Re: Stargrunt "one" points system?

On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, Alex Williams wrote:

> Exercises in futility can be lots of fun.  I enjoy horror roleplaying

In roleplaying, you don't have an opponent. You can't win or lose a RPG.

This is an important distinction. 

> In my mind, the game's the thing, and if it looks like it'll be an
> enjoyable game, I'll run a platoon on power armoured troops in an
> Alamo setup against your constantly reinforced line infantry with the
> goal soly to see how long I can hold out.  Yes, with the inevitable
> loss and death of my entire force.

So what? Your pre-defined goal is to see how long you last. Note that 
this goal, as presented, offers no way to gauge your performance. You'd 
either have to switch sides and replay, or play against a set time
limit.

This is an interesting idea you have: Abolish victory conditions so both

players can deceive themselves to think they've achieved something.
 
> And how do you account for this greater overall context with a measly
> point system?

With victory conditions and scenario templates.

The points are there to gauge relative strengths to help decide what
kind 
of scenario would be appropriate for the forces involved. 

"Looks like you outgun me 10 to 1. How about a 'last stand' type of
battle?"

>  How does having 300pts of troops whose goal is to delay
> your force for six turns get computed?  And how does their changing
> morale state factor in?  

It doesn't have to. The points let you choose an appropriate scenario. 
They've done their job. Now you can forget about them.

> And how does this help you, self-admitted to
> be interested only in equal pick-up games, feel like you didn't get
> run over?

Gee... I'm currently running a self-made FT campaign. How's that for
pick-up? Don't put words in my mouth.

But true -- the campaign would never have started if FT had flopped 
at the pick-up test phase. I'm interested in pick-up games because 
running 10 campaigns simultaneously doesn't work (been there, tried
that) 
and if the game won't fly as pick-up, it likely won't fly at all.

As for the second part, if I have a fair shot at achieving my victory 
conditions, I can feel I've made a difference.

If I lose, I lost because I made a mistake or the other guy was simply 
better. Not because I never had any chance to begin with.

If I win, I really accomplished something, instead of just playing out 
the inevitable.

> Maybe its just because I'm not a power-obsessed, success-driven
> weenie; 

And who is? C'mon, if you mean it, say it.

Would a power-obsessed, success-driven weenie be interested in giving
his 
opponent a fair chance?

> I play for the experience, for the pleasure of playing, not
> just so that I can put another mark down on my scorecard and gloat
> about having taken another one out.  I play because I really enjoy the
> game, win or lose, and like to match wits against an opponent and the
> Hand of Fate.

So it's tennis then? I can even supply your stringless racket.

It's not about winning or losing. It's about having a chance. There's no

matching of wits and no fate if you're predestined to lose (or win).

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |