Talk:Play-by-mail game

Untitled

Does anyone know if there's a word or phrase to describe PBeM games for which one pays vs. PBem games that are free? T

Other than "free" versus "commercial", no, I don't. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2005-10-27 T 23:06:17 Z

BBlackmoor matches my understanding. You might hear subscription based as a synonym for commercial. Coll7 23:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That's true, I have heard "subscription based". -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2005-10-27 T 23:21:18 Z

Civ 4 PBEM?

Is the last sentence correct -- Does Civilization IV include a PBEM option? The newest version I own is Civ II Gold, which has an online option, but the communications are port-to-port connections, not e-mail such as SMTP sending and POP receiving. That would seem to be ridiculously slow and inefficient. Perhaps an editor is confusing games played specifically by e-mail (such as sending Diplomacy orders to a Judge by formatted e-mail messages) with any game played via the Internet. Barno 01:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

External links?

The external links are a cesspool, out of date, self-promoting, unless. We should replace them all with a pointer to a few PBM index pages. Greg 01:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good be Bold -Ravedave 02:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm the author of one of the PBM indices... Greg 05:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody took action; we keep on getting *more* external links. As I said, I'm the author of one of the PBM index pages, so I don't think it's right for me to clean up this article. Greg 07:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever cleaned up the links, however, you nuked my link in the process, and it's the #1 list of PBM games, and has been #1 for 20 odd years (first on Usenet, then on the WWW). I added it back and someone helpfully deleted it, saying that I was violating the rules. Well, it belongs there. So can someone add it?

* A list of thousands of PBM games

Greg 18:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The section that would not die is back, it's now labeled "Examples of Pbem games". It should be removed, again. Greg 20:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If a game is notable, the game should have its own Wikipedia entry created, and that entry can then provide an external link to the game-related website in question. If the game is not notable or the link is just spam, then there's no reason to keep it around. - Slordak 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

With the External Links guidelines in mind, specifically referring to the point which suggests "mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it" I would like to volunteer a few pbem portals (games listings) to the list: RPG Library's PBeM News, PBeM Portal, PBeM2.0. These are three resources I know of that seem to be popular within the pbem community and to me are representative of links suitable for this article. But, you decide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.43.63 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Note that I have registered since posting the above. Seeing that there has been no objection I have included the links as described. Coldmachine 13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed two external links which are self promotional links to a single pbem game. The links should be representative of pbeming in general, not just one game, and it's a dead give away to add new links to the top of the list... Coldmachine 20:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't completely explain the subject to me

From the article, I don't really understand how a game like this would work. It would be better with an example or a description of how a typical PBM game round works. ike9898 03:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a "Mechanics" section which attempts to explain exactly how these games actually work. Of course, the problem is that this varies so heavily between each game, so it's very hard to state in general terms how games play out. Nonetheless, hopefully this will help. -- Slordak 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An apology!

I feel I owe you all an apology. I was new to Wikipedia when I posted the external link for AGEMA, and didn't understand why it was removed so posted it again. I now understand and even discovered I'd become involved in what is termed an edit war! (At least I think I was!). I guess like some others I didn't read the guidelines properly in my enthusiasm to join. Then again it still seems like you need a degree to actually post something new without getting it objected to and taken off - reckon I'll leave such stuff to academics with the time to do this! Sorry again to all concerned.

Richard at AGEMA. 82.20.212.140 (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Importance of CompuServe

"from Neolithic Enterprises who accepted e-mail turns from all of the major e-mail services including CompuServe in 1983." Why is "including CompuServe" relevant here? Statalyzer (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Storing unsourced material here for now

Putting this unsourced material here for now since I don't want to summarily delete it but I'm not sure how much it adds to the article right now. I'm going to try to overhaul the history section and then I'll revisit it afterward and see how it might fit back in.

"The commercial market for play-by-mail games grew to involve computer servers set up to host potentially thousands of players at once. Players would typically be split up into parallel games in order to keep the number of players per game at a reasonable level, with new games starting as old games ended. A typical closed game session might involve one to two dozen players, although some games claimed to have as many as five hundred people simultaneously competing in the same game world. While the central company was responsible for feeding in moves and mailing the processed output back to players, players were also provided with the mailing addresses of others so that direct contact could be made and negotiations performed. With turns being processed every few weeks (a two-week turnaround being standard), more advanced games could last over a year.

Game themes are heavily varied, and may range from those based on historical or real events to those taking place in alternate or fictional worlds.

One of the most successful and longest running PBM games is TribeNet, a strategy game with themes of exploration, trade and warfare. TribeNet was launched by Jeff Perkins as a PBM in 1985 and was transformed by Peter Rzechorzek into a PBeM when he took over the game in 1997. Peter has remained in charge for over twenty years.

The onset of the computer-moderated PBM game (primarily the Legends game system) inevitably meant that the human moderated games became "boutique" games with little chance of matching the gross revenues that larger, automated games could produce."

Airborne84 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Moving unsourced material from the article here in case someone wants to restore it later with citations

"Players are limited to some finite number of actions, and in some cases must split their resources between these actions (so that additional actions make each less effective). The way the card is filled in often implies an ordering between each command, so that they are processed in-order, one after another. Once completed, the card is then mailed (or, in more modern times, emailed) to the game master, where it is either processed, or held until the next turn processing window begins.

"By gathering turn cards from a number of players and processing them all at the same time, games can provide simultaneous actions for all players. However, for this same reason, co-ordination between players can be difficult to achieve. For example, player A might attempt to move to player B's current location to do something with (or to) player B, while player B might simultaneously attempt to move to player A's current location. As such, the output/results of the turn can differ significantly from the submitted plan. Whatever the results, they are mailed back to the player to be studied and used as the basis for the next turn (often along with a new blank turn card).

"While billing is sometimes done using a flat per-game rate (when the length of the game is known and finite), games more typically use a per-turn cost schedule. In such cases, each turn submitted depletes a pool of credit which must periodically be replenished in order to keep playing. Some games have multiple fee schedules, where players can pay more to perform advanced actions, or to take a greater number of actions in a turn.

"Some role-playing PBM games also include an element whereby the player may describe actions of their characters in a free text form. The effect and effectiveness of the action is then based on the judgement of the GM who may allow or partially allow the action. This gives the player more flexibility beyond the normal fixed actions at the cost of more complexity and, usually, expense."

Moving final unsourced material here

Am moving final unsourced material here. Most of it's not worth keeping, I think -- the PBEM aspect is captured in the history, but it could also be described in a level 3 subsection under "Description". A lot of it is just fluff. In any case, ideally, the material would have a source to reintroduce into the article. Airborne84 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Play-by-email

With the rise of the Internet, email and websites have largely replaced postal gaming and postal games zines. Play-by-email (PBEM) games differ from popular online multiplayer games in that, for most computerized multiplayer games, the players have to be online at the same time - also known as synchronous play. With a play-by-mail game, the players can play whenever they choose, since responses need not be immediate; this is sometimes referred to as turn-based gaming and is common among browser-based games. Some video games can be played in turn-based mode: one player makes a move, declaring it by email, and then the turn passes to another player who makes his or her move. Depending on the game, a PBEM Aide may be available as an alternative to describing the move with text. Such an aide generally consists of a picture of the board along with movable playing pieces, cards, etc. A player moves the pieces as desired and then can either save a static picture of the new game state, or a replay sequentially showing all changes that transpired during his turn, and send this to his opponent.

Several non-commercial email games played on the Internet and BITNET predate these.

Play-by-web

An increasingly popular format for play-by-email games is play-by-web. As with play-by-email games the players are notified by email when it becomes their turn, but they must then return to the game's website to continue playing. The game may be either browser-based or a video game. The main advantage of this is that the players can be presented with a graphical representation of the game and an interactive interface to guide them through their turn. Since the notifications only have to remind the players that it is their turn they can just as easily be sent via instant messaging.

Some sites have extended this gaming style by allowing the players to see each other's actions as they are made. This allows for real time playing while everyone is online and active, or slower progress if not.

Increasingly, this format is being adopted by social and mobile games, often described using the term "asynchronous multiplayer".

Some video games, such as Civilization, are suitable for being played either play-by-web via separate client software or play-by-email sending game save packages from one player to another.

Length in years advantage/disadvantage

I moved another editor's addition of a passage in the lede to a different part. It was wording of a game lasting years. The original addition was added in the "disadvantage" section of the lede as a consequence of delays in turns. It's problematic since the lede is just a summary of the article and the source in the main part of the article didn't draw that particular conclusion. I wouldn't automatically draw the conclusion that too many game turns => possibility of game in years => "drawback". I suspect that many PBM gamers go into games not concerned about the possibility that the game could last years, or expecting games will last that long. For an open-ended PBM game, "too many turns" makes little sense, since the game goes on until the player decides to stop, and I doubt that few people have played Monster Island for less than a year, for example, unless they made a mistake or ran into some kind of hardship.

In any case, my opinion is irrelevant: it's what reliable sources say. So, I looked for a source that talked about the length of PBM games in years and found one in an issue of White Wolf Magazine—but she actually noted it as an advantage.... I moved the note under advantage, but it would be fine alternatively to simply state somewhere in the article that PBM games can take years. My thoughts anyway. Airborne84 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Fiction

Something to add to the article in the future is the fiction aspect. That's missing right now. Airborne84 (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Play-by-mail game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 09:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll take this one. If there is no action after three or four days, feel free to nudge me. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate your review Gog the Mild!

• Chapman and Wieck are both in the bibliography, but not used to cite anything.

Chapman is reference 63. Airborne84 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Either change the cite date to "Winter 1983", or Chapman's date to "1983".

Didn't realize the reference had no ref tag in the Bibliography so the inline citation wasn't linking to it. I added the ref tag and the citations now link to it. Does that work?

Yep.

As I recall, I added Wieck because I thought it was an important early 1990s list of players and games of the period and potentially useful to a reader. I would have included it as an external link, but it's not a webpage. I'd like to keep it. If it must be used in an inline citation to retain in the Bibliography, please advise and I'll find somewhere to use. Airborne84 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the bibliography is a list of works cited in the article.

No problem. Deleted. I'll use it later or elsewhere if appropriate. Airborne84 (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

In extremis add it to "Further reading".

• "The name changed to Nuts & Bolts of Gaming[79] and it eventually went out of print." The last seven words need a cite.

Thanks. I checked the source and it accounts for the entire sentence. Adjusted/fixed. Airborne84 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• "turn-based game". Really? Most TBGs are not PBMs.

Addressed below, Gog the Mild.

• "Gaming Universal, Paper Mayhem and Flagship magazine". Should "magazine" be plaural?

Singular since it modified Flagship, but I removed "magazine" since magazine isn't in the title. Less confusing.

• "becoming known as "turn-based games" in the digital age". Really? This would mean that if I played chess with you face to face it would not be a TBG!

I certainly see your point. In this case I'm just reporting what the sources say to be comprehensive. Not passing judgment. Two PBM magazines (Flagship and Suspense & Decision) and multiple PBM publishers use turn-based gaming now in place of PBM or PBEM. I put in this external link from Talisman Games which still publishes Galac-Tac (appearing on tomorrow's DYK by the way). Here's also a link from Madhouse UK which publishes DungeonWorld and others. They claim to be the "world’s leading turn-based gaming" company and assert that turn-based gaming was "previously known as PBM, or PBEM". Again, not taking a position—just reporting on what "PBM" sources are saying today. I'm happy to make an adjustment if you think a clarification would be useful though. Airborne84 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well obviously PBMs are TBGs. But there seems to be a suggestion that PBM encompasses all TBGs. Rereading closely you just about stay on the right side of this, and it is only GAN, so fine.

I agree in the future this article will have to be clear that PBMs are only a subset of TBGs, not the other way around.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Diplomacy is an early example of this type, emerging in 1963 ... Diplomacy was first played by mail in 1963." Repetition.

Removed second iteration.

• "entered the field in "roughly" 1976". Why the quotes?

Removed.

• "and the ability to abuse game systems". How is playing by the rules "abuse"? Do any sources describe it as such?

The cited source, Jim Townsend, appeared to describe it as such for two reasons: (1) due to Schubel and Son's fee for being attacked which allowed the "concept of account bashing where you [could] launch many small attacks at another player in hopes of forcing him out of the game because he cannot continue to pay the bills", and (2) special actions where a player could "attempt something outside the game rules (like trying to salvage a sunken ship in a contemporary wargame) for a certain price". In the latter case, because there were no limits on these special actions, Townsend said "it led to abuses of the game", also noting the bank[roll] attack issue. Rick Loomis, in one of the Flying Buffalo Quarterly newsletters also commented about this, although Townsend is a better source, I think, given that Loomis, even given his stature, was a competitor.

Mmm. How would you feel about paraphrasing this to 'the ability to game the system.' (Instead of "the ability to abuse game systems.")?

No issues. Changed.

• "The next "big entrance" was Superior Simulations". Again, why the quotes. Suggest removing them and "entrance" → 'entrant'.

Done.

• "The PBM genre's "two preeminent magazines" of the period were Flagship and Paper Mayhem.[19] Also in the mid-1980s, "general gaming magazines" began carrying articles ..." Quote marks again.

Quotes removed.

• "typically occurred within respective countries"? Do you mean within single countries?

Yes, and that's better wording, so I went with that. Changed.

• "A smaller PBM community exists as of the 2010s". But this is no longer the 2010s.

Was trying to reflect the source publication date. Would it be appropriate to simply say "A smaller PBM community exists today."?

Given that the source date is 2014, I think it a stretch to call that 'today'. Maybe, 'By 2014 the PBM community had shrunk' or similar?

Adjusted similar to your recommendation.

• "Flagship Magazine"; "Flagship". Which?

Went with Flagship. Fixed throughout. Thanks.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Changes made, Gog the Mild. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the lack of face-to-face roleplaying". Consider "roleplaying" → 'interaction'?

Changed. I like it.

• "but the average price per turn [in 1993] is about $5.00." Delete "[in 1993]", you have already said that the quote comes from 1993.

Deleted.

• "with 3–7 as the average". Spell out the numbers to be consistent.

Spelled out.

• "Rick Loomis's PBM Games' nine games". Optional: This is a complex formulation. Any way it could be rendered a bit more digestible?

I think it reads better now. Note: I removed the 's from the end of Loomis as "Rick Loomis PBM Games" is the complete name of the company. I added a (red) Wikilink so it's apparent to readers. If that doesn't make sense, please advise.

• "100 percent". Either '100%' or 'one hundred percent', not a mix.

One hundred percent fixed.

• "Cost and turn processing time": this seems to cover 1986. Is there no information available on what these are now?

The best way to cover this now is to outline how diverse turn processing times are today. E.g., PBEM and web-based inputs and computer moderation can enable daily or probably even hourly turnaround times, while some companies retain mail-based options to allow military or players in prison to play. I'll work on this. I have not seen secondary source cost comparisons to those from decades ago. Although publishers have noted their costs in some ads and articles in the last decade, I think it would probably be OR to compare.

• The article seems to cover the US and UK well, but - bar one passing reference to Australia - not mention the rest of the world. Did PB[E]M not take place there?

Related to PBM companies, it seems the answer is largely "yes". I added another sentence to supplement the one you mentioned: "Sam Roads of Harlequin Games similarly assessed the state of the PBM industry in the early days while also noting the existence of a few non-English companies."[19] I also canvassed a number of Flagship magazines from the 2000s and this dynamic apparently did not change much. Flagship provides PBM gaming company lists in the back of their issues, and some of their later issues identify a few German and French companies (and games). I could capture that if you think it appropriate without a secondary source. E.g., "In 2009, Flagship listed several German and French PBM publishers (five of ninety-four)" or something along those lines. (I made those numbers up as generally representative without counting.)

I added a sentence with footnote. Airborne84 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Notes d and h have a lot of duplication.

I have made a minor tweak to your additional sentence, see what you think. Yes, an additional sentence along the lines you outline would be fine.

Note d deleted.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Lovely work that took me back a couple of decades. Happy to promote. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate the thorough review Gog the Mild! Airborne84 (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that play-by-mail games, also played by email or online today, allow complex gameplay versus many live players with an observer describing an early game as "the most complex game system on Earth"? Source: Judith Proctor (March–April 1993). "PBM Corner: Not Just for a Dull Evening". White Wolf Magazine. No. 35. p. 51 (first sentence in advantages/disadvantages of PBM gaming); Quoted text from Jim Townsend, (1988). "The PBM Corner". White Wolf Magazine. No. 11. p. 20 (in Complexity section); Nicky Palmer (Autumn 1984). "PBEM". Flagship. No. 4. p. 23–24 (for email and online)

• ALT1: ... that an observer once described a play-by-mail game as "the most complex game system on Earth"? Jim Townsend, (1988). "The PBM Corner". White Wolf Magazine. No. 11. p. 20 (in Complexity section)

This play-by-mail game's turn results could be 1,000 pages in length

• Comment: Would be nice if this could get a higher placement in the DYK listing on day of posting, if approved. Play-by-mail game articles usually end up as last or [middle to] second-to-last on the list. Understandable, but this is the main article for the genre, is rated High-Importance for Wiki-Project Board and Table Games, and Mid-Importance for WikiProject Video Games. Appreciate the consideration!

QPQ pending. Improved to Good Article status by Airborne84 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC).

Review Reviewed Metaphorical framing

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - The scope of the topic needs work. The initial definition includes any turn-based game using digital media but that seems much too wide. It seems best to stick to physical post because once you include digital media, there now are too many possibilities which will stray far from the core topic – Tabletop Simulator, MMORPGs, and many more.

I had this same discussion with the Good Article reviewer, who is apparently an experienced PBM gamer. The issue is that two 21st century PBM magazines (Flagship and Suspense & Decision) and multiple PBM publishers use turn-based gaming now in place of PBM or PBEM. Here's an example from a current publisher, Madhouse UK. This isn't to imply that PBM games encompass all TBGs—they are just a subset, of course. But removing that from the definition might actually violate WP:NPOV since the article would then not reflect the industry's modern sources. At a minimum, the article would not be comprehensive. I could put a footnote in after the turn-based game definition in the first sentence to clarify that "PBM turn-based games are a subset of the broader turn-based game definition." Would that help?

I added a footnote to the turn-based gaming definition in the lead to identify TBGs that evolved from the PBM genre as a subset of TBG.

• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - There is perhaps too much quoting. What particularly grates is when single words or short phrases are put in quotes, e.g. "almost any game", "most obvious" or "surviving". These come across as scare quotes.

OK. The GA reviewer is a member of the Guild of Copyeditors and recommended some trimming of the same (done), but I don't mind addressing these and scrubbing back through to see if there are any others.

I fixed these and paraphrased (mainly) or removed the quotes (a few) from about 12–15 others. There are still quotes, but I think it is at a more acceptable level.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - The hook talks about "today" but is supported by sources from the 1980s.

Will hold off on this until the hook gets sorted out.

See below.

• Interesting: - It's too long and tries to do too much so the reader will lose interest. Better to just stick to the punchline of "the most complex game system on Earth".

Thanks. I"m unsure about making the hook about just one PBM game. However, the quote does have hook value. I'll trim this hook and develop one or two ALTs. Appreciate the feedback.

I went with a shorter hook. Let me know what you think.

QPQ: - Still pending
Overall: If you want better billing then let's find a good picture or a quirky hook. I have some ideas myself ... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew Davidson! Happy to hear ideas on hooks! Pics would be great as well, but are tricky. Many PBM pictures here on Wikipedia are fair use which I think are not allowed on DYK. The public domain ones in the article or in other ones are text-based (PD-text) and may not be good for DYK. Airborne84 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Below are some examples of public domain images from PBM articles. Not sure how others would feel about them as DYK images.

• Galac-Tac logo
• Paper Mayhem logo
• Heroic Fantasy logo
• Hyborian War orders sheet

@Airborne84: Sorry to keep you but it's a busy time for me and Christmas is looming fast. But I haven't forgotten you and so I spent some time in the archives today. I located a box of Empyrean Challenge files and, as a sample, have just uploaded a sample printout to that article. It's perhaps too obscure and boring to impress so I'm still mulling over how best to convey the scale of the game. A really fat printout might do it but they must be in another box. But I'll go through this one first. I'll also look through some issues of Flagship... More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew Davidson. The cited source noted 1,000-page turn printouts in extreme cases. If you have some turn results approaching that, you might photograph it in a stack from an angle with a plain-color background. I'm not an image expert but think if you then released it to the public domain on uploading (or whatever license is allowable for DYK), that might work. The trick would be wording the caption without naming the game, potentially negating the hook. There are other possibilities. I only have a few issues of Flagship, beyond those available online, but will check through some Paper Mayhem issues – I have more of those. Thanks again. Airborne84 (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't found any usable Empyrean Challenge images. I found an image but it would be fair use which I think is not acceptable for DYK. Airborne84 (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Airborne84, you are correct in that fair use images are not allowed to be used in DYK nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson please let me know if ALT1 with either Empyrean Challenge image I added works. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been trying to get a recheck here, but unsuccessfully. AGF, I think Andrew Davidson is just very busy IRL. Perhaps someone else could complete this review? Airborne84 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where you could ask about this, but maybe try at Wikipedia talk:Did you know? BOZ (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy to pick this up. It looks like what review you've gotten already is quite thorough, so this shouldn't be too much of a struggle. Give me some time, I'll get back here soon... Vaticidalprophet 02:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm still quite interested in this topic but am quite content for others to attend to the remaining DYK formalities. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an excellent article and I'm looking to approve it soon, but just some queries, mostly about the image. As well as the issues of whether a stack of paper is a popular DYK image, I'm more concerned by the gap between the caption and what it portrays. The simulated game here has 491 pages, obviously more than half short of the "over 1000" called out. We could tweak the caption or we could just ditch the image entirely; given the substantial majority of proposed image hooks end up running without one, the latter might be more realistic. (As for billing, last billing is actually quite good -- the "quirky slot" tends to be very popular. Anecdotally from my experience prep building, it's the spots in the middle you don't want.) Vaticidalprophet 15:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate the review. I don't have an actual turn result from Empyrean Challenge. However, I assume they printed on both sides of a sheet of paper or their mailing costs would have been tremendous (and the backside of this actual turn sheet appears to be bleeding through). Thus, this photo would show a turn result of 982 pages (double-sided), or just under 1,000. (Perhaps the description should note the assumption of double-sided printing though.) I am happy to retake and upload a photo at exactly 500 pieces of paper (1,000 pages) if you think best. Would only take a few minutes. If you think the image itself is not useful to draw readers in, that's another matter, of course. As for where listed, I defer to you as I am not a DYK expert. The play-by-mail games on DYK historically tend to fall in the middle, so I'd advocate wherever this one can get some visibility given it is the main one in the genre. Greatly appreciate your time and standing by for your thoughts. Airborne84 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I uploaded a new photo above with 500 sheets representing a 1,000-page turn result and clarified that in the image description. If you think that will help with the hook, great. If you think otherwise, I defer to you. Airborne84 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to approve this article for DYK, with ALT1 as the approved hook. It hits all basic eligibility criteria, has a succinct and quality hook the article agrees with, and an appropriate QPQ has been completed. Prep builders encouraged to listen to suggestions about image use and hook placement. Vaticidalprophet 02:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P4 without image

Current PBM magazine

I reverted the removal of the mention of the current PBM magazine, Suspense and Decision in the lead. Removal from the lead only does not properly summarize the article. And removing mention of the current PBM magazine from both the article and the lead (if that is what was proposed) reduces the encyclopedic value for readers. All PBM information sources, past and current, should be stated in the article. Airborne84 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Serial vs Simultaneous play

I think there should be some description of these - as they make for a very different game play experience - something similar to the text below maybe?

If you have simultaneous play - then there is usually a deadline by which you need to submit your orders, and the time prior to that is used planning and perfecting (possibly as a team) what moves should be made. But missing a deadline means missing a turn, possibly with some default orders, or an ally submitting (imperfect) orders for you.

If you have serial play - then there is usually a limit on how recently you can have processed orders, for example you may not run orders if your most recent results were less than 7 days ago. Which allows you to deliberately wait until after one of your allies has given you information before submitting your orders, and that can lead to greater complexity at short notice. With a trade off between good enough orders vs perfecting your orders and the time spent (usually in days/turns) since that information was valid. Being unable to submit orders on a particular day doesn't 'miss you a turn' but can push back the plans of other players if they are waiting on some information from your results. EdwardLane (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Needs a citation or two somewhere, and better formatting obviously - but someone must have written that somewhere surely EdwardLane (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

added a bit about missing deadlines EdwardLane (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)