Opening the floodgates of play by mail

[GrimFinger]

It's really late, here - about two-thirty in the morning - as I sit here putting words to digital paper. This is the calm before the storm, the pause before the lunge directly into maelstrom that is to be the very next issue of Suspense & Decision magazine - Issue #19!

I was gonna write an article around midnight, but I ended up getting sidetracked, and now I'll probably wait until I've had some sleep to carve out the first words of Issue #19's first article. Even still, I did want want to run a few words through the strainer, before I track down my pillow and lay myself down to sleep.

Issue #18 has been out a few days, now. How am I feeling? I'm feeling good. Really, really good! Not about everything, of course, but about the magazine. I haven't gotten a lot of feedback on Issue #18, yet. However, I have heard from a number of different people, and the feedback that has come in, thus far, has been positive. I take that as a good sign. I take it as a positive omen, a harbinger of good things yet to come.

I don't think that any of us has all of the solutions. Now and again, every so often, I try to figure out what lessons that I've learned from this exercise, back from when I first started working on Issue #1 until the most recent issue finally saw the light of day, Issue #18.

One thing that I'm certain of is that if everyone just keeps on doing things exactly as they have been doing them, then we probably won't likely see any substantial positive change of the PBM landscape for the foreseeable future, at a minimum. If PBM companies and PBM moderators intend to keep on keeping down the same road, doing things in the exact same way that they have been doing that got them to where PBM gaming has found itself, today, then if I had to guess, I would be very inclined to say that I think that the status quo will remain pretty much intact. The question that everyone needs to ask themselves is - Is the status quo what you want? Is more of the same the future that you want to see for play by mail gaming?

Most PBM games that ever existed, down through the years of PBM's golden heyday era, I never tried. Many PBM games. hundreds of them, in fact, will likely never be played by anyone, ever again. Why? Because those games are gone, now. Many of their original creators have either passed on or lost interest or simply move don to other things. Yet, I have played a few different PBM games down over the years, and I have had some really wonderful times playing games via the postal service. It's a genre of gaming which, I think, was ahead of its time.

Transitions to electronic and digital forms was seen as THE path to salvation for PBM gaming. Yet, a lot of disruption to the PBM industry has ensued. Some costs were cut - but so, too, were many profit margins upended. The transition to new technologies sounded the death knell for not just countless different PBM games, but to the PBM industry, itself, to a large degree. Not absolutely, but the impact has proved to be very, very devastating, to say the least.

Rick Loomis' recent death cast a solemn pallor across the play by mail gaming realm. As I sit here and reflect, I can't help but to notice that I'm not quite as young as I was, once upon a time ago. And like Rick Loomis, my turn will eventually come, just as yours will, each our own. I can't help but to think that everyone in PBM was so busy trying to cut costs that they may well have cut the industry's throat, too.

For commercial PBM companies, how do you make play by mail gaming more profitable? For prospective PBM players, how do you make PBM gaming more attractive? Furthermore, how do you accomplish both, simultaneously? Honestly, I just don't think that doing more of the same will make that magical formula manifest out of thin air. It's gonna require more.

A lot more!

It's very tiring, at times, arguing with the wind. I've done that a lot, it seems, over the span of the lifetime of Suspense & Decision magazine. Sometimes, it's felt like nothing really seems to matter. Sometimes, people just become set in their ways. I don't say that as a criticism, but merely as an observation from the outside looking in. I'm sure that, in some ways, I'm probably set in my ways, too. So, what now?

Over twenty years ago, I gave a speech, and in that relatively brief speech, one thing that I stressed was that we can either be victims of change, or we can be agents of change. Changes, my PBM friends, is a constant of life. The world changes around us, all of the time. The world changed around PBM. PBM didn't become less fun. It just sort of got passed on by. It's still getting passed by, today.

Much like when an interstate highway supplants previous thoroughfares, and small businesses sometimes pay the price of progress by being cut out of the loop merely as a consequence of technology coming into existence by way of the traffic that they were used to previously then being directed elsewhere, the Internet superhighway left many PBM firms off in the distance, and soon enough, they became little more than distant memories for many. Not all, certainly, but a great bulk of the former overall PBM player base went with this technology, following it along and experiencing new and wonderful and engaging forms of entertainment. And how does the PBM industry of yesterday compete the entertainment offerings of today that the Internet has made possible in such a relatively short time span?

Maybe it can't. Or, as I believe, maybe the remaining PBM powers that be simply won't. Maybe they are done trying. Maybe they've grown older along with the rest of us. Maybe they've already fought their good fight. Maybe they just want to live out their remaining days in peace, perhaps even enjoy some of those new forms of Internet entertainment right along with the rest of us.

If I can't persuade anyone, either on the PBM company side or over on the PBM game moderator side that any notable and sizeable degree of positive change in the overall PBM player base requires notable and sizeable change on their side, then I don't know that there's anything that I can do, personally, effectuate the kind of change and the amount of change that will get PBM gaming thriving, again.

I believe that the big pieces of the puzzle are already in place. I believe that the overall player numbers of PBM gaming can swell to prodigious numbers - numbers that have not been seen in a couple of decades or more. Yes, I really do honestly believe that.

But I also believe that, in order to achieve that, in order to realize that, there's gonna have to be some lightning and some thunder and a true willingness to embrace change. There are some great PBM games, and lineal descendants thereof, out there. But are you willing to go the extra mile?

Because if you're not, then what's the point? You've tried it your way - some of you have tried it your way for decades on end. Maybe what you have been doing all along works for you, and you're simply not inclined to change. After all, who am I to tell you that you need to change?

How many PBM players do you have? How many PBM players do you want to have?

Me? I want to open the floodgates. I want them to come pouring in. I want them to like what you've created and have on offer to the gaming world at large.

Over in the Alamaze community, there's some fabulous stuff going on. Over at RSI, they've got a fabulous game in Hyborian War going on. Over at Phoenix: Beyond the Stellar Empire, they've got some fabulous player loyalty going on. And those are just a few examples that I can cite. But they are important examples.

But are your player numbers what and where you want them to be?

Suspense & Decision magazine is back, and Issue #19 is right around the corner. I decided to give it one more try. Won't you?

[GrimFinger]

Richard Lockwood responded to the editorial, above, on the PlayByMail.Net Facebook page I responded in kind, and for those who might be interested in this discussion, here's the link to that thread on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/PlayByMail/phot...=1&theater

[hooper82]

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I'm not sure what the best way to express it is. But I think its important to figure out.
How do you define a PBM game? I came up with:
* Turn Based
* Long-lead-time between turns
* Multiplayer (usually)
* Depth (usually)

Obviously, there's a hint in the name. But look at many of the games advertised in Suspense & Decision #18. Correct me if I'm wrong but many of those don't require the usage of Mail or Email? Rinzai talked about Face-to-Face PBM gaming, so clearly a Mail-Based interface isn't important.

What defines a PBM game for you?

[GrimFinger]

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I'm not sure what the best way to express it is. But I think its important to figure out.
How do you define a PBM game? I came up with:
* Turn Based
* Long-lead-time between turns
* Multiplayer (usually)
* Depth (usually)

Obviously, there's a hint in the name. But look at many of the games advertised in Suspense & Decision #18. Correct me if I'm wrong but many of those don't require the usage of Mail or Email? Rinzai talked about Face-to-Face PBM gaming, so clearly a Mail-Based interface isn't important.

What defines a PBM game for you?

I am somewhat pressed for time, at the moment, but with regards to games advertised in various issues of Suspense & Decision magazine, many different games have been advertised in the pages thereof, including a number of board games. The coverage of the magazine isn't limited to just and only PBM games, because PBM gamers typically enjoy other kinds of games, too. The magazine's primary focus, however, and the inspiration for its creation and existence is PBM games, and not other game types.

[hooper82]

Ahh good to know, thanks!

Would you'd define PBM games as those that require orders to be submitted by Mail (or Email)? Does the interface or the experience define the genre?

[Davin]

Would you'd define PBM games as those that require orders to be submitted by Mail (or Email)? Does the interface or the experience define the genre?

Could you extend that to be web-based as well as email?  Galac-Tac provides both turns and input directly on the web, but it also has XML interfaces so that anyone can automate that access and use only a local interface to read and write their turns and access the web for them, so even the web is not a requirement for the users to speak directly to.

I think it would be sufficient to say that the game would need to be centrally controlled and you have to send and receive your turns via that central location.

[Davin]

For commercial PBM companies, how do you make play by mail gaming more profitable? For prospective PBM players, how do you make PBM gaming more attractive? Furthermore, how do you accomplish both, simultaneously?

Well, my current attempt here at Talisman Games, although not too financially successful at this point, is to keep the cost of play down.  I feel like players will be more willing to play a low-cost game, providing that game-interest factors were similar.  If I can get enough people playing, then a small income can become significant in larger numbers.  Therefore, I designed our current efforts to be at a very low cost to operate, mostly just overhead costs, so that's all I've got to make up to be "profitable".  Hopefully this will eventually be accomplishing both goals simultaneously.

The current concept is to pay a small, flat monthly fee (nominally $5) to play anything we offer.  At present we have only Galac-Tac running, but another game is slowing being redeveloped and a third is waiting in the wings.  So theoretically you could play in all of our games at once for the same monthly cost.  In addition, you can play in multiple simultaneous positions in each of the games.  For instance, in Galac-Tac you might want to play in three weekly production games, doing a turn every couple of days, as well as having a solo (computer-opponent) game open in which to try out different strategies before using them in the production games.  If you were ambitious (and unrestrained by time commitments), you could end up playing dozens of positions a week for that same $5/month.  I would like to call something like that a value for your gaming dollar.

A question for the players out there...  Assuming we offered game(s) that you found interesting, wouldn't this pricing structure attract you?  If not, what would be better?

[Undeadlord]

A question for the players out there...  Assuming we offered game(s) that you found interesting, wouldn't this pricing structure attract you?  If not, what would be better?

A flat fee for monthly access to all the games is very appealing. $5.00 seems fair for now, but as you have more games come online, $7.00 or $10.00 doesn't seem off the rails either. I have seen games advertised as $7.50 or $8.00 a turn, so $10.00 for a month, multiple turns with multiple games seems like a bargain.

I feel like "back in the day" when everything was done by hand, $5.00 a turn didn't seem bad, or even $7.00 or $8.00 a turn. However, nowadays, I assume, maybe incorrectly, that most game backend is done with a computer. So then I am trying to wrap my head around why someone wants $7.00 a turn to process some spreadsheets. I am sure it's not that easy, but its where my mind goes.

[Davin]

A flat fee for monthly access to all the games is very appealing. $5.00 seems fair for now, but as you have more games come online, $7.00 or $10.00 doesn't seem off the rails either.

I think that's reasonable, too, but I think I'd rather keep it as inexpensive as is feasible -- the players deserve it.  For the time being, I'm still offering a year's free play after the first paid month, just to get people to try it out, so they're getting 13 whole months of fun for that first $5.

I feel like "back in the day" when everything was done by hand, $5.00 a turn didn't seem bad, or even $7.00 or $8.00 a turn. However, nowadays, I assume, maybe incorrectly, that most game backend is done with a computer. So then I am trying to wrap my head around why someone wants $7.00 a turn to process some spreadsheets. I am sure it's not that easy, but its where my mind goes.

In the old days, printing and mailing were significant hard expenses, and time to enter and process needed valuing, too.  In those days, $5-$10 a turn was pretty common for good reason.  But even with computers handling the details, most games seemed to also involve a lot of personal GM attention (writing up descriptions, for instance).  So extra time means extra bucks if you're going to get any income at all from it.  Even just collecting spreadsheets and processing them and returning the results takes effort.

Even when it's all front-to-end automated (such as Galac-Tac is now) some people still feel a need to recoup some of their development time.  I've just given up on that part of it and do the programming for the fun of it.

[Undeadlord]

I think that's reasonable, too, but I think I'd rather keep it as inexpensive as is feasible -- the players deserve it.  For the time being, I'm still offering a year's free play after the first paid month, just to get people to try it out, so they're getting 13 whole months of fun for that first $5.

Agreed, I just signed up for Galac-Tac and 12 months free with a paid months is very generous! 

I suppose it does depend a lot on what the GM is having to do. As part of trying to bolster my programming abilities, I am writing a 4x space empire game that would be PBM in nature. My long term goal for it would be something to the effect of users inputting spreadsheet with turns in a location, and then me running the "Process turn" command, the system creating master files, and giving each player its own turn reports. I wouldn't really have to do anything.

We shall see how that all turns out down the road though.