Re: Why Sensors??

In a message dated 9/7/99 11:35:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
schoon@aimnet.com writes:
I agree with schoon.  Oliver Upshaw
<< [snipped digest rules]
 
 
 I've been doing some general mulling over the rules that have been put
 forth by various contributors to the list (including my own), and have
 come to the general conclusion that they're all to complex.
 
 
 The "old" basic system of Bogey / All was very simple and worked fairly
 well. However, even so, very few people used it. In fact, aside from
 specific groups interested in campaign games, I have never seen anyone
 even use the basic rules in FT (p21), much less the advanced rules from
 MT (p5).
 
 
 Why?
 
 
 First, FT is generally designed to be very simple in execution, though
 rich in variety. The current batch of ideas do not follow this pattern.
 They all involve more die rolling, I suspect, than we are collectively
 comfortable with.
 
 
 I was thinking that the minimum range for having the "All" information
 should be about the range at which people tend to engage on the
 trabletop. This way, one off games and those not interested in sensors
 can safely ignore them.
 
 
 "But wait!" I hear you say, "that means that I can only use the rules
 off the tabletop."
 
 
 Bingo.
 
 
 Say the average table provides 72 inches between combatants. Make 72"
 your standard range unit (one could up this to 75 or 100 if you wanted
 rounder numbers). This would allow for some sort of "system scale"
 engagement rules, which would in turn be the forbearers of campaign
 rules.
 
 
 By putting sensors in the realm of the campaign, we don't put off the
 casual player, but give the campaign player (who most likely was the
 one who wanted a little more complexity in the first place) something
 satisfying.
 
 
 
 Schoon
  >>