Re: DS Philosophy etc

--- Ken Bywaters <argentnova@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

*SNIP*

>It's been suggested that the rules are at
> fault because they reflect a Vietnam perspective. 

NO IT HASN'T!!!!!!!

It's been suggested, and quite successfully, that the
rules are at fault because they reflect Vietnam-era
TECHNOLOGY.  There's a huge differene.	Sure, future
conflict may, and probably will at times, feel like
Vietnam in terms of the politics, the strategy, etc. 
That's fine.  Hell, make your battles reminiscent of
Agincourt or Borodino, for all I care!	But the
weapons, technology, and resources used to FIGHT the
battle had better be at LEAST as advanced as what
we're using today, and at BEST quite a bit more so
(whether we predict the level and direction of the
advancement accurately is beside the point -- if I'm
playing sci-fi, I'd rather play far-frtched, wrong,
but interesting than play historically and
scientifically accurate but passe').

> Returning to DS2...  Any rules that have a generic
> element still end up interpreting weapons systems in
> certain ways 

To some extent, yes.  But we can offer a set of game
stats for different weapons and systems, based on
different assumptions, and let the players choose
which ones fit in the framework of their background
and it's assumed truths.  That's what makes a game
generic.

Someone else may write it
> differently.	For example the Traveller RPG viewed
> gauss guns as auto firing lots of 4mm darts.	The
> Space Opera RPG saw gauss guns as firing single 20mm
> projectiles very hard.  Which one is accurate and
> realistic and correct?  

WRT MDC's, it's immaterial.  IF the game effect is the
same, you can describe the weapon any way you want.

=====
"In life, you must try and be the type of person that your dog thinks
you are."

- Anonymous

		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail