Deposits

[Gavin Wynford-Jones]

> However - I think it's a bad idea, it would discourage new players.

I disagree. I think far more players are discouraged by a high dropout rate
than by any other problem. I've seen whole games fade away in less than
five turns due to the cascade effect of dropouts. Not just ME, either. The
deposit is to encourage responsibility. At the moment, there is absolutely
no penalty for someone who joins a game and then only plays for a few turns
before leaving his teammates in the lurch. (At times, I find it hard to
believe I'm a liberal at heart!) If I'm investing my time and money in a
game, I get really ticked off if the game goes under because of dropouts.
(On the other hand, I've been so bloody-minded in a couple of games that
I've kept going on my own just to try to prove it can be done!)

Make the deposit equal to five turns play. Then, if the player drops, that
money pays for the first five turns for the replacement player. That way,
Allsorts doesn't even have to lose money on the deal. You could use the
software's evaluation of the position to decide whether the drop was
acceptable or not.

And don't give me the "it's expensive" line, folks: it's not.

Gavin

[ColinForbes]

A couple of points on the deposits debate ...

1) If your position is wrecked and you drop, do you lose the deposit?
2) Who is to decide when a position is unplayable?
3) All of this makes more work for Clint!

Gavin suggested:

> Make the deposit equal to five turns play. Then, if the player
> drops, that money pays for the first five turns for the replacement
> player. That way, Allsorts doesn't even have to lose money on the deal.
> You could use the software's evaluation of the position to decide
> whether the drop was acceptable or not.
> And don't give me the "it's expensive" line, folks: it's not.

Well, aside from the obvious that Allsorts haven't run the game for over
a year :-), to suggest that an additional payment of seventeen pounds
fifty is not expensive just isn't living in the real world. A lot of us
have very limited budgets and it would certainly cut down on the number
of games I played. To be honest if faced with start-up being that much I
would simply play other games and I doubt I'd be the only one.

Deposits are, in my view, an ill-thought out, short-termist solution to
a problem that would end up costing Harlequin more business than it
gained.

Colin.

>
> Gavin
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Free Games & Cash Prizes!
> Gamesville - The World's Biggest & Best Game Show Site!
> http://www.onelist.com/ad/gamesville0
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

[Winn Keathley]

Maybe if the deposit was just set to be the turn fees for turns 6-10 (or
some other arbitrary turn #s like 8-12). That way, if you drop VERY early
you lose it, and it can go to the replacement. You have no reason to drop in
the middle of turns you have already paid for. After the prepaid turns run
out, you will be in the middle game and be in a better position to decide if
your position is playable or not. This way, you dont actually pay any more,
just slightly earlier. (Well, technically I guess you do lose the potential
interest for those turn fees for a few months, maybe 4% of the deposit, but
if you are seriously worried about that take up a cheaper hobby.)

Speaking as a new player who hopes to still be playing after turn 5, I can
say that that wouldn't discourage me, but I cant speak for anyone else.

Winn Keathley

[Gavin Wynford-Jones]

> Well, aside from the obvious that Allsorts haven't run the game for over
> a year :-),

That'll teach me to type in a hurry...

> to suggest that an additional payment of seventeen pounds
> fifty is not expensive just isn't living in the real world.

Oh give me a break... That same argument has been used against deposits
since at least 1979, when I first saw it and the proposed deposit was five
pounds (a far higher sum in real terms than the twenty or so I would
propose today). You pay the sum once and you get it back at the end of the
game. If paying such a sum would cause you such great financial problems
then maybe, to be frank, paying for a game is the least of your worries.

> 2) Who is to decide when a position is unplayable?

The software already does this, if we are to believe the fronsheet.

> 3) All of this makes more work for Clint!

No more than the current system. It's a small programming change in the
accounts software.

> 1) If your position is wrecked and you drop, do you lose the deposit?

No. See point 2 above. If the software says the position is not viable,
you're OK. Otherwise, kiss the cash goodbye.

> Deposits are, in my view, an ill-thought out, short-termist solution to
> a problem that would end up costing Harlequin more business than it
> gained.

S'funny, they worked really well for Chris Harvey. But then he ran his
games as a business not a charity. So, what would you suggest, holding
player's firstborn as hostages...? <g>

Gavin

[ColinForbes]

Gavin wrote...

> If paying such a sum would cause you such great financial problems
> then maybe, to be frank, paying for a game is the least of your worries.

Well I think that's my concern, not yours. The fact remains though that
I (and a number of other existing players that I can think of) would
definitely be put off starting new games if we had to shell out an
additional seventeen or twenty quid.

Even if it's merely paying for turns 6-10 in advance, it's still a lump
sum I would sometimes find it hard to afford. PBM is obviously a hobby
not a necessity, so money has to go on necessities first, hobbies
second. If start-up's were to cost twenty quid, then I would go and play
something cheaper. It's called Free Market Economics.


> > 2) Who is to decide when a position is unplayable?
> The software already does this, if we are to believe the frontsheet.

Oh ha ha. Like the software decided a Dragon Lord position with the
capital as a village was suitable for play? Would you also penalise the
person who dropped the Long Rider position in game 20 when it had only
one major town left - no other pop centres and about five characters?


> > 3) All of this makes more work for Clint!
> No more than the current system. It's a small programming change in the
> accounts software.

Not convinced of this. Any such system will definitely generate a lot
more grief for the GM. Belive me, as a GM myself I'm fully aware of how
awkward players can be. This is just asking for trouble.


> > 1) If your position is wrecked and you drop, do you lose the deposit?
> No. See point 2 above. If the software says the position is not viable,
> you're OK. Otherwise, kiss the cash goodbye.

But that assumes the software is a reliable guide. It isn't.

OK, so what about someone that drops for one of the following reasons
....

1: Death in the family or of someone close to them
2: Loss of their job
3: Moving overseas
4: Job or other change in circumstances (having a baby for instance)
meaning they have less time.

Are you really asking Clint to decide when someone pleading one of the
above (or similar) is telling the truth?

Colin.

[Gavin Wynford-Jones]

-------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------

Message text written by INTERNET:mepbmlist (AT) onelist (DOT) com

"From: ColinForbes <timewyrm@...>

Gavin wrote...

> If paying such a sum would cause you such great financial problems
> then maybe, to be frank, paying for a game is the least of your worries.

Well I think that's my concern, not yours."


-------------------- End Original Message --------------------

Actually, it was meant more as a generalisation rather than a comment aimed
at your good self. No offence intended.

Gavin

[Gavin Wynford-Jones]

Colin, didn't you write this a few posts ago:

"Which opens a bigger can of worms, namely why (to generalise somewhat)
are PBM players unwilling to pay what a game is actually worth?"

You seem to be providing something of an answer. <g> It's a hobby. As such,
it's low on the totem pole.

Gavin

[Gavin Wynford-Jones]

-------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------

Message text written by INTERNET:mepbmlist (AT) onelist (DOT) com

"1: Death in the family or of someone close to them
2: Loss of their job
3: Moving overseas
4: Job or other change in circumstances (having a baby for instance)
meaning they have less time.

Are you really asking Clint to decide when someone pleading one of the
above (or similar) is telling the truth?"


-------------------- End Original Message --------------------

1. Too difficult to fake, therefore not a problem. Of course, when your
*fifth* granny dies...

2. Interesting one, that. I don't know if unemployment pay in the UK is
still as bad as it was when I last lived there, but if it is, you have a
point. In France, you'd hardly see a difference.

3. I have. Didn't affect me in the slightest. Judging by the number of
non-UK players in MEPBM at the moment, this is not an issue for them,
either. Fax and email are wonderful things. <g>

4. And babies suddenly appear out of nowhere, do they? <g> I think that's
an area where you can plan a suitable takeover. <g>

You missed out my favourite: being in hospital having heart surgery. Of
course, I'm biased... <g>

Gavin

[Harlequin Games]

Well we have a decent take up of new players - so don't worry too much.

Generally team games are not the problem though as there is always someone
willing to take up the position. It is the individual games which suffer -
and for a new player one of the most important considerations is the cost of
set-up. The cheaper the set-up the more likely a player drops out (a strong
correlation). Getting players to chat to their team-mates early on helps -
and if there is no response then I would happily allow players to send in a
turn on behalf of their missing brethren.

(I have seen it happen many times).

Clint

>From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@...>
>
>.
>>Finally, I would be willing to pay a deposit, not
>>least because I (in keeping with many others) now only
>>really play team games which guarantees those on both
>>sides will play at least 5-10 turns before biting the
>>bullet.
>Like Mike I only play team games now, so a deposit would not affect me
>much. However - I think it's a bad idea, it would discourage new
>players. With the book and map, it's jolly expensive as it is. When
>the old MEPBEMers die, who will there be to replace us?
>
>Regards, Laurence G. Tilley
>
>http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/ (New spinners & Jokes page)
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ATTN ONELIST USERS: stay current on the latest activities,
>programs, & features at ONElist by joining our member newsletter at
><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/newsletter4 ">Click Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
>To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>

[Harlequin Games]

I concur - and games would be slower to start-up and harder to fill those
especially annoying positions to fill such as the woodmen (6/10 games they
are the last to be filled).

Clint

>From: ColinForbes <timewyrm@...>
>
>A couple of points on the deposits debate ...
>
>1) If your position is wrecked and you drop, do you lose the deposit?
>2) Who is to decide when a position is unplayable?
>3) All of this makes more work for Clint!
>
>Gavin suggested:
>
>> Make the deposit equal to five turns play. Then, if the player
>> drops, that money pays for the first five turns for the replacement
>> player. That way, Allsorts doesn't even have to lose money on the deal.
>> You could use the software's evaluation of the position to decide
>> whether the drop was acceptable or not.
>> And don't give me the "it's expensive" line, folks: it's not.
>
>Well, aside from the obvious that Allsorts haven't run the game for over
>a year :-), to suggest that an additional payment of seventeen pounds
>fifty is not expensive just isn't living in the real world. A lot of us
>have very limited budgets and it would certainly cut down on the number
>of games I played. To be honest if faced with start-up being that much I
>would simply play other games and I doubt I'd be the only one.
>
>Deposits are, in my view, an ill-thought out, short-termist solution to
>a problem that would end up costing Harlequin more business than it
>gained.
>
>Colin.
>
>>
>> Gavin
>>
>> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>>
>> Free Games & Cash Prizes!
>> Gamesville - The World's Biggest & Best Game Show Site!
>> http://www.onelist.com/ad/gamesville0
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
>> To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
>> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ATTN ONELIST USERS: stay current on the latest activities,
>programs, & features at ONElist by joining our member newsletter at
><a href=" http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/onelist_announce ">Click</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
>To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>

[Harlequin Games]

Curious - Winn has recently come back to the fold of ME so it is nice to see
some opinions from a "new" player.

Obviously for those with money it is not a problem -but for those without
the cost of a game and a cost of an extra deposit can make all the
difference. (for some this is an expensive hobby - frommy bank balance and
what we can afford to pay our staff I don't see it that way!) :-)

Clint
>From: "Winn Keathley" <gnaeus@...>
>
>
>
>Maybe if the deposit was just set to be the turn fees for turns 6-10 (or
>some other arbitrary turn #s like 8-12). That way, if you drop VERY early
>you lose it, and it can go to the replacement. You have no reason to drop
in
>the middle of turns you have already paid for. After the prepaid turns run
>out, you will be in the middle game and be in a better position to decide
if
>your position is playable or not. This way, you dont actually pay any more,
>just slightly earlier. (Well, technically I guess you do lose the potential
>interest for those turn fees for a few months, maybe 4% of the deposit, but
>if you are seriously worried about that take up a cheaper hobby.)
>
>Speaking as a new player who hopes to still be playing after turn 5, I can
>say that that wouldn't discourage me, but I cant speak for anyone else.
>
>Winn Keathley
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ATTN ONELIST USERS: stay current on the latest activities,
>programs, & features at ONElist by joining our member newsletter at
><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/newsletter4 ">Click Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
>To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>

[Harlequin Games]

>From: Gavin Wynford-Jones <GavinWJ@...>
>
>> to suggest that an additional payment of seventeen pounds
>> fifty is not expensive just isn't living in the real world.
>
>Oh give me a break... That same argument has been used against deposits
>since at least 1979, when I first saw it and the proposed deposit was five
>pounds (a far higher sum in real terms than the twenty or so I would
>propose today). You pay the sum once and you get it back at the end of the
>game. If paying such a sum would cause you such great financial problems
>then maybe, to be frank, paying for a game is the least of your worries.

*** For lots of players this would be out of their range I think.
>
>> 2) Who is to decide when a position is unplayable?
>
>The software already does this, if we are to believe the fronsheet.

*** Um - I don't think you think this - a position is "unplayable" when a
player does not want to play it - different players different levels.
>
>> 3) All of this makes more work for Clint!
>
>No more than the current system. It's a small programming change in the
>accounts software.

*** Um - we don;t have access to the coding at present - we would have to
totally re-write it to allow for any real change - time and money.
>
>> 1) If your position is wrecked and you drop, do you lose the deposit?
>
>No. See point 2 above. If the software says the position is not viable,
>you're OK. Otherwise, kiss the cash goodbye.

** Um
>
>> Deposits are, in my view, an ill-thought out, short-termist solution to
>> a problem that would end up costing Harlequin more business than it
>> gained.
>
>S'funny, they worked really well for Chris Harvey. But then he ran his
>games as a business not a charity. So, what would you suggest, holding
>player's firstborn as hostages...? <g>


*** Yes - but it would stop new players dead from joining I think. (The
firstborn bit as well :-) )
>
>Gavin
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ONElist: your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
>To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
>

[Harlequin Games]

Ouch - we often have to as it is and we have to err on the side of caution
in all such cases. Similar for players we "know" to play more than one
position. Don't do it folks - we ain't stupid!

Clint
>
>OK, so what about someone that drops for one of the following reasons
>...
>
>1: Death in the family or of someone close to them
>2: Loss of their job
>3: Moving overseas
>4: Job or other change in circumstances (having a baby for instance)
>meaning they have less time.
>
>Are you really asking Clint to decide when someone pleading one of the
>above (or similar) is telling the truth?
>
>Colin.
>