Advanced Mentoring Concerns

[Vellos]

Artemesia, that already happens in the continent forums and elsewhere.

If that's your concern, that isn't specific to advanced mentoring. That's the entire forum. People already ask those questions on the forum. Heck, I've already linked people to forum articles for OOC explanations. I see no problem with that.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

So far it's been nothing far beyond simple mechanics. There has yet to be something about "Teach me how to become a ruler" or something like that. It's been "How come this happened?" Which is strictly mechanics, and exactly the area that I'd like to see the shroud lifted.

It's the "How do I become this?" Type of questions that won't be any good in this game.

[Foundation]

And when I took a higher-level calc class that did not provide the homework answers, I dropped it after a week.

And when I took a stats class that did not provide the homework answers, I attempted to drop it, until I realized it was necessary for my major.

The reason answers are put in the back is because teachers have realized over time that without them, students don't learn as well, and they fail.

Vellos, that is looking at it in the wrong way.  Never are all the answers provided.  Do you get answers for your final exam?  Do you even get it back?  Why is that?

The only reason some answers are provided at the back is because teachers have realized that students need more examples before starting to solve problems themselves.  What you are suggesting makes it seem like the norm is that all the answers in life should be freely available to all, and that is most definitely NOT the case.  I don't want to read all the answers to questions, I want to learn and be able to solve not just this problem right now but all kinds of problems in the future.

[Foundation]

Vellos, your arguments are valid, but I have to say that I really don't like your latest posts.  It feels like you do not consider what the other person is trying to say, merely looking for bits and pieces for you to build a counter argument for your point around.  I am trying to communicate, and I don't want to do point arguments since I don't think they lead anywhere.  We could sit here and argue back and forth all day and get nowhere.

You are as familiar as I on the social contract, so you know why it is appropriate to compare BattleMaster to a board game where the goal is to have fun with friends.  When I play a board game with friends, yes, I try to win, but more importantly it's to enjoy the time and make it an enjoyable experience for my friends as well.  I am ultra-competitive, but I try my best to remember that it is in the end just a game.  I agree with you, BM is not like a board game where there is an end state, but neither is there usually an end for a well played diplomacy game where everyone is reasonably equally skilled.  I am trying to draw the parallel in the atmosphere of BM and a board game, and even the competitive nature presents some parallels as well.

Standard etiquette is just that, ways to interact with other players that does not end in flame wars or huge OOC debates or banning new players trying out stuff.  If you don't want new players trying out hazardous stuff randomly, tell them the consequences.

I agree that when I play diplomacy, I teach/tell those who are not as familiar about the same things, those are basic strategies.  I see stalemate lines in a variety of tutorials/strategy guides, and these are fairly common occurrences in good games, even not at the highest levels.  But do you tell your friends exactly what you plan on doing in every single situation?  Do you teach them what to do in each exact circumstance?  I don't, since unless they actually play and have fun, they will not be able to get better and be able to react to any situation successfully.  Learning should not be limited to a question and answer session.

I do not want to see cookie cutter bankers, rulers, marshals, dukes, just as you do not want to see someone seceding just to learn how it works.  When I first read your trade system stuff, I felt they were indeed basic strategies that most should know, but are simply derivatives of understanding the underlying mechanics.  I enjoyed reading the articles as I stated in the other thread, and I don't even disagree with most of your points, just please, actually consider the other side, that's all I'm asking.

Again, I am not trying to argue, so please don't treat it like an argument that you must win to have your point understood.

[Perth]

But do you tell your friends exactly what you plan on doing in every single situation?

Actually.. I've been the subject of one or more Vellos to your face, "I will destroy you. Constantinople is mine, I will take it from you now." in a game of Diplomacy....

[Bedwyr]

This is how I'd like them to work:

Here's how banishments work...Bear in mind that if you ask them to leave they can still arrange a secession and rebellion, and even if you ban them outright they don't go rogue for three turns.  If you can't ban someone you can try exiling them, but here are some problems with exile, including the big one that you can't ban someone who's been exiled.  Here are all the ways someone can prevent themselves from being banished.  Be aware that banning someone popular can prove dangerous because of a protest backlash.

I don't hold with this idea about people becoming cookie-cutter Council members from these guides.  There isn't a one right way to do anything in this game, and people are going to present different options, and every situation is so different that anyone who just goes off these guides will either fail or get the ideas behind them.  And if players get the ideas behind the guides...How is that a problem?  I direct you to xkcd.

http://xkcd.com/810/

[Foundation]

I actually would like to see posts similar to the ones in Trade that Vellos posted a while ago.  They were very interesting, a few of the ideas I had thought of before but never really organized in such a concise and informative way.

What I would not like to see are players taking those ideas and blindly applying them in every circumstance, not trying to either explore different ways of playing the game nor interacting much in the way of improvements, directing new players to these thread and telling them that these are the ways to do things.

I want there to be a separation of "strategy articles" and "mechanics explained".  Mechanics have their one true nature while there should be an arbitrary number of strategies to accomplish any single goal.  This difference must be clearly explained.  I think only one of these deserve to be in AM threads, eventually ported to the wiki, and I believe that strategy articles deserve this spot.


Now I'm done, for the first time talking about my thoughts, as I was simply trying to organize thoughts presented on both sides in previous posts and play Devil's Advocate for some of them.

The banishment paragraph seems great!  It has the mechanics and basic consequences explained.  Another article can talk about using banishments in interesting ways, but the two must be separated.

Regarding failing or understanding the logic behind strategies, I believe that believing in "one true strategy" will not necessary only result in failure, it may meet mild success at first (since the strategy obviously has merit) and eventually make the playing field a boring one if more adopt such thinking.

[Vellos]

Here's how banishments work...Bear in mind that if you ask them to leave they can still arrange a secession and rebellion, and even if you ban them outright they don't go rogue for three turns.  If you can't ban someone you can try exiling them, but here are some problems with exile, including the big one that you can't ban someone who's been exiled.  Here are all the ways someone can prevent themselves from being banished.  Be aware that banning someone popular can prove dangerous because of a protest backlash.

And that is not basic strategy. The complexities of multiple different judicial options and the interplay between them is not basic.

Foundation, I apologize that I have come across that way. I'm abrasive. Never gonna change. There's a reason I have my description as "Stodgy Old Man in Training." However, I have not intentionally harped on any minor points. I have addressed what I see to be the primary points, and I see most people repeating the same idea over and over: that teaching people the game is bad. I disagree. I think teaching people the game is good. In any way, through any means, it is an unmitigated good.

However, if someone could tell me exactly where my article "crossed the line," that could be helpful. How is driving up the price for food specially complex? Are there dukes who don't realize they can change their price? Well, yes, and that's a cryin' shame. We should fix that. Does someone object to my pointing out that dukes can gain power through serving as liaisons between lords and foreigners? What's wrong with saying that? Or is it just that it was in an article called "Advanced Mentoring"? If we called it, "Vellos' Advice" you'd be fine with it, maybe? That seems silly to me. Does someone object to my discussion of feudal premiums? All I did was explain in mechanics terms how you could manage two different prices for food at the same time, and give reasons why that might be useful. I explained mechanics.

Perhaps people object to the section about withholding for lords. What part? Why? What about giving that advice is so bad? If I see someone being silent, I would prefer it if that was a strategy they chose. If they respond, I would prefer it if that was a strategy they chose: not just what they thought the only option was because they haven't played the game long enough to realize there are advantages to silence. Perhaps someone objects to my note for judges: that note was primarily mechanics-based. Does someone object to the undercutting section? That's primarily a discussion of mechanics concerning regional productivity, and then a fairly simple scenario arising from that as an example (in fact, an extremely simple scenario that could never really work IG). Or perhaps inverse bribes? Someone objects to reminding lords that they can exercise a price control?

Seriously, which part was it that people are objecting to?

[Vellos]

I am ultra-competitive, but I try my best to remember that it is in the end just a game.  I agree with you, BM is not like a board game where there is an end state, but neither is there usually an end for a well played diplomacy game where everyone is reasonably equally skilled.  I am trying to draw the parallel in the atmosphere of BM and a board game, and even the competitive nature presents some parallels as well.

...

I agree that when I play diplomacy, I teach/tell those who are not as familiar about the same things, those are basic strategies.  I see stalemate lines in a variety of tutorials/strategy guides, and these are fairly common occurrences in good games, even not at the highest levels.  But do you tell your friends exactly what you plan on doing in every single situation?  Do you teach them what to do in each exact circumstance?  I don't, since unless they actually play and have fun, they will not be able to get better and be able to react to any situation successfully.

And as Perth noted, yes, I do exactly that. I tell my enemies my strategies, and sometimes help them plan counter-moves. I'm even more involved with my allies. Recently played a game where I was the only experienced player and, before playing, systematically went through the entire rule book, every example, before playing. I don't want to use a strategy against a friend that my friend didn't realize existed, because he may feel (often does feel) cheated by such unfair play. I want to play with an equal.

I'm not very competitive at all. I don't want to win. I want to play for as long as possible. And that's the difference here. I see the criticisms of this advanced mentoring as predominantly coming from a place of "This will reduce the competitive advantage of long-term players." And that is totally unacceptable IMHO. If it reduces the competitive advantage of long-term players, it is good.

[Foundation]

I shall wait until you respond to my immediate previous post before commenting, since I think that answers many of the issues you raised regarding what I'm opposing, Vellos.

[vonGenf]

Or is it just that it was in an article called "Advanced Mentoring"? If we called it, "Vellos' Advice" you'd be fine with it, maybe? That seems silly to me.

Actually, yes, I would prefer that. I see nothing wrong with exposing these strategies on the forum, but they are clearly not the only ones there are.

The problem, as I see it, is that "Advanced Tutorial" can very well be read as "Manual: How to be a Lord/Duke". And, well, a manual should limit itself to "You can do this, and this, and this.", which is your Basic Mechanics post, and not "You should do this", which, in my view is what your "Political Dynamics" post is.

Again, I see nothing wrong with it being posted on the forum, but I see the concern if it is seen as a manual.

[Foundation]

And that is not basic strategy. The complexities of multiple different judicial options and the interplay between them is not basic.

... I see most people repeating the same idea over and over: that teaching people the game is bad. I disagree. I think teaching people the game is good. In any way, through any means, it is an unmitigated good.

...Seriously, which part was it that people are objecting to?

It is basic with respect to simple actions and simple consequences.

No one is saying teaching people the game is bad.  They're saying that teaching people the game the wrong way is bad.  I do not believe that "any way" of teaching is okay, it is not an unmitigated good depending on the way things are taught.  If taught the wrong way, it is easy to close off the mind of the student or turn them away from an idea or stop creative thinking.  That is most definitely not good.

From what I gather, people (this time including me) are objecting to presenting the ideas in the way it has been done.  There is a difference between "here's how this works" and "here's some interesting things you can do with it".  The former has only one true way, while the latter has multiple interpretations.


Edit:  By the way, thanks for telling me that you're naturally abrasive.  Makes it easier to understand some of the harsher tones.

[Vellos]

I'm not sure what in this post you specifically wanted me to reply to, but I'll try.

What I would not like to see are players taking those ideas and blindly applying them in every circumstance, not trying to either explore different ways of playing the game nor interacting much in the way of improvements, directing new players to these thread and telling them that these are the ways to do things.

And you have what reason to believe this is what will happen?

I want there to be a separation of "strategy articles" and "mechanics explained".  Mechanics have their one true nature while there should be an arbitrary number of strategies to accomplish any single goal.  This difference must be clearly explained.  I think only one of these deserve to be in AM threads, eventually ported to the wiki, and I believe that strategy articles deserve this spot.

I find your grammar ambiguous in the final sentence. You believe the strategy articles should be ported to the wiki? Does "this" refer to the Wiki, or to "this spot," that is, the forum?

I'm not sure what the focus on specific articles is supposed to accomplish. For example, I clearly separated the more mechanical components of trade from the political-strategic components. And I didn't even include at least a half dozen other strategies (such as starving regions with enemy armies in them) that probably should be included. Would it be better if it were structured as two forum posts: "Advanced Mentoring: Trade Systems and Food- Basic Mechanics" and "Advanced Mentoring: Trade Systems and Food- Political Strategies"? I already have it clearly separated into distinct units.

I am aware that you have said you like my trade systems article. Okay. But it has received direct complaint, and is the longest extant article in the Advanced Mentoring section. That is why I am using it as an example.

The banishment paragraph seems great!  It has the mechanics and basic consequences explained.  Another article can talk about using banishments in interesting ways, but the two must be separated.

Why not just a second post in the same article, but one that clearly identifies itself as not being directly mechanical? What's so wrong about that? It certainly makes more logical sense rather than splitting the same topic into separate threads.

Regarding failing or understanding the logic behind strategies, I believe that believing in "one true strategy" will not necessary only result in failure, it may meet mild success at first (since the strategy obviously has merit) and eventually make the playing field a boring one if more adopt such thinking.

And, again, has any part of the Advanced Mentoring yet advocated for a "one true strategy"? My article certainly identifies multiple divergent strategies (the note about judges and fines comes to mind particularly). And if somebody else disagrees, or sees the strategy as working differently, it's a forum, they can post a response. Don't like how I explained withholding? Write a reply! Nothing could make me happier. Well, actually, lots of things could make me happier, but it certainly wouldn't make me sad.

[Vellos]

Actually, yes, I would prefer that. I see nothing wrong with exposing these strategies on the forum, but they are clearly not the only ones there are.

The problem, as I see it, is that "Advanced Tutorial" can very well be read as "Manual: How to be a Lord/Duke". And, well, a manual should limit itself to "You can do this, and this, and this.", which is your Basic Mechanics post, and not "You should do this", which, in my view is what your "Political Dynamics" post is.

Again, I see nothing wrong with it being posted on the forum, but I see the concern if it is seen as a manual.

But it's not called Advanced Tutorial.

It's called Advanced Mentoring. A mentor. A student. It is not a manual. It is not a tutorial. It is a mentoring tool. If you dislike how I explained part of it, I'm totally fine with that. Add to it. Nobody said only I can contribute to the Trade article; others already have. Add your own take. It's here to benefit those players that would be curious about such things, who I don't anticipate as being a huge audience.

I think the problem here is that people are assuming it's supposed to be a tutorial or a guide that provides one answer. It's not. I'd love nothing better than to have someone write a high-quality article on trade and food that fills in the gaps I left, and provides alternate, diverging accounts of political dynamics around food.

Everybody here seems agreed that there is no one-size-fits-all strategy. So, I've offered one strategy, and written it up. Somebody else offer another one. We all believe other strategies exist: so write'em! Because unless you intend to try and have all these posts deleted, they're already here, and will be here for the forseeable future, whether we continue with this project or not. Hop on, write your own diverging strategies. Mentor. It's not a tutorial. It's long-term players with experience in the game offering their "accumulated wisdom."

[vonGenf]

Oh, I don't want to delete your post! Sorry if that's how it came across. I am really discussing what should be part of the manual; as a forum post it's great.

I am under the impression that the goal of these threads is to write a manual, that would eventually be ported to the wiki (see "Wiki vs Forum" thread).