Prev: Plants that hate you ad the scenarios they create Next: [FT] Nova Cannon Tactics

DS3 Heresy Mine

From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@j...>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:53:41 EDT
Subject: DS3 Heresy Mine

There has been a lot of talk on  gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu about capacity
versus a myriad ideas of points based systems in a Dirtside 2 remake.

Here's my heresy.

Rant mode on.

Why?

Why have multiple points systems?  Seems most of the work has been done
different times by multiple knowledgable people using different
assumptions, opinions, and for different 'genres' and there are many
great derived systems out there without GZG redoing the game.  You like
40K, change the rules as GZG says you should.  You like B5, ditto. 
Starblazers, ditto.  Mecha anything, ditto.  Starguard, ditto.	Yada,
yada, yada. 

Why does the *game* have to mirror either the current reality or a
projection into the future outside of the current generic background? 
Why is it so damn vital to take a system that has holes (all systems
have
'holes' and freaking min-maxing munchkins will always find them - it's
in
their degenerate genes) and junk it if it generally works?

Sure there are spots where the current system has inconsistentness, just
like FT had the problem with top end escorts being significantly more
powerful proportionally then bottom end cruisers... but the solution was
a fix of the system not a new system.

And that's what most of these threads have been, IMO.  NOT DS3 but "Star
Tanker"!  I think the granularity of DS3 (which is  perfectly fine for
me) makes the attempts to perfectly portray  much of the discussion I
read before I started deleting before reading a change in the game
itself
that goes beyond the appropriate intended granularity of the game itself
and creates a new, completely different game.  Not that a game of that
flavor might not be great game but that would not be DS3, IMO.	And DS3
is the game of the three GZG makes that is my primary interest.

Yes, I'd love to see linked FT-DS-SG rules but I doubt it would be easy
and I doubt that any or all three games would merge intact.  And the one
who would suffer the most in payability would, IMO again, be DS3.

Yes, I think there are some problems with DS2, most  of which relate to
the players (How many people field an HVC equipped, tracked CFE powered
force as their main army?  Anybody use a DFFG armed force as their
personal favorite when the MDC and HKP calls so seductively?)  Sure some
weapons are 'more effective' in one off game terms.  GMS are win big or
die completely, at least for me.  And HEL's (unless the chits are
replaced by one the die roll methods we discussed on the GZG list
before)
are essentially too expensive for their effectiveness unless you play on
an flat featureless game table (Planet Billiard Ball anyone?) but they
sure look cool in the rule book on first read.	Now, maybe my setting up
a situation where all the weapon systems are presented by third to fifth
tier groups within neighboring star systems has prejudiced me towards
semi-campaign play but the game works, with caveats and  limitations,
for
me pretty much as it is.

So, fix it but fix it without making it a retread of Stargrunt 2 is my
'theology of the day'.

YMMV as always.

Rant mode off.

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:


Prev: Plants that hate you ad the scenarios they create Next: [FT] Nova Cannon Tactics