Re: Simple is good

At 11:51 AM 7/31/98 -0500, Thomas Barclay wrote:

>> Anything where you can write the relevant rules on the back of an
index
>> card and finish a game (or two) in an afternoon is a hit.
>
>Wow. Although most of the guys I game with like to finish a game, if 
>the game is too simplistic, they can't be bothered. They find it more 
>a waste of their time to play something that doesn't give them the 
>right (to their mind) feel and complexity. I can't imagine us playing 
>a game where the rules fit on an index card. 

I absolutely agree that the "right feel" is essential to any good game.
Complexity, in and of itself, doesn't do much for me.  Other peoples
mileage may vary of course, but then some people like Star Fleet
Battles. <g>

If I wanted accurate to the point of being tedious, I can alway haul out
my
copy of Tobruk.  You have to strike a balance.	Like I said, I like the
content and complexity of the DS2/SG2 games, I just feel the mechanics
get
in the way.

>> I own both of the FMA games and like their content, but don't really
care
>> for their mechanics.  I'd like to see the chits and n-sided die
column
>> shifts replaced by the "fists full of six-siders" mechanic you see in
FT
>> and Charlie Company.
>
>Why do you prefer ten zillion six siders to say a d1000? 

Well, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

You can draw cards or chits, you can roll percentile dice and look up
the
result on a chart, you can roll dice versus dice, you can toss fistfuls
of
six-siders or whatever.

Chits always bugged me, sorry.	YMMV.

Percentile dice and charts are okay, but the more charts you have the
longer it takes to get anything done.  After 4+ hours, this gets
tediuous.

Dice versus dice has its good points and its bad points.  The DBx system
is
hard to handle until you've memorized all the modifiers.  Then it's
pretty
fast to play.  On the down side, there are only 36 possible outcomes
(most
of which do nothing) and in many cases it bogs down into a pushing
contest.
 The FMA system gives a broader range of outcomes but memorizing the die
shifts is as much of a pain if not more so.  (Or at least that is the
opinion in our group.  YMMV, of course.  Maybe it wouldn't be as bad if
FMA
had stuck to chits or dice, but not both.)

A handful of six-siders has the advantage that it give you a nice
bell-curve distribution of outcomes and that it is quick, easy and fast.
Bell-curves are good because they actually reduce the amount of
randomness
in outcomes over time.	That way, although any given outcome may been
extreme, on average a given "volume of fire" will result in a given
outcome.

It all comes down to random number generators.	When I want a heavy duty
simulation these days, I fire up the computer and let it draw the bloody
chits or whatever, as long I don't have to be bothered with it.  But
then I
miss out on the social aspects of the hobby.

>And it sure isn't better than the die levels Jon has worked out for
Stargrunt.

I'm relatively new to SG2 so I won't comment much on this one.

>I don't necessarily see that using a bunch of d6s is an improvement. It

>works for FT, but I don't see it working well for SG2.

In purely aesthetic terms, I like the "volume of fire" feel that you get
from that mechanic.  To me, it doesn't much matter if its particle beam
batteries, M16 rounds or gauss rifles.	The greater the volume of fire,
the
more likely someone's gonna get hurt.  By tinkering with your mods in
the
number dice rolled, you can simulate any bell curve you want.  To me
that
is no less artificial that "my d10 beat your d4" or whatever.  *shrug*

>> <snip description of Charlie Co. mechanics>
>
>Seems (on the surface) like a lot of dice are rolled here too (moreso 
>because of the way you conduct fire combat). 

You might be surprised.  I seen better (but not many) and I've seen
worse
(we playtested something called Beer-and-Pretzel-Skirmish (B.A.P.S)
once.
Same "volume of fire" idea but then you had to index it on a chart and
roll
a d20.	Almost the same effect, but not nearly as elegant.)

>> Good points: Quick and simple, easy to learn.  
>
>Bad points: Simple. That one cuts both ways. 

Simple is not necessarily the same as simplistic.

>> GM keeps everything moving along and reduces rules squabbles.
>
>Doesn't sound like there is a lot to squabble over. Now, mind you, 
>put two gamers in an empty room and they could still squabble...

No argument there!  :)

>> Bad points: It is locked into the GM-controlled RPG
>> format.  While that works very well for ambush scenarios and other
>> fog-of-war situations, it lacks the team vs. team aspects that I like
in
>> most other games.)
>
>And it sounds like it lacks a higher level organizational aspect. I 
>think the command rules are part of what makes SG2 a good game. To 
>often I've seen games where command is not represented as 
>significant. Nor troop quality. SG2 does this (IMHO) very well. That 
>make all the difference in the real world, I'd guess. 

Agreed.  It lacks what I think of as the "content" portion of DS2/SG2. 
In
Charlie Company the poor little buggers will just keep on fighting as
long
as the gamer tells 'em too.  That's a problem as far as I'm concerned.

My philosophy is that when gaming, you should be able to get into a
world
where things work the way they are supposed to in the real world.  A
cavalry charge should "feel" like a cavalry charge and the players
should
be able to "feel" their way into making reasonable choices.  When
something
that seems reasonable fails to work, its should be because of poor
choices
on the part of the gamer or simple bad luck not faulty rules mechanics. 
I
don't care for those games that are so random or unrealistic that the
gamer
never learns to improve his or her tactics.

Jeff