Preface

The following is not directed at *any* individual. Indeed, the contents will be applicable not just to L10 but to many other LOTE campaigns. It just so happens that one particular message proved the straw that broke your GM camel's back.  Ergo, what comes is by way of a personal commentary rather than an expression of "official" GM opinion. Assume, if you will, I have rid myself of all such uniforms, insignia and badges of rank associated with that role <g>.

BTW, if you are by nature easily offended, it may be advisable to delete this now....

Well, if you didn't think it would make any difference why didn't you have the guts to let people know who was sending that message?

Not untypical of the reactions that have been seen only too frequently across the LOTE world. On one level, an understandable reaction to yet another unknown in a game
rife with unknowns, but on another, much less so.

You see, my biggest problem - obviously - is that I have this nasty habit of maintaining a distinction between the person and the position. It is frankly farcical to try to ascribe ulterior motives to an individual's actions or activities based on no more than the most tenuous of connections and (usually widely-off the mark) assumption.

Because of the specialist nature of LOTE, it is a natural consequence that its players will be drawn from a select band of society. A loosely-knit group with a shared interest in strategy gaming. As such groups coalesce round their interests rather than LOTE specifically, it is only to be expected that new players will - like as not - be drawn from the ranks of existing players' friends, family, gaming buddies etc etc. Give it more than a cursory thought and I can't see how anyone could see otherwise.

The other issue touched upon by expressions of such doubt are due to the medium in which the game is conducted. LOTE has come a long way from its first genesis as a game played largely face-to-face by a group of friends. Today, it spans the globe thanks largely to the communications revolution since those days back in the early 80s. But through such growth has come further potential sources of disquiet - principal amongst which is that pertaining to a player's "true" identity.

Yet I firmly believe that such concerns are merely peripheral. More damagingly, if ramped up as they could be, they would only serve to restrict access to the game.

Anonymous play has a rich history in LOTE. For Pete's sake, one of the two contending blocs in the longest-running game - LOTE 1 - is played by a complete group of such anonymous players. Others have chosen such a path for the best of reasons. One only has to look at the late spat in L31 regarding the ability of existing GMs to play in one anothers' games to see why a GM could be moved to participate in such a manner. Others may also do so to avoid the utterly unmerited assumptions that would be heaped upon them by virtue of sharing a name with another player.

Let me make one thing crystal clear - I don't give a flying <insert expletive of choice here> about who is who, who knows whom, who's sleeping with whom, who's uncle to whom, who's second-cousin-twice-removed to whom or who once met this person in an airport lounge 25 years ago. It matters not a whit. If someone - anyone - approaches me and expresses an interest in participating in one of my games my automatic response is "Be my guest". I have an enthusiasm for LOTE that is hard to describe (why else would I put up with all this shit???) - and as such I revel in the opportunity to share this enthusiasm with others. So long as they abide by the same
elementary conditions imposed upon everyone else, I really couldn't care less about who they are. Naturally, where anonymity is requested, I prefer to know the player's true identity. But I can't compel them to do so.

So I leave issues of identity and motivation down to individual honour. An element of trust has to co-exist in this regard. For there's simply no alternative. Sitting here at a computer in Aberdeen, Scotland, I have no easy and convenient of verifying
individual identities. Nor do I feel it should be incumbent upon me to do so. The player base has to be self-policing in that respect. There's simply no other way to do it.

I mean, let's take this question of identity to its logical conclusion. One, two, ten, twenty people playing under pseudonyms makes not a single iota of difference to me. For can I say for sure that there really *is* a Sam Ullmann, Josh Mehl, Dave Salter, Chris von Albrecht or *anyone* else? No, of course I can't. Such is the ease with which anyone can set up "virtual" e-mail accounts that it is simplicity itself to create a separate persona as far as participating in a LOTE game goes. Such home addresses as I have for players may not be bona fide properties. I'm not tramping over to Virginia, Arizona, Belgium or wherever the hell you live to verify that. Are we all starting to see just how much of a non-issue this really is?

So, you still think there's a problem with anonymous play or pseudonyms? OK then, let's do the only thing we can. Let only those well known in the LOTE community play in any game. There you go, instant solution. The long-time players pretty much know one another - as often as not through a network of longstanding personal association. Then let's simply refuse to accept anyone falling outwith that select band, who has a name that sticks out from the crowd. Lets starve the game of the fresh blood any evolving system requires to progress. Geez, talk about dumb or what?

And don't dismiss it as ridiculous, for that's *exactly* what happens. A new face appears on the scene and there's immediately much scurrying about by people attempting to find out if said individual is who they really say they are, or whether they are a pseudonym, or whether a "plant" by an established player trying to secure an advantage. If said identity cannot be verified that said newcomer be treated as hostile and accorded scant regard and continued suspicion.

What a wonderful welcome for the would-be LOTE player! What encouragement to one who may well bring a fresh insight to the game, new playing techniques or other innovation to challenge and entertain the rest of us.

Ergo, maintaining this extremely short-sighted attitude WRT identities will only achieve one thing - to dissuade newcomers and leave the established player base facing the same old adversaries game in, game out. But then, maybe that's OK, maybe even the desired result, as it allows vendettas to be pursued across campaigns. Meriting the Olympic Gold medal for stupidity, or what?

Furthermore, unwarranted assumption about motives due to identity is nothing more than a form of prejudice. And nothing sticks in my gullet more. I, for one, will not seek to pigeonhole someone on the basis of identity, in *exactly* the same way I wouldn't pigeonhole them on the basis of race, creed, religion, occupation, sexual orientation. At the end of the day, they're all shades of the same nasty colour.

Hell, for all I know half of you could have been ex-cellmates of John Wayne Gacy having done hard time for flogging crack to kids. Now, as overall "god" of the game, if I don't let such prejudice colour my outlook, you can bet your bottom dollar/pound/yen/currency of choice that I ain't too enamoured of *any* player who would seek to do so in any way, shape or form.

One can't "win" a game of Lords. Anyone playing under that impression is in for a protracted disappointment. Therefore, the fun/challenge/excitement aspect of the on-going endeavour is what counts. In that regard, every player, being an individual in their own right, will bring different expectations. Recognising that the game is above all else a recreational activity, I can see there being no problem should two lifelong buddies approach me and say "We'd like to run neighbouring countries". If that's what they want, what will allow them to derive the most fun and satisfaction from the game, that's what I'll try to do. And will continue to do so in spite of any allegations that such action is unfair.

And why? Because it prejudges events that lie in the future yet to come. We don't cry "foul" when firm alliances develop between players who live on opposite sides of the globe and who've never had in-person contact. So why should we expect those who happen to have such personal relationships to be subject to quite different rules?

How can we know *for sure* that those good friends in life may not turn into bitter in-game rivals as the game progresses? Hell, in my first LOTE game I blew up on turn three. My long-time mate (who signed up with me and for whom it was also his first LOTE game) ran my next-door neighbour. Now did he come riding to my rescue and suppress the rebels? Did he hell! Oh, he came riding, for sure - but only to roll over the shattered remains of my nascent kingdom. Exit yours truly stage right. Did I get mad at him? No. Did I appreciate his good play in exploiting an excellent opportunity? Yes. Does that make me strange or, worse, lunatic? Or does it show I have common-sense and down-to-earth perspective of the game?

I dunno what it's like elsewhere in the world, but we have a fervently-defended legal principle in Britain. It's called "innocent until proven guilty". If that's good enough to be the bedrock of the real-life legal system, it's good enough for me to
use in LOTE.

I think I've by now made it pretty clear that I have scant regard and no patience for the backbiting and rancour that goes on regarding identities. It's a constant in all the Lords games I've played in. It's a bloody pain in the ass, quite unnecessarily diverting attention from the most important thing - progress of the game. There's no simple, black-and-white solution. Nor do I think it would ever be in the game's interest to try to institute one. The disadvantages far outweigh any transient advantages. So for me, it's quite simply non-issue of the decade.

LOTE players as a whole do tend to be focused. An element of co-operation is inherent in the game structure, but such co-operation ebbs and flows as the situation dictates. I have yet to come across a situation whereby a player joins the game simply to be at the beck and call of another. To ask "How high?" when instructed to jump. Inside every LOTE player there lurks the heart and ambition of an Alexander, Caesar, Genghis or Napoleon quite independent of personality and personal relationships. That is what drives all the games forward - not wasteful and irrelevant speculation about who is really who, what their ulterior motives or secret agendas may be or other such silliness.

As to the strapline above "Closer to the edge - will he jump?" it refers to the fact that I see such matters as player identity being blown out of all proportion. It expresses my gut-wrenching frustration and downright bloody annoyance. It serves notice that if I see the continuation of such irrelevancies, I will have no hesitation in dropping all my GMing activities. Ditching the lot. That's across-the-board. LOTE 10, LOTE 17 and my peripheral involvement in keeping L24 trundling along. A "plague on all your houses" attitude that will spoil it for many, but which will relieve me of substantial stress and anguish. I didn't sign up to run any LOTE campaign to see it
riven by ridiculous internal wranglings and discord. Nor to witness the slow but inexorable spread of cancerous rancour that corrupts them. Since I can't be bothered with this and take a dim view on its impact on my games, I'll simply quit. Let some other sap contend with all the shit.

Only I can't see a queue of aspiring GMs lining up to take on such baggage.

Yep. That's the way I feel. If any element of the game community is more interested in scoring meaningless points off one another in any shape or form, you can count me out of the whole damned charade. Period.

Lorne