The High Council

[Maximus Dominus]

From the 4th Cycle: Maelstron rulebook:

The following represents the possible issues that members on the High Council may
address during the course of the campaign:

• Commend or condemn a specified king for his actions at large. This has the effect
of raising or lowering the specified king's influence by one.

• Endorse or degrade a particular king's actions in a particular region. This has the
effect of raising or lowering the king's regional reaction by one.

• Elect to increase food production by 1,000 units and lower gold production by 1,000
units for cities, towns, or villages throughout Alamaze.

• Elect to increase gold production by 1,000 and decrease food production by 1,000
for cities, towns, or villages throughout Alamaze.

• Vote to expel a member on the High Council for acts contrary to the civil intent of
the High Council.


Even way back when I first tried Alamaze, when it was run by Reality Simulations, Inc., the concept of the High Council in Alamaze has always struck me as odd. These five options are the raison d'être for the high council's existence? What, exactly, does the term "civil intent of the High Council even mean?"

The High Council strikes me as a rather drab, boring affair. It is largely an exercise in the pursuit of self-interest, and to a lesser degree, vindictiveness/punishment. What actions of any king in the game, currently, warrant endorsing? Raising and lowering of influence, with the potential for cumulative effect when achieved multiple turns. It just strikes me as a rather lofty title for an entity that doesn't really have much to choose from. It makes me think of both the League of Nations and the United Nations - largely incapable of accomplishing anything of note, in the grand scheme of things. Oh, sure, the High Council exists - but to what grand end?

Incremental increases or decreases in both influence, food, and gold. That and the expelling of a member of the High Council, itself. Whoop-de-doo!

It just doesn't strike me as a very imaginative feature of the game. Can it prevent or halt a war between opposing kingdoms? Nope. Can it mandate peace for a period of time? Absolutely not! Can it outlaw crime (assassinations and kidnappings). Not at all. I realize that it's just a feature designed into the game, but why would a bunch of fantasy kingdoms come together under any pretense just to "accomplish" the five rather dubious things agreed upon in the first place?

The current 32 kingdoms in the game that players can choose from to play embody a lot of colorful characteristics. The High Council, by comparison, is dreadfully boring. Am I alone in thinking this? I'm not trying to cause, nor advocating for, a bunch of extra programming work for Mike, but just as a topic of conversation, can any of you actually envision the fantasy realms that populate the Alamaze setting all coming together at some point in time, and agreeing to what is currently the case? Is that the grand accomplishment of these 32 kingdoms acting in unison and with great or noble intent? Pah!

Honestly, I don't think that these fantasy kingdoms would ever come together for some grand purpose, and when all was said and done, the current end result is what they would all settle for. To borrow a phrase, such is fit for the Mad Hatter!

If one never seeks a seat on the High Council, then one can never be kicked off of it. The world certainly doesn't end, if one is not a member of the High Council. If incrementalism and minimalism are to be the order of the day, then why the term High Council? What's so high about it?

I do know that, over the years, various changes have been proposed for the High Council. But why would kingdoms that are historically poorer than some of their other counterparts ever agree to a system whereby kingdoms that ascend to the high council do so based upon bids made in gold? Such is, I think, ludicrous on its face. And if the supposed High Council in its current form didn't exist, at all, would Alamaze really be any the poorer for its absence from the grand scheme of things?

In a word, the High Council in its current watered down form is nothing short of dreadfully boring. In my current game of Alamaze, Game 5684, my kingdom managed to snag a seat on the High Council on Turn #1. Yet, is there any feeling of great excitement in achieving this? Nope, not at all. Thus, why bother with bidding in the first place? Very anti-climactic, people. It's akin to chewing on cardboard.

From my perspective, the High Council, if it is to exist at all, should be a body of consequential decisions. Incrementalism and minimalism are hardly consequential and of over-arching importance. Do I think that changing the way that people look at the High Council and what the High Council has power to do should be the top priority for changing, as Alamaze goes forward with its development and refinement? Certainly not. Yet, as a long term project, I really think that it is one area of the game that holds a lot of potential that has not been exploited, yet. Tell me this - is there any experienced player of Alamaze who thinks that the High Council in its current form is their favorite part of the game?

When browsing previous postings by others, where different players seek to entice each other with proposed food and gold trades, particularly as their games progress, I can't help but to wonder how much difference that a change of 1,000 gold or food per pop center per turn actually makes, and especially once a game of Alamaze has been going for a while, and players have improved their kingdom pop centers by a good bit. Is the High Council, in reality, little more than a mechanism for facilitating any earlier removal of certain kingdoms from the game - namely, the weaker ones with less food and/or gold at their disposal?

It isn't kingdoms pursuing their own meager self-interest that annoys me about the High Council in its current form. Rather, if pursuit of self-interest is to be the order of the day as a guiding light or purpose for the High Council, then why isn't it done on a much grander scale?

If you stumble across this posting and are reading it, feel free to enlighten me as to what it is about the High Council in current form that I am missing. What, to you, makes the High Council in its current form one of the crown jewels of game design for Alamaze?

And how does a vote by the High Council actually make pop centers more productive or less productive? Do gold mines that such gold comes from in the first place suddenly become less productive? Or would fantasy kingdoms fighting for their races' survival actually be inclined to go along with some arbitrary limit imposed by a High Council that does nothing to spare their people from their looming fate? From the perspective of backstory and lore, feel free to explain the High Council concept to me.

By all means, enlighten me.

[Jon Deaux]

You should probably play a few games before making your final decision about the HC.  I'll give you my take.  Aesthetically, I don't find the HC out of place. This is a fantasy game, the HC is just one mechanism, that's all I'll say about that.

OK, so...  First, there are currently about 20 people who play this game, so pretty much the only games that are running are steel.  In the past, however, many different types of games were available, games where people were "allowed" to team up (team games, true full diplomacy games, confederation games, titan games, etc...) In these games, control of the HC is a pretty significant advantage.

Because there is a "no cooperation" (or close enough) policy in steel games, the HC is not really a consensus mechanism and is relegated to a bonus for the highest bidder.  Its common curtesy to simply not vote on other people's issues.  In fact, if you did vote in a way that helped or hurt a player you did not seem to be otherwise engaged with, your intentions to break those unwritten rules might be questioned.

So, I'd also say play a few other game types before rendering a final decision.

Sometimes, I ignore artifacts.  Sometimes, I grab the ones in my region simply for the leadership gains, and sometimes I scoop up as many as I can for status purposes.  Now, go back to the word artifacts and replace it with the word Agents, Armies, Mithral, or the HC (I never ignore wizards).  There are a lot of different ways to have an entertaining game with the possibility of a win, if there weren't, it would get boring fast.

Effectively used, the HC can provide good value for the investment.  Even a strategic one as I outlined in my "art of the plunder" article.

And... just wait until you get into a scuffle with someone on the HC and they start lowering your influence or denigrating you in pertinent regions.  Your king only gets one order, if you don't have sufficient wizard power to back him up, the HC can have a substantial impact.  Obviously, early in the game the impact is greater than later in the game, when people can find other ways to get king orders in (artifacts and spells).

Personally, I ignore the HC most of the time, I'm a lazy man who is not out to win so I like to focus on one factor, almost always wizards.  However, some kingdoms start the game with 10 influence, which makes it slow going. Recently, with the RD I sacrificed two first turn orders to bid on the HC and bid for the issue to raise my influence.  The two points of influence I got, one from simply being on the HC, and one for my first, and only, issue raised made the start of the game much more fruitful.  Over the course of the opening game from turn 1 to 10 I gained about 18 orders at the cost of three early orders (I also had to vote on turn 2).

You start the game with, well, let's see here... a King, 5 politicals, 5 groups, 5 wizards, and 7 agents.  And that's just your starting assets, not to mention the fact that many orders don't even require an asset to perform.  Getting your influence to max as fast as possible can be a game changing situation for you.  Unless you are like me and intend to sit there and do nothing most of the game.

Good luck!

[Maximus Dominus]

Its common curtesy to simply not vote on other people's issues.  In fact, if you did vote in a way that helped or hurt a player you did not seem to be otherwise engaged with, your intentions to break those unwritten rules might be questioned.

Unwritten rules? So, on top of a rather lengthy written rulebook, there are also unwritten rules for players, particularly new players, to concern themselves with?

And if they are unwritten rules, then who is the author of them?

So, the unwritten rules undermine the written rules, limiting player options? I did an electronic search of the actual rulebook, just now, and it makes no mention of unwritten rules, nor does it make any mention of courtesy/curtesy of which you speak.

Tell me, how is a new player supposed to learn such things on their own, simply by studying the game literature that the company provides? It sounds more like crap that a group of players came up with on their own. Or are there multiple different, varying sets of unwritten rules and common courtesies?

Or are these just ways that some experienced players have come up with to avoid having their own tail feathers ruffled during the game? Sounds very bogus to me.

[Jon Deaux]

You don't have to convince me, I'm against unwritten rules.  However, this is something Rick put into place for Steel games to prevent predicable alliances always forming in every game.  Many people simply would not play unless these rules existed, they do not tolerate being ganged by a consistent group of friends.  If our player base grows, I suspect it might be less of a problem.

---

You don't have to convince me, I'm against unwritten rules.  However, this is something Rick put into place for Steel games to prevent predicable alliances always forming in every game.  Many people simply would not play unless these rules existed, they do not tolerate being ganged by a consistent group of friends.  If our player base grows, I suspect it might be less of a problem.

And, this is mainly to protect new players, not old ones.  Rest assured as a result of these rules, no one is probably ever going to attack you first, and they certainly would never gang up on you.

[Maximus Dominus]

First, there are currently about 20 people who play this game

It is my understanding that it is desirable and preferable to increase the number of people who play Alamaze.

From my browsing of the forum over past months, the current very limited player pool for Alamaze don't like such a very limited amount of players/competition.

Nothing that you responded with changed my opinion of the High Council, as currently implemented. And if you saddled the bland approach if its current implementation with unwritten rules and "common courtesies," then that simply takes its design from bad to worse.

It's OK to cut deals with other players to assassinate characters of particular kingdoms, or to gang up on kingdoms, militarily, but players should avoid breaking unwritten rules? I just wonder what other unwritten rules that there are, and I also wonder why, if they are rules, that they aren't written rules, instead of unwritten ones?

Certainly, unwritten rules in Alamaze are not an issue of recent vintage. The dates on the postings quoted below are a clear indication of that.

So, I've been playing for awhile now, and like most games I have found there are quite a few "unwritten" rules.  Long time players know these rules, and I've found out a few as I play, but I would be interested in hearing from the more experienced players on this issue.  An example might be "You don't drop a position until after turn 12 at least", or "Don't make personal accusations of misconduct against a player on the forums".

Thanks!

SOURCE: https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/show...2#pid31012
DATE: 08-17-2015

When was this made an unwritten rule in warlords?  I have seen this happen from this first game run as warlords.  Anyway I have no problem following what ever rules come about I would just like them noted clearly.
If we are stopping ally declarations then enemy declarations should also be stopped as it is communicating as well. 

While clarifying unwritten rules what are the rules for trading?  Trading is ok, None, or none until you have a teammate eliminated.

SOURCE: https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/show...1#pid28951
DATE: 05-08-2015

I remembered the same, back in the old days, but you can now inactivate a group via transfers (I've done it with both 700 and 701).

Thanks.  There are several unwritten rules of game play I have floating around in my head.  I had to learn them by trial, error and bugging Phil till he told me the rules.

I even thought of digging out my old manuals out. 

Iriani

SOURCE: https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/show...6#pid15576
DATE: 10-17-2013

I understand many of your points and it is the main reason why I have not counted myself out yet.  I took myself out of the subscription to get my mind around what the game is and decide whether or not I want to get back in.  The game design is great.  But there was some commentary about the article written in response to Rick's commentary in the PBM/PBEM online mag about the downside of closed PBEM games (if I recall correctly).  And some of the responses were "that can't be right".  And I am saying that it is (at least for this NooB) dead spot on.  The rules are sketchy at best.  What are the army values for each of the kingdoms?    What is the significance of the Humans owning all the cities?  Where is all of this written in the rules?  Answer: It's not.  You have to learn by playing.  In other games, I know the exact answer to these questions and it is by the smart and devious application of these numbers that games are won.  And experience does lend an advantage.  But when experience is further leveraged by unwritten rules that only the vet knows, it becomes extremely discouraging to the NooB.  Do you mean that I have to play for years before I even have a shot at winning?  That is the question that I am grappling with and I strongly emphasize with any NooB who has to answer the same question.  There is a plethora of PBEM games out there and so there is a strong temptation on the part of a PBEM NooB to take the more well defined path.  At least if I lose (which I no doubt will) it will be due to rules that are right in front of me rather than some invisible set that is known only to vets.  Of course, from a vets viewpoint the ready answer is "There is the way the world should be, and there is the way the world is" (a quote from Platoon that aptly summarizes your points).  No illusions here.  I only seek to explain the challenges a NooB faces that must be addressed if you really seek to grow a business.  In the end, that is why the $$ matter.  This is a service business.  And I am a business man and recognize the challenges that are faced here.  Market segmentation is key here.  And there may be nothing wrong with a very specialized customer base consisting of those who like to learn by getting their head kicked in over several years.  I know too many people on this site personally who have that incredible tolerance to not believe that it is a valid customer base.  I lack it (thus my struggles) and my observation from the many board game sites (where game life is measured in days rather than months) where the most frequent problem is people abandoning a game they are losing - is that most of your intended market is the same.  Indeed, you face the same problems here.  And if the answer is to "take your whupping like a man", well, good luck with that.  I do think that the iron man concept could be developed with a more substantial reward/recognition system for any players that refuse to quit, but I am not certain whether that will truly address the root of the problem - the valuation of time.  Am I willing to spend my time in a very discouraging situation where I only serve to feed the beasts?  The only time the answer to that question is yes is when the experience enjoyment is substantially greater than the humiliation (which is substantial) + the time commitment (which is substantial).  Still, my experience with most of the experienced players of this site is that they are not maniacally aggressive with NooBs.  And there are also some rather good teachers.  And those are both significant considerations that should be more advertised rather than less.  Vet player outreach during games could be quite key to overcoming the daunting challenges of learning this alamazing game.  Just my $2 (too long for $0.02)

SOURCE: https://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/show...3#pid22073
DATE: 08-04-2014

[Jon Deaux]

They go much farther back than that.  Phil had some similar rules in the old paper and pencil games back in the 80's.

---

I think the bottom line is, if Brek, right above you in Sword coast, and Dupont, right beside you in Mythgar, two veterans of the game decided to get together and knock you out of the game before turn 10, you'd be knocked out of the game before turn 10.

If you got into the next game and the same thing happened, you'd stop playing pretty quick.  That is what the rules are designed to prevent.  They are unwritten because they are flexible and enforced on a case by case basis.

You don't know them yet because no one is going to care if you break them.  Because if you and a friend get together and decide to knock Dupont out of the game before turn 10 all you are both going to end up doing is getting knocked out yourself.

Again, against unwritten rules, I just understand the reasoning.

---

The original game of Alamaze (first cycle) and perhaps the second cycle as well, more easily lent itself to collaboration between players.  In fact, it was a practical necessity for some kingdoms, since there were only 10 regions and 15 kingdoms in the game.  A lot of players, such as myself and Agent Orange, who never stops complaining he can't play first cycle, miss those old days.

We do occasional have a real "full diplomacy" game.  Where alliances are allowed and communication outside the forum is allowed, basically there are simply no unwritten rules in those games, you can do whatever the orders allow you to do.  Personally, I like them best.  There are always a bunch of early alliances of convenience (NAPs, non-aggression pacts) that deteriorate as kingdoms via for a possible win.  People complain about who broke the NAP first...  Backstabbing, name-calling, people getting ganked out early, and complaining about getting 3v1ed out. It's awesome!

Unfortunately, not everyone thinks so.

[Wookie Panz]

From the 4th Cycle: Maelstron rulebook:

The following represents the possible issues that members on the High Council may
address during the course of the campaign:

• Commend or condemn a specified king for his actions at large. This has the effect
of raising or lowering the specified king's influence by one.

• Endorse or degrade a particular king's actions in a particular region. This has the
effect of raising or lowering the king's regional reaction by one.

• Elect to increase food production by 1,000 units and lower gold production by 1,000
units for cities, towns, or villages throughout Alamaze.

• Elect to increase gold production by 1,000 and decrease food production by 1,000
for cities, towns, or villages throughout Alamaze.

• Vote to expel a member on the High Council for acts contrary to the civil intent of
the High Council.


Even way back when I first tried Alamaze, when it was run by Reality Simulations, Inc., the concept of the High Council in Alamaze has always struck me as odd. These five options are the raison d'être for the high council's existence? What, exactly, does the term "civil intent of the High Council even mean?"

The High Council strikes me as a rather drab, boring affair. It is largely an exercise in the pursuit of self-interest, and to a lesser degree, vindictiveness/punishment. What actions of any king in the game, currently, warrant endorsing? Raising and lowering of influence, with the potential for cumulative effect when achieved multiple turns. It just strikes me as a rather lofty title for an entity that doesn't really have much to choose from. It makes me think of both the League of Nations and the United Nations - largely incapable of accomplishing anything of note, in the grand scheme of things. Oh, sure, the High Council exists - but to what grand end?

Incremental increases or decreases in both influence, food, and gold. That and the expelling of a member of the High Council, itself. Whoop-de-doo!

It just doesn't strike me as a very imaginative feature of the game. Can it prevent or halt a war between opposing kingdoms? Nope. Can it mandate peace for a period of time? Absolutely not! Can it outlaw crime (assassinations and kidnappings). Not at all. I realize that it's just a feature designed into the game, but why would a bunch of fantasy kingdoms come together under any pretense just to "accomplish" the five rather dubious things agreed upon in the first place?

The current 32 kingdoms in the game that players can choose from to play embody a lot of colorful characteristics. The High Council, by comparison, is dreadfully boring. Am I alone in thinking this? I'm not trying to cause, nor advocating for, a bunch of extra programming work for Mike, but just as a topic of conversation, can any of you actually envision the fantasy realms that populate the Alamaze setting all coming together at some point in time, and agreeing to what is currently the case? Is that the grand accomplishment of these 32 kingdoms acting in unison and with great or noble intent? Pah!

Honestly, I don't think that these fantasy kingdoms would ever come together for some grand purpose, and when all was said and done, the current end result is what they would all settle for. To borrow a phrase, such is fit for the Mad Hatter!

If one never seeks a seat on the High Council, then one can never be kicked off of it. The world certainly doesn't end, if one is not a member of the High Council. If incrementalism and minimalism are to be the order of the day, then why the term High Council? What's so high about it?

I do know that, over the years, various changes have been proposed for the High Council. But why would kingdoms that are historically poorer than some of their other counterparts ever agree to a system whereby kingdoms that ascend to the high council do so based upon bids made in gold? Such is, I think, ludicrous on its face. And if the supposed High Council in its current form didn't exist, at all, would Alamaze really be any the poorer for its absence from the grand scheme of things?

In a word, the High Council in its current watered down form is nothing short of dreadfully boring. In my current game of Alamaze, Game 5684, my kingdom managed to snag a seat on the High Council on Turn #1. Yet, is there any feeling of great excitement in achieving this? Nope, not at all. Thus, why bother with bidding in the first place? Very anti-climactic, people. It's akin to chewing on cardboard.

From my perspective, the High Council, if it is to exist at all, should be a body of consequential decisions. Incrementalism and minimalism are hardly consequential and of over-arching importance. Do I think that changing the way that people look at the High Council and what the High Council has power to do should be the top priority for changing, as Alamaze goes forward with its development and refinement? Certainly not. Yet, as a long term project, I really think that it is one area of the game that holds a lot of potential that has not been exploited, yet. Tell me this - is there any experienced player of Alamaze who thinks that the High Council in its current form is their favorite part of the game?

When browsing previous postings by others, where different players seek to entice each other with proposed food and gold trades, particularly as their games progress, I can't help but to wonder how much difference that a change of 1,000 gold or food per pop center per turn actually makes, and especially once a game of Alamaze has been going for a while, and players have improved their kingdom pop centers by a good bit. Is the High Council, in reality, little more than a mechanism for facilitating any earlier removal of certain kingdoms from the game - namely, the weaker ones with less food and/or gold at their disposal?

It isn't kingdoms pursuing their own meager self-interest that annoys me about the High Council in its current form. Rather, if pursuit of self-interest is to be the order of the day as a guiding light or purpose for the High Council, then why isn't it done on a much grander scale?

If you stumble across this posting and are reading it, feel free to enlighten me as to what it is about the High Council in current form that I am missing. What, to you, makes the High Council in its current form one of the crown jewels of game design for Alamaze?

And how does a vote by the High Council actually make pop centers more productive or less productive? Do gold mines that such gold comes from in the first place suddenly become less productive? Or would fantasy kingdoms fighting for their races' survival actually be inclined to go along with some arbitrary limit imposed by a High Council that does nothing to spare their people from their looming fate? From the perspective of backstory and lore, feel free to explain the High Council concept to me.

By all means, enlighten me.

H.C. is just one of the many tools that you can have in your kit to get through or win a game.  It can be a cheap way to gain influence at the very least.  I've seen players get a seat cheaply on turn 1 along with a bid for influence so a 2 point boost right out of the gate.  A standing order to raise your own influence for  with your H.C. seat can save you a lot of gold over the course of a game.
Again, it's just a single tool but it can be a very helpful one if used with long term vision.

[Maximus Dominus]

If you got into the next game and the same thing happened, you'd stop playing pretty quick.  That is what the rules are designed to prevent.  They are unwritten because they are flexible and enforced on a case by case basis.

You don't know them yet because no one is going to care if you break them.  Because if you and a friend get together and decide to knock Dupont out of the game before turn 10 all you are both going to end up doing is getting knocked out yourself.

Again, against unwritten rules, I just understand the reasoning.

Enforced by whom?

Unwritten rules are not actual rules. They're just crap made up by players, and falsely labeled as rules, albeit of an unwritten variety.

If they aren't in the rulebook, then they aren't rules. If they are actual rules, but are deliberately not included int he rulebook, then that is a MAJOR PROBLEM.

Furthermore, unwritten rules add to the confusion factor and to the learning curves associated with any game that has them. Players agreeing among themselves to craft "unwritten rules" does not transmogrify them into actual rules.

Unwritten rules are a way of lying to players.

[Maximus Dominus]

The original game of Alamaze (first cycle) and perhaps the second cycle as well, more easily lent itself to collaboration between players.  In fact, it was a practical necessity for some kingdoms, since there were only 10 regions and 15 kingdoms in the game.  A lot of players, such as myself and Agent Orange, who never stops complaining he can't play first cycle, miss those old days.

Now, there are what? A maximum of 12 players in a game of Alamaze scattered across 12 regions? Granted, there are 32 possible kingdoms to choose from, but only 12 in play in an actual game, right?

And why can't players player Alamace First Cycle, these days? Was it simply a conscious decision to focus programming efforts and a finite set of resources upon whatever the latest version of Alamaze was?

My own first-hand experience with playing an early version of Alamaze was playing it for a couple of turns, back when Reality Simulations, Inc. ran the game. From my meager perspective, Alamaze 4th Cycle is a vastly more enticing game - and the bulk of that enticement is attributable to the increased abundance of kingdoms to choose from, and the fact that the kingdoms tend to be more colorful and have more flavor, compared to what I first encountered with Alamaze way back when. Compared to the kingdoms offered for play in Fall of Rome, which struck me as being very similar in design, even to the point of yielding a generic feel to the game, Alamaze has vastly greater potential.

We do occasional have a real "full diplomacy" game.  Where alliances are allowed and communication outside the forum is allowed, basically there are simply no unwritten rules in those games, you can do whatever the orders allow you to do.  Personally, I like them best.  There are always a bunch of early alliances of convenience (NAPs, non-aggression pacts) that deteriorate as kingdoms via for a possible win.  People complain about who broke the NAP first...  Backstabbing, name-calling, people getting ganked out early, and complaining about getting 3v1ed out. It's awesome!

Unfortunately, not everyone thinks so.

Your comments above leave me wondering what what kind of game that the current game of Alamaze that I am playing in actually is. Am I even supposed to be discussing the game with others, where on the forum or elsewhere? ACK! More confusion!

Honestly, not being able to communicate with others, particularly with other players in the same game, would be equivalent to a real interest-destroyer. I wouldn't waste so much as a single, solitary breath on Alamaze, if you remove the potential for fun that player-to-player interaction naturally embodies. Dull, dull, dull!

Granted, everyone doesn't like the same thing, but if there's anything that I've learned since playing Hyborian War, which stretches all the way back to the 1986/87 era for me, it's that the player-to-player interaction (the meta-game) tends to be more fun than the game, itself. Players are what make the game a lasting fun.

I don't have any qualms with players mutually agreeing on unwritten parameters for the games that they play in, but they should never try to pass them off as unwritten rules, per se. By mutual agreement can, at times, enhance the experience of playing a given game, but they can't be foisted off on other players who aren't inclined to agree to them. In Hyborian War, as a comparison, there's nothing that precludes players from mutually agreeing on not resorting to peace treaties or the paying of tribute (things that cause never-ending consternation with some experienced players of the game who just want to fight), but they seldom do to a large degree, simply because such things are mechanisms built into the game's design that confers or denies advantage. In my current game of Hyborian War, not one player over the course of 30 turns, thus far, has taken me up on my "fight with no peace treaties" offers that I have extended over the course of the game, to date. One fellow, I unilaterally extended the courtesy of fighting without peace treaties, in a bid to try and persuade him to not drop out of the game, at a point a few turns back where he was pondering dropping out.

But generally speaking, players aren't required to adhere to unwritten rules, simply because some players choose to call them unwritten rules.

[Jon Deaux]

I made the mistake of giving my phone number to another Hyborean war player and the son of a bitch called me to tell me every time he was going to kick my ass.  lol Thats another game I miss, a buddy and me thought we might try to get back in one, as far as we can tell, RSI is still around running games by mail.  I actually went to an RSI convention in New Jersey one time back in the 80's to play Dualmasters in person, was pretty fun.  Other than Tex and the other chick who ran it, my wife was the only woman there, she led a parade of nerds around all weekend it was funny as hell.

Rick never wanted to put any effort to keep previous versions of the game going.  I think we started a 2nd or 3rd cycle game last year, but we only got to turn 3 before there were technical issues.  The first cycle was designed to be printed on paper, I don't know how much effort it would take to make it electronic.  I think second cycle turn could be emailed, but it was a labor intensive thing, done by hand, not automatically.

The current iteration of the game does look more exciting, but it's really apples and oranges, just depends on what you are in the mood for.

Currently, the primary "unwritten rules" for Steel games are that:

1) all communication between players in a particular game must be done inside the forum so all can see and
2) Non-aggression pacts between players are forbidden.
There are other things people look sideways at, but you probably won't ever get called out for it.  And newbies never get called out.  

These rules are not enforced by the game-masters or owners, but rather just by players bitching in the forum when the rules are broken... which is why Rick banned the accusations of rule-breaking in the forum.  He never wanted to admit the rules HE initiated were ever broken, despite him having no desire to investigate.  So, as players, we couldn't even shame people into complying.  Rick did write these rules down somewhere, but I don't remember where.

My stand is, if you can't enforce a rule, there shouldn't be a rule.  Especially if you are going to ignore rule breakers anyway.

We should get a no holds barred game going.  Maybe now that we have a new leader we can forget about all this unwritten nonsense?