Re: DS Philosophy etc

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:22:33 +0100 (BST) =?iso-8859-1?q?Ken=20Bywaters?=
<argentnova@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>--0-1416626303-1090970553=:15740
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>Thought I'd unlurk and join in with a slightly different 
>perspective...
> 
>I suspect that any effort to depict a "realistic" science fiction 
>combat environment is doomed to failure from the start. 

Some people feel that no game can provide the terror and confusion of
modern warfare (Piquet supposedly notwithstanding) and others feel that
no historical set can recreate the blazing fallible foibles of human
'less then brilliant' commanders while others complain that rules that
allow a "Napoleon" commander figure to always have tremendous advantages
(the player is not Napoleon I have read/heard)	are unbalancing but
historical players always seem to strive to re-create history.	 SF
players strive to 'pre-create' a future that has a basis in projections
of assumptions of reality.
<snip>
No Comment.
<snip>
>Maybe I'm in a minority about this, but our group has had most fun 
>with DS2 and SG2 when using the rules to explore some of the sociology 
>and scenarios - for example three way encounters with a peacekeeping 
>force attempting to pacify without using overwhelming force and 
>earning moral condemnation.  And of course the simplicity is an 
>advantage for this kind of purpose. 
> 
>
As has been pointed out - the goal is to allow the players decisions as
to what complexity they want to play with in their 'world/universe' 
which allows customization of a wide range.  Whether or not that can be
done simply is the acid test for the game.

Gracias,
Glenn

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!