Another 18PA rules question for David Hecht

[czar...@gmail.com‏]

A year and a half ago I downloaded the print-and-play prototype of 18PA, and my gaming group tried it out and returned a number of rules and components issues to David Hecht, We loved the game, and incorporating David's updates and comments we have played it several times since then.  The latest play was last Sunday.

In reviewing the rules after the game I suddenly realized that we may have been playing incorrectly.  In the original wording of the game rules regarding track tile placement it is stated "Depending on the phase and the type of company, each company may place or upgrade one or more track tiles: these possibilities are summarized on the company charters."  Referring to the charters it appears that a public company can place TWO yellow tiles or upgrade a single tile (this is similar to 1870).  We had incorrectly been laying a single yellow tile.  This is an easily overlooked rule; it would have been helpful if the two-tile lay for public companies had been explicitly stated.

I am assuming that the regional companies can lay a single yellow tile even though there is no company charter.

18PA is now showing up on the DTG Web site as available for sale in what must be its final version.  My question is whether this two-tile lay is still a part of the game in the final published rules.  (I don't want to purchase a whole new copy of the game to answer this question!!).

Charles Ward

[John A. Tamplin‏]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, <czar...@gmail.com> wrote:

18PA is now showing up on the DTG Web site as available for sale in what must be its final version.  My question is whether this two-tile lay is still a part of the game in the final published rules.  (I don't want to purchase a whole new copy of the game to answer this question!!).

The rules are available for download - you don't have to buy a copy of the game to get them.  6.2 on page 7 says:

Depending on the phase and the type of company, each
company may place or upgrade one or more track tiles:

these possibilities are summarized on the company char-
ters.

That seems sufficient to let you know that different companies have different rules here and where to find the details.

-- 

John A. Tamplin, Deep Thought Games LLC

[Charles E. W. Ward‏]

Thank you for confirming that there are no changes in this area.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "dtg-proto" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/dtg-proto/OlXig1JwdNQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to dtg-proto+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dtg-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/dtg-proto.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ian D Wilson‏]

That doesn't actually answer the question, since - somewhat annoyingly - an important rule (how many/type of tiles a company may lay) is not actually in the rules.

I have a 'proper' copy of the game, and (looking at the charters) I can confirm that majors can lay two yellows or one upgrade, and minors can lay one yellow or do one green upgrade.

--------------------------------------------

On Tue, 19/7/16, John A. Tamplin <j...@deepthoughtgames.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Another 18PA rules question for David Hecht

To: dtg-...@googlegroups.com
Date: Tuesday, 19 July, 2016, 20:52

You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "dtg-proto" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to dtg-proto+...@googlegroups.com.

[John David Galt‏]

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, czar...@gmail.com wrote:
> 18PA is now showing up on the DTG Web site as available for sale in
> what must be its final version. My question is whether this
> two-tile lay is still a part of the game in the final published
> rules. (I don't want to purchase a whole new copy of the game to
> answer this question!!).

On 07/19/2016 12:52 PM, John A. Tamplin wrote:
> The rules are available for download

> <http://www.deepthoughtgames.com/#games/18PA/downloads> - you don't have

> to buy a copy of the game to get them. 6.2 on page 7 says:

> Depending on the phase and the type of company, each
> company may place or upgrade one or more track tiles:
> these possibilities are summarized on the company char-
> ters.

> That seems sufficient to let you know that different companies have
> different rules here and where to find the details.

Not for the regional companies if they don't have charters!

[Barzai‏]

Given that we've just had a "how to write the perfect rules" thread on the 18xx Yahoo group, I'm surprised at you.

Surely it is obvious that redundancy creates ambiguity, increases the chance of inconsistency due to poor editing, and unnecessarily adds to the bulk of the rules.

In any event I would beg leave to disagree with you: the information you want is clearly and unambiguously referenced in the rules, but all the numbers are elsewhere. The fact that they are on the charters does not detract from their being "in the rules", any more that a rule about tile upgrades that referenced the lookup chart would not be "in the rules" if it were a separate sheet rather than incorporated into the rules booklet.

 from it, send an email to dtg-proto+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Ian D Wilson‏]

I beg to differ.

I think it is best to have all the rules in the rules book, for the following reasons:

a) As in the case in point, if somebody has a PnP copy they can only download the rule book. Any information on the other components could have changed since the prototype.

b) Postal play - we normally provide the rules and map but not the other components. Rules which are only available on, for example, the charters then has to be explained separately. (I found this with 1812, where the number and type of trains is only on the board.)

c) In the case in point (tile laying capabilities of the companies), "these possibilities are summarized on the company charters." is true - but only summarised. By necessity, the summary is in the form of icons; these are potentially subject to misinterpretation.

d) In addition, the regional(minor) companies don't have charters, only certificates. The icons are also there, but very small: a person with less than ideal eyesight might struggle to understand.

Your point about having the rules in two places leading to contradiction and ambiguity is true, and we could both quote examples, but there is a well-understood convention which states that the rules take precedence in such circumstances.

Ian D

--------------------------------------------

On Wed, 20/7/16, Barzai <Bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Another 18PA rules question for David Hecht

To: "dtg-proto" <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: ianwil...@btinternet.com
Date: Wednesday, 20 July, 2016, 7:31

from it, send an email to dtg-proto+...@googlegroups.com.

[David Hecht‏]

Ian, all your points are well-taken. However, I will nevertheless provide my--not universal!--responses below, limited to my own preferences and predilections in such matters: see below.

On 7/24/2016 6:02 AM, Ian D Wilson wrote:

I beg to differ.

I think it is best to have all the rules in the rules book, for the following reasons:

a) As in the case in point, if somebody has a PnP copy they can only download the rule book. Any information on the other components could have changed since the prototype.

In other words, once the game has gone into full production and people can buy it if they like, they should still have the option to download and assemble the PnP.

That is a fair enough view, but not one that I share: I take the view that my contract (which is unwritten and based on an informal mutual understanding, rather like your British constitution) prohibits this, even if I thought it was a good idea. If John/DTG wants to make a PnP version available, he can create one from the master art: in the case of 18EU, he has already done so...but on the explicit premise that orders for the hard-copy version seem more or less at an end.

b) Postal play - we normally provide the rules and map but not the other components. Rules which are only available on, for example, the charters then has to be explained separately. (I found this with 1812, where the number and type of trains is only on the board.)

Again, your point, while well-taken, is based on a planted axiom that I do not accept. These games are largely if not entirely designed for the face-to-face market, at least from my (and I would expect, DTG and the other US publishers) perspective.

In fact, the postal games that are played in the pages of various zines, while bearing a strong resemblance to their over-the-board counterparts, nevertheless always differ in some number of essentially minor, but nevertheless noticeable respects, in order to make them playable at all. If there are things that appear on the map or in the play-aids that are not in the rules, I guess whoever runs the PBM will have to write a short supplement that fills the gaps. Quelle horreur! 

c) In the case in point (tile laying capabilities of the companies), "these possibilities are summarized on the company charters." is true - but only summarised. By necessity, the summary is in the form of icons; these are potentially subject to misinterpretation.

Indeed. But here I am surprised at you: I thought you a good European, who would celebrate our desire to internationalize our games by relying more on iconography and less on written rules! But evidently I would be mistaken in that...

d) In addition, the regional(minor) companies don't have charters, only certificates. The icons are also there, but very small: a person with less than ideal eyesight might struggle to understand.

Amen to that, brother. But now we are complaining about the physical presentation of information that you have tacitly granted is in fact hidden, as it were, in plain sight.

In fact at the origin there were mini-charters for the minors, much as there are in most other games: it was only after I hit upon the idea of the hybrid minor/private that they could be eliminated...thereby saving three laminated and cut (but not die-cut) sheets, equivalent to about $3-4.50 a copy.

And that, I think, bears on the whole issue: John's production methods are not those you used with Markus. We don't make enormous quantities of components and throw half of them away, as Markus indicated to me he was doing, due to the constraints of the printing business: pretty much every copy of every game is made to order, using scalable methods, thus allowing for an economic order quantity of one.

Your point about having the rules in two places leading to contradiction and ambiguity is true, and we could both quote examples, but there is a well-understood convention which states that the rules take precedence in such circumstances.

Sure. But I'd rather eliminate the possibility of ambiguity in the first place.

[Steve Thomas‏]

David Hecht wrote:

> In other words, once the game has gone into full production and
> people can buy it if they like, they should still have the option to
> download and assemble the PnP.

I suspect that it's more that people who made up the PnP before the game was
made available through DTG et al. can still use that set.

> In fact, the postal games that are played in the pages of various zines,
> while bearing a strong resemblance to their over-the-board
> counterparts, nevertheless always differ in some number of essentially
> minor, but nevertheless noticeable respects, in order to make them
> playable at all.

I was going to deny that, but some more thought led me to, as one of your
pols once said, caveat my response. In distance play it's essentially
impossible to prevent players talking to each other privately. Players can,
and occasionally do, make deals with each other without making either the
fact or the terms of those deals known to the other players. There are some
18xx games out there where this behaviour constitutes a breach of the
etiquette section.

Some, mostly older, games, state or suggest that some parts of the game
state aren't known to all of the players all of the time. 1830's company
treasuries are an example. Keeping secrets makes distance play at the very
least a nuisance. However, games with secret state are becoming a minority,
and even for those most players (including those in most f-t-f games) ignore
that and make everything public.

For PBM (as opposed to PBeM) play, usual practice is for the GM to determine
what the companies run for, subject to player-imposed constraints about
activating mines, reaching destinations, and so forth. This has the effect
of banning intentional underclaims. But, really, when was the last time you
saw one of those over the table? In any event, many 18xx games (including
most (probably all, but I haven't had enough coffee yet to be certain) of
yours) ban such underclaims anyway.

And that's about it, I think.

> I am surprised at you: I thought you a good European, who would
> celebrate our desire to internationalize our games by relying more
> on iconography and less on written rules!

I was playing 18West last week. The major company charters tell us in icon
form what track those companies are allowed to lay each turn, and that is a
Good Thing. However, one of our players insisted that a Land Grant company
that was still land-granting could lay either three yellows or three greens,
but not a combination of both, and he'd been led to that belief by the
icons.

--
Steve Thomas maisn...@btinternet.com

[David Hecht‏]

On 7/25/2016 6:23 AM, Steve Thomas wrote:
> David Hecht wrote:
>
>> In other words, once the game has gone into full production and
>> people can buy it if they like, they should still have the option to
>> download and assemble the PnP.
>
> I suspect that it's more that people who made up the PnP before the
> game was made available through DTG et al. can still use that set.
>

<shrug> I seriously doubt that's much of an issue with my designs, since
I make a valiant attempt to keep the PnP versions--on this site at
least--up to date. YMMV.

Seriously? Are you denying that most if not all of the games that are
played in the pages of your and Stephen Webb's zines haven't--at the
very least--considerably adapted the ISR and Initial Auction? Or that
the issue of simultaneous and hidden submission and resolution of moves
doesn't in and of itself have a profound impact on gameplay?

>> I am surprised at you: I thought you a good European, who would
>> celebrate our desire to internationalize our games by relying more
>> on iconography and less on written rules!
>
> I was playing 18West last week. The major company charters tell us in
> icon form what track those companies are allowed to lay each turn, and
> that is a Good Thing. However, one of our players insisted that a
> Land Grant company that was still land-granting could lay either three
> yellows or three greens, but not a combination of both, and he'd been
> led to that belief by the icons.

That is an issue that has been raised both before and after publication,
but I would put it to you that such ambiguity could just as easily be
the product of careless wordsmithing as well, e.g., "...a Land Grant
company may lay up to three yellow or green tiles..." which, IIRC, was
in fact how the rule was written at one time.

Which is to say that imperfect rules are the product of the author, not
of the medium in which the rules are formulated.

[Steve Thomas‏]

David Hecht wrote:
> Seriously? Are you denying that most if not all of the games that are
> played in the pages of your and Stephen Webb's zines haven't--at the very
> least--considerably adapted the ISR and Initial Auction? Or that the issue
> of simultaneous and hidden submission and resolution of moves doesn't in
> and of itself have a profound impact on gameplay?

I deny that the rules are adapted for most games. 1837 constitutes a mild
or severe exception. I have always adopted a variant start mechanism that
in our group was standard for f-t-f play, and is now in the revised rules.
To keep things within bounds I have imposed additional constraints. That
apart, Stephen and I start games to the rules as we believe them to have
been written, which is about all one can do.

I don't deny that the hidden submission and subsequent resolution of moves
leads to some strange or substandard game play that you wouldn't see over
the board. However, that isn't a rules issue, or one that could reasonably
be addressed by more stuff being printed on components or supplied by the
GM. (For instance, Stephen and I supply at the end of each report a count
of available tiles. Some (many? most?) players ignore that when attempting
to lay tiles that have run out and could not be replaced by the time their
companies run.) It stems from players attempting to control complexity by
ignoring it, or in some cases by not bothering to make a study of the rules.
Over the board attempted illegal moves are prevented by administering a
swift verbal slap to the offending player until they try something legal.
Postally, you just ignore the move.

These days most distance play isn't resolved that way. Players communicate
by electronic mail, shipping around an up-to-date game state for each turn.
Done that way, players can react in much the same way as they do over the
board, only more slowly.

--
Steve Thomas maisn...@btinternet.com

[David Hecht‏]

<shrug> Well, Steve, I suppose your argument is correct for a fairly
latitudinarian interpretation of what constitutes non-adaptation of
rules, which--given your generally formalist views--I am somewhat
surprised to hear you advocate and which in consequence has the whiff of
special pleading.

If you can point me to the last time that any PBM game--but specifically
EU or Ardennes--in your or Stephen's zine conducted fifteen separate,
distinct, and serial auctions for the minor companies I should be
interested in seeing it. But I think we both understand that such a
process would unbearably protract the games and thus you have--quite
sensibly--created alternative procedures to shorten and simplify it,
taking advantage of the simultaneity and occultation occasioned by the
PBM environment.

I consider that to be "...considerably adapted..." as I wrote below:
evidently YMMV.

Nor does the fact that things couldn't be fixed by additional rules or
components invalidate my statement. Though your comment begs the
question of how well people would be able to play PBM in your (or any
other) zine without the benefit of "house rules" or other documentation
that showed how the game was to be played postally.

But I gather you don't consider those to be adaptations either.

As to PBEM, I'm curious as to what you mean by "nowadays": I've known
people playing PBEM games--including, but not limited to, 18xx
games--for over twenty years now: indeed I believe I asked you once if
you were thinking of going that route and you said no.

But I don't consider PBM and PBEM to be the same thing, despite their
superficial similarities: you can do things within the framework of a
one-day (or less) time constant (PBEM) that are simply out of the
question with a one-month time constant (PBM), e.g., conducting fifteen
serial competitive auctions, or otherwise performing the turn's
activities serially rather than simultaneously.

[Steve Thomas‏]

> <shrug> Well, Steve, I suppose your argument is correct for a fairly
> latitudinarian interpretation of what constitutes non-adaptation of rules,
> which--given your generally formalist views--I am somewhat surprised to
> hear you advocate and which in consequence has the whiff of special
> pleading.
>
> If you can point me to the last time that any PBM game--but specifically
> EU or Ardennes--in your or Stephen's zine conducted fifteen separate,
> distinct, and serial auctions for the minor companies I should be
> interested in seeing it. But I think we both understand that such a
> process would unbearably protract the games and thus you have--quite
> sensibly--created alternative procedures to shorten and simplify it,
> taking advantage of the simultaneity and occultation occasioned by the PBM
> environment.

There's an 18Ardennes game currently in progress in ... mais n'est-ce pas la
gare? It started with sixteen (it's a four-player game) separate, distinct,
and serial auctions for the minor companies. Admittedly we conducted the
auction by round-robin e-mails. Doing it by standard month-at-a-time PBM
would involve either too much time or involve conditional orders to complex
for almost all players to produce (or me to grasp, probably). Even an
auction as simple as 1861's seems to be too complex for players to order
without going astray in ways that unbalance the start unacceptably. That
said, I have done 18EU in the past where the initial auction has been done
over the course of four months, with conditional orders to cover the
options. (Players nominated five minors in the first month. The next two
months they conducted five auctions and nominated five more. The last month
just had five auctions.)

So, I adapt the medium, not the rules.

> Though your comment begs the question of how well people would be able to
> play PBM in your (or any other) zine without the benefit of "house rules"
> or other documentation that showed how the game was to be played postally.

The House Rules are mostly to cover what happens when players omit things
from their orders, and standard interpretations of illegal orders. (For
example, faced with an order to sell four shares in a company, and the
position allows the sale of only three, I could plausibly sell three shares
or none. The House Rules go for the former.)

> As to PBEM, I'm curious as to what you mean by "nowadays": I've known
> people playing PBEM games--including, but not limited to, 18xx games--for
> over twenty years now: indeed I believe I asked you once if you were
> thinking of going that route and you said no.

"Over twenty years" is but a short time in the life of some hobbies...

> But I don't consider PBM and PBEM to be the same thing, despite their
> superficial similarities: you can do things within the framework of a
> one-day (or less) time constant (PBEM) that are simply out of the question
> with a one-month time constant (PBM), e.g., conducting fifteen serial
> competitive auctions, or otherwise performing the turn's activities
> serially rather than simultaneously.

Agreed. Where they have common ground is that the participants often don't
have a set to hand, so rules printed on the components but not in the rule
book are essentially invisible to those players. (I could grumble that the
contents of the rule book and even game reports are invisible to some of my
players. But that's another problem altogether.)

--
Steve Thomas maisn...@btinternet.com

[David Hecht‏]

Well, fair enough, Mr. Steve. You have diligently attempted to enlighten
me and correct some misapprehensions I may have labored under. Any
further confusion on my part regarding this topic are no doubt
attributable to my own witlessness, so I believe at this point we may
move on.