eve CCG, > Camarilla, and other OP stuff as well as VTES (I think). > > Robyn is a volunteer. And a damn good one, and under appreciated to > boot. Robyn, you rule! > > There would need to be another volunteer to handle the amateur circuit's > rankings etc. Don't know if there is one out there who could do it well. > You know, I have thought more about this. Perhaps if there was simply a different sanctioning label, say the Third Tradition Tournaments, but all else was the same, it might not be that tough. Robyn would enter Archon's in the same as she does now. It would be just as easy to enter a 3T Tournament as a limited tournament, although I don't know if that is a big deal or not. Oscar/LSJ (don't know who it is now) would sanction the tournaments the same. It would be a nice spiff to have the rankings in the 3T Tourneys be posted on WW's site, and also perhaps a listing of players who have played enough tournaments to move up - sort of like passing out of the Q circuit in PGA golf. The key would be that the tournament rules would be the same. No Silence of Death format, but regular VTES with deals and everything else. The only difference is eligibility of players. A player can play as long as their total number of tournaments played ever is fewer than 10. The number can be tweaked, but you get the idea. This means that those who are not very experienced can play in a tournament level with others of their same level. After 10 tournies of any type, you would then no longer be eligible to play in Third Tradition sanctioned tourneys. Eligibility would be checked by Princes, and there would have to be some level of trust that players were not gaming the system by signing up for new ID's just to play in what would be a "new player" tournament structure. Benefit from WW standpoint is that it would only require a different sanctioning. Archons would be the same, Robyn would enter them the same. There would need to be a new ranking chart on WW's web site, but I can't imagine that would cost too much. All of the above being said however, I can't see that many princes, esp in the US, would take advantage of that sanctioned format. My gut feeling is that most playgroups in the US only have 2-3 new players at a time, and holding a tournament for those 2-3 new players seems sort of goofy. And marketing that circuit in a way that it wouldn't be mocked as the "Baby's league" or something might also be tough. Ah well, just an idea. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

[ quoted text not captured ] I like the idea, but given the relative small number of stable players (usually, 10-15), and (as you point) the few newbies coming to the game each year, beginners would not find a suitable number of relatives to play with at third tradition tournaments (i like the name :-) ). You must consider some sort of more-beginner-friendly format in which both experienced and beginners can still play together, given this fact. The only one that seems to fulfill this requisite is the SoD, so far. Emiliano

On Jun 23, 4:23 am, "Tetragrammaton" wrote: > Clément wrote: > > Most of the time, [casual play, in which the VEKN tournament rules are enforced,] is enough preparation for our newbies to face > > the less relaxed (more competitive) atmosphere of tournaments. > > What i'm trying to make understand is that the step between the > unskilled level and the level of play of the SC tournament format > has turned too big for a newbie to be taken. I know that, and I don't completely disagree with you. I just asked you about how casual play works in your playgroup to try and figure out if a sanctioned tournament format for newbies is really necessary - since the weekly casual play seems to to the job pretty well around here. Granted, our tournaments don't have the amount of dealing that you tell us your tournaments have. Also, I realise that your point doesn't necessarily relies on a sanctioned format for newbies being strictly "necessary". It would be worth of consideration already if it is considered a good way to bring new players into the game, and the cons of putting this thing in place do not outweight the advantages. > As long as you have, as sanctioned format, *only* the level > of play implied with the deals system *plus* all the big corpus > of rules and errata/rewordings etc, that simply gives little sense to > newbies > in motivating them to the "pro" level of the game. > At least in my experience here: with the game becoming more complex at every > release (...) > the table talks implied with the deals system has come to scare new > players - > at the start, maybe they get fashinated by game mechanics, cards and its > inherent complexities (...) > but when it come to realize that there's somewhat a *mandatory* > level of long arguing trough table talks to make it up out of deals, they > tend to go away: simply too much of stuff to handle in the perspective > of playing the only format of sanctioned tournament available (that is, > the one with lot of table talks by the deal system). > > That's my point.. I get it. It doesn't happen here, but I do realise how such a scenario is possible. What I'm not convinced of is that those newbies should be "training" for the "pro" level of tournament play in a different tournament format. Ideally, the newbie tournament should follow the full VEKN rules (except they would not be open tournaments). This way, newbies could practice every aspect of VTES tournament play, including table talk. We have done such events here in the past, play days exclusively for newbies (with or without coaching). We even give nice prizes to them (boosters and useful common cards kits, mostly). Those newbie days are announced in advance, so we try to have a suitable number of newbies - at least three will do, more is a bonus. Very little dealing takes place on these events (although it's allowed), and the game mechanics used are mostly the basic ones. What do you think of this idea? It could be improved so it looks and feels more like a tournament. Also, we could work on aspects such as player eligibility, table seating (3-player tables could be allowed, for example), deck construction, ideal prizes etc. Maybe some sort of ratings too, if it is considered helpful. Just throwing some ideas here, as such things have worked well for us. [ quoted text not captured ]

Clément wrote: > On Jun 23, 4:23 am, "Tetragrammaton" wrote: >> Clément wrote: <snip> > Ideally, the newbie tournament should follow the full VEKN rules > (except they would not be open tournaments). This way, newbies could > practice every aspect of VTES tournament play, including table talk. > > We have done such events here in the past, play days exclusively for > newbies (with or without coaching). We even give nice prizes to them > (boosters and useful common cards kits, mostly). Those newbie days are > announced in advance, so we try to have a suitable number of newbies - > at least three will do, more is a bonus. > > Very little dealing takes place on these events (although it's > allowed), and the game mechanics used are mostly the basic ones. > > What do you think of this idea? It could be improved so it looks and > feels more like a tournament. Also, we could work on aspects such as > player eligibility, table seating (3-player tables could be allowed, > for example), deck construction, ideal prizes etc. Maybe some sort of > ratings too, if it is considered helpful. > I never tried 3 players table, actuallly - and i'm going to have a try for that, granted. thanks for the advices, much appreciated :-) Emiliano

On Jun 28, 1:40 pm, "Tetragrammaton" wrote: > Clément wrote: > > Ideally, the newbie tournament should follow the full VEKN rules > > (except they would not be open tournaments). This way, newbies could > > practice every aspect of VTES tournament play, including table talk. > (...) > > Very little dealing takes place on these events (although it's > > allowed), and the game mechanics used are mostly the basic ones. > > > What do you think of this idea? It could be improved so it looks and > > feels more like a tournament. Also, we could work on aspects such as > > player eligibility, table seating (3-player tables could be allowed, > > for example), deck construction, ideal prizes etc. Maybe some sort of > > ratings too, if it is considered helpful. > > I never tried 3 players table, actuallly - and i'm going to have > a try for that, granted. Just to clarify a little bit, allowing the 3 players table (at "newbie events" only) comes from the observation that it would be a bad idea to call the whole thing off just because a fourth new player didn't show up. In this sense, two player tables could work too, but they are obviously less good because then the multiplayer aspect is completely lost (and cards like Deflection are unplayable). Abraço, Luiz Mello