Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:53 pm
On an only-slightly-more-serious-note, only SLIGHTLY:korexus wrote:Han, sometimes its fun to play from the weaker side. I guarantee you that Egbert won't complain about the setup after the game.
korexus.
Hey, you're trying to point this out to me?! I've enjoyed such a challenge myself a few times! Both Standard and Duel. I hate it when people say they'd actually prefer an easy ride to a VP...
But here, you're only looking at it (or, yep, got it, mediating), from the POV of the player. OK, I guess the GM should (so I will), go with the players whenever possible.
But you only stressed the secondary point I made, which was a bit of a throwaway secondary point, teasing. The primary point was to help the poor GM to check for fairness, if only as courtesy to the GM GM'ing a Duel, which is not easy to set up fairly. Hmm. Believe me, setting up a Duel as even and interesting is not easy. See the 4 pages on GM'ing Duels that Egbert perhaps confused with elongating the Rules ...
Me, I only spend 1 -10 mins checking a set-up to see that it looks interesting (Robos doing something that affects things); Robos being net available to botrh humans (so that it's a battle, not a parallel race, Kor), the humans being fairly even when you balance start-pops vs position in respect of 2-on-1's vs position in respect of Robos ... and Robo-collisions vs the Turn 1 OOP. Not easy.
The GM can get tired of rejecting 14 starts, and lean towards accepting the 15th. And spends max 5 or 10 mins checking that 15th for fairness. The GM can easily get that wrong in a way he hadn't spotted; Trewqh pointed out that my Lite Semis were initially too much in favour of one side (Trewq's side), so I amended the start. I THOUGHT I'd made the Yondallus/Tinker Duel equal, but it was unequal in a hard-to-anticipate way: they could both go for an equal 50/50 on Turn 1: but, because of naps and Robos, that 50/50 would be no-great-pain to Yondallus if HE lost, but disaster (ish) for Tinker if HE lost ...
My point is: I'm not bad at spotting a fair start rather than leave it to chance; and I put in a fair amount of effort, to avoid blowing a Duel as unfair-from-the-start; but even *I* still get it wrong!
The players, looking at their T1 position, or their bid, look more deeply than I do in 5-10 mins per map-start. SO: my safety-net is that the either of the players, working out their orders or bids, will let me know if they spot an inequality I missed?
So, it's not really about one player throwing away later that he had a tougher start. It's about the players helping the GM to check that a Duel is equal. Which is why I asked the players to have a look and let me know if it looks uneven? I'm supposed to explain all the above? Or just ask them to have a look and tell me if it looks uneven..
Kor, you might well say that a PLAYER sometimes relishes a challenge, and might be happy to risk an unequal start. That doesn't mean that the GM is equally happy to kick off a Duel with an unequal start. Nor perhaps the other player being thus condescended to?!
Anyway, it's all good. I just thought my points would make sense. As you know, I'd rather concede than continue an argument.
No big deal, just interesting points of debate. We are off and running. Everybody have fun!
H
...