B****Y CARD LIMITS!!!
D.P. Hammersley
Hi,
I have posted to and read this group (under
"D.P.Hammersley" and "Super Ted") for almost a couple of
years now and yet every now and again the same question of
card limits pops up.
The main protagonists of the opposing sides seem to be Scott
Johnson and Ben Redmond - there are others but these two seem
to be the most vociferous.
The point I am making is does it really matter? I mean who
cares? Each group should play as they see fit. Why does
there have to be a right and a wrong way to play Jyhad?
Both sides have valid arguments and neither side is going to
back down so why bother? The debates continue to be
increasingly acrimonious and I repeat, does there have to be
a right way? As the saying goes, there's more than one way
to skin a cat.
Give us all a break!!!
Oh yeah, and please no-one reply to me saying, 'but don't you
see, NL/4CL is the way to go' - myself and many others just
don't want to know.
Peter
L. Scott Johnson
CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes:
>The main protagonists of the opposing sides seem to be Scott
>Johnson and Ben Redmond - there are others but these two seem
>to be the most vociferous.
Thanks, but I merely echo the wisdom of Corrupter, Curt Adams,
et. al. I am not the most vocal supporter of NL - I usually
leave it to the others who defend NL much more eloquently
than I.
>The point I am making is does it really matter? I mean who
>cares? Each group should play as they see fit. Why does
>there have to be a right and a wrong way to play Jyhad?
Then why read the newsgroup at all? Why bother to find out
if the errata on Blood to Water (close range only) affects
game play? Why try to keep up with the implications of the
latest DCI rules set? Why get a "as hand-strike" ruling on
superior Rutor's Hand?
The answer is: so that we can play the game properly, no matter
where we go (even when we go to tournaments).
I suspect that the CL crowd would prefer that the DCI adopted
a card limit. That would be a good reason to lobby here (assuming
that some representative of WotC reads this group). This
group is a good forum for such issues - witness the DCI's
adoption of Corrupter's SPTR (using a different fix for vote
pushing, but still getting the job done).
While the DCI has tried card limits in various forms, only to
find that they didn't fix the problem, there is always the
possibility that someone will come up with better arguments for
CL - enough to make CL more effective than SPTR in creating a
solid, fun game environment.
>Both sides have valid arguments and neither side is going to
>back down so why bother? The debates continue to be
>increasingly acrimonious and I repeat, does there have to be
>a right way? As the saying goes, there's more than one way
>to skin a cat.
We debated the resolution timing of S:CE and actually
accomplished something. Debate (and other forms of free
exchange of ideas) is usually a good thing. Only when people
adopt the "stop countering my points! you're not paying
attention!" does the process cease to be productive.
>Give us all a break!!!
Here's more of a tip than a break: configure your newsreader
to kill articles with subjects matching 'CL' and 'card limit'
and 'no limit' and 'NL' and you'll be spared the bulk of the
exchanges that you find so bothersome.
The debate on card limits falls well withing the charter of
this newsgroup. Those that wish to avoid such a debate are
welcome to skip the articles or to do something productive to
decrease the need for such debate (like starting a FAQ on
the card limit pros and cons - something already started in
a sense at
http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html#4-CARD
I myself got tired of seeing the same old rules wuestions asked
over and over on this group, and since WotC wasn't aroud at
the time (deja vu), I started my errata summary sheets.
Being productive feels better than just complaining about the
current state of things.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Hard work has a future payoff.
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Laziness pays off now.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
theCorrupter
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, D.P. Hammersley wrote:
[Re: CL debate]
> The point I am making is does it really matter? I mean who
> cares? Each group should play as they see fit. Why does
> there have to be a right and a wrong way to play Jyhad?
It's not that the right/wrong way argument that matters (at least not for
me). What matters is the effect that the house rule has on game play and
popularity. If the game pushes people away, for various reasons, it will
slowly die out. Currently, many aspects of the game make it unaccessable
(people feel it takes too long, etc). There has not been clear uniform
acceptance of tournament rules (though I expect this to soon change). But
in playing, the main complaint I have heard from people who no longer play
the game is this: "The game is broken. S&B dominates if people are
playing to win." I usually ask if they played a CL, and inevitably the
response is yes.
Simply put, those people I know who were interested in Jyhad and dropped,
dropped due to current lack of support from WotC, non-interest in long
games, or their CL-based expectations on brokenness.
> Both sides have valid arguments and neither side is going to
> back down so why bother?
There has yet to be a reasonable response to anti-CL arguments. Read B.D.
Redmond's responses in defense of CL (one of the better attempt), and
you'll find that he ignores some arguments, gives no proof or attempt at
evidence in others, and disregards many as being unimportant. If you put
that post in context with others by him, you'll find distinct
contradictions. Again, simply put, CL has yet to answer NL attacks, while
NL has successfully shown its superiority. I don't claim that this is an
ultimate truth (I doubt that can ever be said about much), but I do claim
that the current NL arguments are better than CL arguments.
[His defense of CL is available at Judith and Mark's Jyhad Page, link
available from URL in .sig below]
> The debates continue to be
> increasingly acrimonious and I repeat, does there have to be
> a right way? As the saying goes, there's more than one way
> to skin a cat.
Yes, there are many ways to play. CL is really just another house rule.
However, when WotC might change the tournament rules to CL by virtue of
their voices, it is quite important to voice opposition (at least if you
disagree). By making the SPTR well known (my sources at GenCon tell me
that most every Jyhad player there (not all, mind you) knew of the rules,
a majority preferred them), the DCI standard was changed. I feel it is
important to make a reasonable rules set stay relatively constant. This
changing of DCI rules has been detrimental to the game.
> Give us all a break!!!
> Oh yeah, and please no-one reply to me saying, 'but don't you
> see, NL/4CL is the way to go' - myself and many others just
> don't want to know.
I promise not to bring up the point if not prompted, but I won't hesitate
to respond to (foolish) CL posts.
[Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu]
@ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++
# Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # P++ C(+++) USX+ N++ !w
@#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ X++ b++(+++) tv(+)>
@#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ e+* PS++@ PE@ z*++?
Uncle Wally
I think that its safe to assume that most people who argue vehemently
for or against card limits play, within their own playgroup, using the
rules that they support. It is probably safe to say that they do this
because the honestly find those rules make the game more fun, which is
what it is all about. Nothing forces all Jyhad/VTESH players to play
with the same rules, so each group should play the way they find more
entertaining. Argueing back and forth is of questionable
value(although it IS fun in and of itself, and our group DOES have a
lot more fun after we switched to NL/GT).
However, some sort of consensus should be reached regarding which
method is better for TOURNAMENT play. In a tournament setting there
is a more "playing to win" mentality, and social considerations cannot
be counted on to prevent loophole exploitation and other
cheese(although a bit in the discriptive blurb about a 4CL tournament
we ran here seemed to be pretty effective at keeping away unwanted
malkavians... or maybe it was the fact that we realy did have enough
dementias to make good on the threat of handing them out at the door.)
Obviously, there could be "type II" tournament rules, but that means
that every tournament would have to choose between two(or more) sets
of "official" rules, which is only slightly better than having no
official rules(or having official rules that are just too horible to
actually play with : )
Thoughts?
D.P. Hammersley
>CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes:
>>The main protagonists of the opposing sides seem to be Scott
>>Johnson and Ben Redmond - there are others but these two seem
>>to be the most vociferous.
>
>Thanks, but I merely echo the wisdom of Corrupter, Curt Adams,
>et. al. I am not the most vocal supporter of NL - I usually
>leave it to the others who defend NL much more eloquently
>than I.
>
>>cares? Each group should play as they see fit. Why does
>>there have to be a right and a wrong way to play Jyhad?
>
>if the errata on Blood to Water (close range only) affects
>game play? Why try to keep up with the implications of the
>latest DCI rules set? Why get a "as hand-strike" ruling on
>superior Rutor's Hand?
>
>The answer is: so that we can play the game properly, no matter
>where we go (even when we go to tournaments).
>
>I suspect that the CL crowd would prefer that the DCI adopted
>a card limit. That would be a good reason to lobby here (assuming
>that some representative of WotC reads this group). This
>group is a good forum for such issues - witness the DCI's
>adoption of Corrupter's SPTR (using a different fix for vote
>pushing, but still getting the job done).
>
>While the DCI has tried card limits in various forms, only to
>find that they didn't fix the problem, there is always the
>possibility that someone will come up with better arguments for
>CL - enough to make CL more effective than SPTR in creating a
>solid, fun game environment.
>
>>a right way? As the saying goes, there's more than one way
>>to skin a cat.
>
>accomplished something. Debate (and other forms of free
>exchange of ideas) is usually a good thing. Only when people
>adopt the "stop countering my points! you're not paying
>attention!" does the process cease to be productive.
>
>
Did you actually READ my message? I mean properly READ - you know, take time
to comprehend what I was actually saying? I don't think you did, did you?
My argument was limited solely to the acrimonious card limit debate. Was
this not clear enough?
Has it not occurred to you also that the less time spent discussing such a
fruitless topic could be time well spent debating all the other things you
mentioned? "Then why read the newsgroup at all?" - erm...why not read my
message properly? Of course I fully support the discussion of everything
else - why else would I subscribe?
Your only valid point (though it did appear rather tenuous) was the posting
of card limit arguments to influence the DCI. If people want to do this then
I suggest they mail them direct. But lets face it, there probably isn't
going to be a ruling as one simply isn't required. There is no
definitive right or wrong about card limits - why not accept this?
When I named yourself as one of the protagonists along with B. Redmond, it
was merely as an example with no other implication implied.
Peter
theCorrupter
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, D.P. Hammersley wrote:
> >CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes:
[Re: CL]
> >>The point I am making is does it really matter? I mean who
> >>cares? Each group should play as they see fit. Why does
> >>there have to be a right and a wrong way to play Jyhad?
[LSJ's response]
> >Then why read the newsgroup at all?
[snipped example's of rules related questions (yet unanswered) that effect
general game play.]
> >The answer is: so that we can play the game properly, no matter
> >where we go (even when we go to tournaments).
[Snipped commentary on how lobbying here got the DCI to basicly be SPTR]
> >While the DCI has tried card limits in various forms, only to
> >find that they didn't fix the problem, there is always the
> >possibility that someone will come up with better arguments for
> >CL - enough to make CL more effective than SPTR in creating a
> >solid, fun game environment.
> >>Both sides have valid arguments and neither side is going to
> >>back down so why bother? The debates continue to be
> >>increasingly acrimonious and I repeat, does there have to be
> >>a right way? As the saying goes, there's more than one way
> >>to skin a cat.
> >We debated the resolution timing of S:CE and actually
> >accomplished something. Debate (and other forms of free
> >exchange of ideas) is usually a good thing. Only when people
> >adopt the "stop countering my points! you're not paying
> >attention!" does the process cease to be productive.
I have to agree here. While I haven't really seen comparative benefit to
CL (even after playing it), the problem with the CL debates thus far has
been this:
- the NL group (mostly) has given reasons and evidence to support
opinions
- the CL group responds by saying "stop countering my points! You
just don't get it!" rather than actually debating the points.
> >>Give us all a break!!!
No. Do the newsgroup a favor and either defend your opinions with
supporting evidence rather than opinion. In short Debate, don't Discount.
> Did you actually READ my message? I mean properly READ - you know, take time
> to comprehend what I was actually saying? I don't think you did, did you?
> My argument was limited solely to the acrimonious card limit debate. Was
> this not clear enough?
Your point may have been limited to that, but the implications go further
than that.
> Has it not occurred to you also that the less time spent discussing such a
> fruitless topic could be time well spent debating all the other things you
> mentioned? "Then why read the newsgroup at all?" - erm...why not read my
> message properly? Of course I fully support the discussion of everything
> else - why else would I subscribe?
LSJ's point, if I understand it, is a perfectly reasonable and on-topic
response to yours. He is comparing discussion of rules which have
implications on the game as a whole to discussion of card limits. They
both affect the way the game is played in a very concrete way. If
discussion/debate about one is not considered good, how can you consider
discussion debate about the other good.
To go off on a tangent, and return to a previous point that both he and I
are making, my _only_ problem with how these "debates" have been going is
that they aren't really debates at all. They begin as such, but quickly
break down into a refusal of one side to counter points with anything but
opinion. The fun of a game is something where opinion is an issue, but
when talking about fundamental issues of game balance, opinion is not
important at all, only evidence is.
> Your only valid point (though it did appear rather tenuous) was the posting
> of card limit arguments to influence the DCI. If people want to do this then
> I suggest they mail them direct.
Why? So that they can be a solitary voice? I would hazard a guess that
the DCI adopted an SPTR-like tournament rules set because of the group
voice on it, not because I or any other supporter of the SPTR or Golden
Tenets talked to them by ourselves. Change rarely happens because of the
will of one person. It requires many, and as such, concerns like the
above need to be talked about with more people on a wider scale.
> But lets face it, there probably isn't
> going to be a ruling as one simply isn't required. There is no
> definitive right or wrong about card limits - why not accept this?
"Why not accept this?" I don't simply "accept" anything. I feel to do so
is foolhardy. After looking at the differences between CL and NL, I feel
that NL is superior. It isn't morally "right", but the game mechanics,
design intent, and numerous other issues make it a better choice. This
isn't based solely on what I personally feel is better, but based on
analysis of the environment.
I can accept someone saying "Let's agree to disagree". I cannot accept
someone proclaiming as truth that "X is better than Y" or "there really
isn't a difference between X and Y" when the evidence suggests otherwise..
If someone chooses to play CL, that is their business. When I meet these
people, I usually ask them why they play that way and if they have thought
about NL. If they want to don't want to talk about it, we don't. If you
don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up or use a killfile.
Otherwise, please be prepared to give reasons for your opinions.
You don't know how sick I am of hearing "Well that's just the way it is...
Why don't you accept it."
L. Scott Johnson
CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes:
>>CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes:
>>>The main protagonists of the opposing sides seem to be Scott
>>>Johnson and Ben Redmond - there are others but these two seem
>>>to be the most vociferous.
>>
>>Thanks, but I merely echo the wisdom of Corrupter, Curt Adams,
>>et. al. I am not the most vocal supporter of NL - I usually
>>leave it to the others who defend NL much more eloquently
>>than I.
>>
>to comprehend what I was actually saying? I don't think you did, did you?
>When I named yourself as one of the protagonists along with B. Redmond, it
>was merely as an example with no other implication implied.
You named me as one of the two "main" protagonists, and stated that I (and
BDR) seem to be the most vociferous. This is not merely an example.
There is not "impli-" anything about it - it's explicit.
Or did you actually READ your message?
CurtAdams
CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes:
>Has it not occurred to you also that the less time spent discussing such
a
>fruitless topic could be time well spent debating all the other things
you
>mentioned? "Then why read the newsgroup at all?" - erm...why not read my
>message properly? Of course I fully support the discussion of everything
>else - why else would I subscribe?
Discussion of card limits has changed many minds on this group, including
mine. I'd say the consensus for NL this group has formed has been useful
and influential.
Frankly, of all the many heated ongoing discussions I've seen on the net,
this has been the only one in which substantial numbers of posters have
changed sides. It's valuable for sociological reasons, if nothing else
:-)
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
D.P. Hammersley
Hi,
I'm afraid I don't have much time so I'll try and be brief:
One of your main points is freedom of debate. By my approach I don't mean to
unduly disqualify all other debating topics. Quite simply I didn't like what
I saw, i.e. an increasingly bitter and aggressive debate on this particular
subject - card limits.
I accept that each side has valid points (although we disagree on the extent
of this). My original point was to try and put an end to the debate for the
reason stated above and also because it tended to dominate the group more
than any other issue with no resolution in sight. My action was prompted by
a couple of fellow posters withdrawing from subscription to the group largely
because of this point.
Many other issues have been discussed profitably in the past and also I am
sure in the future, but this point has shown no indication of going away and
remains a point of contention.
I think personally that one way to go on the subject is to have a frequently
reposted article discussing the pros and cons of both systems: NL and CL.
This would suit the committed advocates of each argument if their points were
fairly made and newcomers could (perhaps) if they have any queries mail a
person listed on the article. I would be glad to receieve any feedback on
these points.
Peter
CurtAdams
CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes:
>I think personally that one way to go on the subject is to have a
frequently
>reposted article discussing the pros and cons of both systems: NL and CL.
>This would suit the committed advocates of each argument if their points
were
>fairly made and newcomers could (perhaps) if they have any queries mail a
>person listed on the article. I would be glad to receieve any feedback
on
>these points.
This is a good idea, and will reduce pointless rehashing of
already-covered points. Are you volunteering?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Mark Langsdorf
polished, and eloquent articles against the 4 Card limit (as well as one
article for it) at:
http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html
If anyone wants to review past articles, I suggest they start there.
-Mark Langsdorf
http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html
theCorrupter
On 24 Oct 1996, Thomas Doehne wrote:
[Re: Making a NL/CL FAQ, with point-counterpoint given]
> I'll volunteer, but I think it would be best for at least two
> people to work on this, one with a CL bias, one with an NL bias,
> if we want to achieve any kind of 'balanced' argument.
I suggest people submit articles defending/attacking CL/NL to you or
others, and they be available at a website. People's articles should be
revisable, to take into account unthought of arguments that might be
presented by readers, but the article format should be maintained to avoid
loss of a cohesive topic that is so wont to happen in this forum. I would
happily upon my site open to such a forum, if need be.
> OTOH, the recurrent argument has convinced many former CL advocates
> to play NL, and (AFAIK) none the other way, so perhaps a "balanced"
> presentation is not really appropriate.
It's likely the only way. I myself can recount most CL-arguments of the
top of my head, and I'm sure many pro-CL know many of the NL-arguments. I
know that I could maintain impartiality, for example, when actually
presenting CL arguments on a website, though I _definately_ don't agree
with them. The question is more this - without representatives from each
side, is the topic being addressed to each side's liking.
Thomas Doehne
In article <54jca9$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com
>CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (D.P. Hammersley) writes:
>>I think personally that one way to go on the subject is to have a
>frequently
>>reposted article discussing the pros and cons of both systems: NL and CL.
>
>>This would suit the committed advocates of each argument if their points
>were
>>fairly made and newcomers could (perhaps) if they have any queries mail a
>>person listed on the article. I would be glad to receieve any feedback
>on
>>these points.
>
>This is a good idea, and will reduce pointless rehashing of
>already-covered points. Are you volunteering?
I'll volunteer, but I think it would be best for at least two
people to work on this, one with a CL bias, one with an NL bias,
if we want to achieve any kind of 'balanced' argument.
OTOH, the recurrent argument has convinced many former CL advocates
to play NL, and (AFAIK) none the other way, so perhaps a "balanced"
presentation is not really appropriate.
Thoughts?
--
Tom Doehne
Lord of Shadows
In article <54oqno$g...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>,
agree to disagree. If some people in your area have changed
then fair enough, but I can tell you most assuredly that not
one person I know has changed from card limits after reading
the arguement. Both styles have there merits, some will prefere
card limit and some won't. I started on no card limit myself
and introduced my friends to it. We changed to 4 card limit
because we felt it was more challenging. It's that simple. I
feel your statement above was meant merely in support of no
card limit and not based on any facts gleaned on the net. This
sort of biased approach is not needed.
LOS
curt...@aol.com
doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes:
>I'll volunteer, but I think it would be best for at least two
>people to work on this, one with a CL bias, one with an NL bias,
>if we want to achieve any kind of 'balanced' argument.
>OTOH, the recurrent argument has convinced many former CL advocates
>to play NL, and (AFAIK) none the other way, so perhaps a "balanced"
>presentation is not really appropriate.
But an unbalanced presentation will not be respected by CL advocates and
hence do little good.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)