On the New Experience Point System

It seems that the trend in the Club these days is to "inherit" duties while it undergoes a period of transition and growth. Although I have been a member for several years, actively writing for Chainmail and playing in a couple Club PBMs, I have been reluctant to step forwards and accept the duties of an official position due to other "real world" responsibilities. However, I have decided to step directly into the Club spotlight....and accept the position of Experience Point Chairperson (EPC).

Earlier this year, Bill and I discussed and traded ideas as to the restructuring of the Club's experience point system (EPS). To many members, it is not an attraction, but merely a nice "bonus." However, I believe that it is an important reflection of your work and commitment which deserves to be rewarded. We spent the better part of six months discussing the point system and reached agreement to present the changes to the membership for comment. And, surprisingly, there were none.

It was decided by Jeff and myself (Bill has been out of touch recently due to other distractions) that I should step forward to take charge of the project....thus the letter you are reading. But, there are a couple issues I'd like to address before it takes affect on January 1st of 1996 (right after issue #38 of Chainmail.

First, and perhaps what shall bring me the most criticism, is that the EPS will be starting at zero for everyone. Jeff, Bill, and I have concluded that it would be a nearly impossible task to accurately tally the points owed to everyone during the last year or two that it languished. I realize that many members, including myself, had built up a respectable (if not incredible) amount of points. But, this is the fairest and cleanest way to handle the issue. The Club is walking on new legs, entering a new phase of its life, and so the EPS starts with a clean slate. I apologize to those who may feel they are being cheated, but this is an opportunity for everyone to start over and become actively involved once again with the Club.

Second, I will officially take office on January 1st and serve a one year term. Technically, I should appoint members to the review/award committee that Bill proposed, but considering the volunteer level in the Club and other issues, I will be delaying such action indefinitely. Personally, I don't believe that we require a committee to award the experience points. The system is fairly clear and I believe I can act impartially. Any member who disagrees with an award of points has the right to appeal the matter to the Club President, who may approve or over-rule my decisions. Simply, I think that a full committee would be too cumbersome and bureaucratic. I'd prefer to see your energies put towards other facets of the Club (much more exciting and rewarding areas, I might add).

And third, I plan to serve out my full term and work closely with everyone to the best of my ability. Each issue of Chainmail, I will provide Jeff (or the new Editor) with a standings for the EPS and you will be able to review your progress towards those special rewardsi However, like all of us, I maintain responsibilities outside the Club which may distract me from time to time. Please don't hesitate to write, call, or e-mail me if I make an error, but I also ask for your understanding. (Of course, a few more government furloughs and I'll have lots of time to work on Club projects!)

l look forward to the challenges ahead and plan to continue writing for Chainmail whenever possible. I hope everyone will accept and embrace the changes, helping to build an organization that truly reflects your own interestsi The EPS should be a fun measurement of not only what you put into the Club, but also what you get out of it.

Now, go forth and forge your destinies!

On Play-By-Mail

When you hear of the "play-by-mail" hobby, what comes to mind? Computer-moderated, high-paced wargames, pages of laser-printed tables and charts, maps and graphical descriptions? Or at least, that would be the mental image presented by reading PAPER MAYHEM and FLAGSHIP US.

What about role-playing games, where your output is a page or two of narrative? Is there a place for games like this among such giants as You Rule! and ME-PBM? Where then do role-playing games fit in? They seem to be limited to privately-run games using established systems, such as those offered by Dragonslayers Unlimited members, for members. Coverage on games seems fairly non-existent in the major play-by-mail magazines.

The situation is vastly different in Europe; see issue 35. The European-run role-playing games seem to fill a niche in the American play-by-mail market, for the few players who are aware of the games. But a comparison of the US and UK editions of FLAGSHIP would lead one to believe that the editor of FLAGSHIP US wants to suppress coverage of role-playing games. Bob McLain, the new editor of FLAGSHIP US has been known for denouncing role-playing games, and feels they have no place in piay-by-mail.

The major problem with moderating role-playing games by mail is the games cannot be run as a viable business. Unless the character is reduced to a series of stats, and the turn orders decided by random number generators, turns must be processed by hand, thus the time requirement per turn is much higher. In order for the moderator to live comfortably on the income provided by a hand-moderated game, at three turns a day (roughly 6-9 hours), the fee would have to be roughly $15 per turn. In order to run a game as a "commercial" venture, an original role-playing system must be used; an existing system cannot be used without having to deal with licensing, royalties, etc.

From the player's point of view, the problem with hand-moderated games is the turnaround. Because the moderator must have a "real" source of income, the game can only be run when the moderator has the time available; as a result, turnaround is unpredictable, and frequently greatly delayed.

But an even greater question to ask now is, "what about the advent of the Internet?" This is a subject of much debate in those involved in play-by-mail. Surely, as players move onto the Net, they can see the benefits of the almost-instant communication. Instead of waiting two weeks for the results, the turnaround time can be reduced to a few hours, or even minutes. Games can now be offered with greatly-reduced deadlines. DYNAMIC GAMES offers a 4-day email turnaround in Quest, a game with 10- or 15-day postal deadlines.

The impact on role-playing games, as far as moderating the game, is minimal. Instead of the text being transmined on paper through the postal system, it is sent as an email message. However, the player still has to wait 2-8 weeks for results. In this sort of fast-paced environment, do hand-moderated games stand a chance? Even among computer-moderated games, there are some that are almost unplayable with the tighter deadlines that email makes possible. The intense diplomacy required with a game such as ME-PBM becomes more difficult, as pressure mounts to get turns in weekly. Games like Quest and Monster Island, that are simplistic in design and require little interplayer contact are well-suited to instant turnaround. More complex games, including hand-moderated games, will probably remain unchanged, with email transmission being optional.

However, the views of Bob McLain are receiving more coverage. He moderates the Internet e-mail forum for play-by-mail games (PBMList), he has a regular column in FLAGSHIP UK "Helium Jungle", and he is now the editor of FLAGSHIP US. It seems he sees no place in play-by-mail for anything not run for the purpose of profit, and he apparently takes pleasure in condemning people for taking views opposite to his, particularly behind their backs (his individual-specific comments normally appear on PBMList, and not in his magazine cotumns). He also sees paper games to be a dying breed, being wholly replaced by on-line gaming. Do we really have nothing better to do but spend all day, and night, in front of our computers, playing games with hourly deadlines?

Am I a supporter of "commercial" role-playing postal games? You bet. Do I want to see them killed off due to the views of one (quite influential) individual? Of course not! I would like to see Bob McLain proven wrong. There is a demand for role-playing PBMs. Surely there is someone out there with the time and the imagination to come up with an original game system, catered for a postal role-playing game. There are opportunities available, not the least of which involves improving the club's treasury. Yes, I am talking about Dragonslayers Unlimited members moderating a role-playing PBM on the "open market" for the benefit of the club.

Or maybe I am just dreaming...

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com