OT, was Re: PCS/NPCS AND UNLIMITED SCENARIO IDEAS

DAWGFACE wrote:

>you are starting to wear a bit thin here, OERJAN.  i am not changing
the
>subject act all.

No? OK. It was a bit hard to follow with the sudden change of subject
line 
<shrug>

>and i am not subject to interrogation by you or anyone  else, so back
>off please, you are becoming a bit to strident and intense, to me.

Nice to know that my months-old feelings towards you are finally being 
returned :-)

>now on with my answer.
>
>i made reference to 40K and its tournement scenarios BECAUSE THIS IS
>WHAT IS GOING ON AT MOST CONVENTIONS AND HOBBY SHOPS AROUND THE WORLD!

Your reference to 40K read as follows:

"OERJAN, exactly wot do you mean by defining which SG II scenario i am 
talking about?

i was not aware that SG II had gone the route of the newer versions of
40K 
with a set number of specific, offici, gaming scenarios to be gamed to
the 
point of barfing from boredom."

The first sentence was a perfectly valid, and neutrally phrased,
question.

However, the subsequent "i was not aware..." part strongly implied that
you 
assumed me to be talking about 40K-style set and numbered scenarios, and
it 
also did so in a rather ridiculing tone. I don't know what you intended 
this second sentence to accomplish, but all it actually did do was to
annoy me.

[long snip]

>you will find toys from 20 or more years ago locked in combat with
>todays toys. does not	bother us.

If this *had* bothered you, you probably wouldn't have touched GZG games

with a ten-foot pole - after all, "use whatever models you like" is the 
basic tenet of all GZG's games. Same with me and my group... though our 
oldest GW models are only about 17 years old, since the average age in
our 
group is only 25-ish.

[another long snip which - apart from the specific backgrounds and RPG 
rules used - read very much like what my old college gaming group used
to 
do and what I'm trying to get my current group to accept]

>if this  does not suit your  own tstes fine. do you own thing and we
will 
>continue doing ours. playing games and having	fun is the paramout 
>objective of our get togethers.

It suits my tastes quite well, except that I'm more a large-battle and 
strategic-campaign person more than a skirmish person so I track the 
histories of my battallions, regiments, generals, flotillas, fleets, 
admirals and nations/empires more than those of individual rank-and-file

soldiers. Too many grunts in a brigade to name them all individually, 
especially when the individual models are only 5-6 mm tall.

FWIW I've been gaming in this way on and off for about fifteen years
("off" 
when the only opposition I could find were dug-in GW gamers; "on" when I

manage to get them out of the GW rut)... which is why I get so annoyed
by 
your patronizing comments about "missing things because you don't do 
this-or-that".

I don't know if you actually *intend* the comments to be patronizing,
but 
that's the way they come across. The impression you give is one of 
"drawling derisively about how superior your gaming style (described at 
extreme length) is to our gaming styles, and doing this without having
any 
idea of what our supposedly inferior gaming styles actually are". (This 
description is much exaggerated due to my less-than-perfect grasp of 
English, but this basic feeling is there.) If this is not the impression

you wish to make, then you too may need to consider backing off a bit.

>i do believe in my first post under the above	title,	i specified
>describing NPCs after policians,  historical  figures, actors or
>actresses, etc.

You did, yes. That was the "shorthand" discussion which you seemed to
have 
left in your previous post.

>get real; when i person says the figure  looks like JOHN WAYNE, or
>MADONNA and is speficially pointed out to ALL as  such,  the point is
>made to a hell of a lot  folks in  modern world over the age of  20.

A lot of folks, maybe. All folks, no - not even all folks in a small
group, 
unless the group is very homogenous. Oh, everyone will get *a* point,
but 
it isn't necessarily the one you intended.

For example: on hearing the "Madonna" shorthand description one of my
local 
opponents would get the impression "good-looking artist and *very* 
intelligent+successful business woman" while another would think "blond 
bimbo in weird clothes who can't sing"... which of the two was it you 
intended? Or was it a third? (Yes, my gaming group is quite mixed. Yours

seems to be more homogenous.)

"Looks like" and "behaves like" are two quite different things, though.
I 
and my local opponents know far too many people whose visual appearences

are badly misleading to easily equate visual appearence with personality
:-/

>the RPG tactical gaming is an outgrowth of the  groups's  background 
as
>historical gamers, and RPGers from the  very start of our gamig
>experieince. seems like a natural thing to do.

Pretty much identical to my gaming life, then.

>yes, i did make a mistake i makig the	blanket  assumption that
everyone
>was  with the program and esaily uderstood my short-hand, for detail
>developed NPCs.

OK.

>another thing; for some reason, i cannot cut and  paste as y'all with
>real computers do.

Out of curiousity, what email program and computer do you use?

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."