Re: [GZG] DSIII q

Grant,

I agree with your concerns, if not with your solution (to put some kind
of 
artificial (sic) limit on firefights).

That said, one other option would be to always present DS3 games at cons

with 2 players. ;)

Seriously though, the same problem does exist in *most* game systems to 
some degree or another.  I think that as we develop examples of turns
and 
add finer tuning to the scenarios (and maybe even a 1 page "Tactical 
Considerations" guide!), things will work out.

:D

J

John K. Lerchey
Assistant Director for Incident Response
Information Security Office
Carnegie Mellon University

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Grant A. Ladue wrote:

>
>  I think I need to step back here and clarify what concerns me.
>
>
>    I'm not arguing for a mechanism that keeps everyone involved all
the time.
>  I think I'm actually arguing the inverse.  I'm concerned that the
firefight
>  mechanism (which is pretty cool) is *very* unpredictable.  A single
firefight
>  can be very quick or possibly very long.  A very long firefight could
easily
>  end up involving only a small section of one (or both) side's forces.
 In
>  this case, I'm concerned that a subset of the players can be
effectively out
>  of the game for extended periods of time, possibly *most* of the
time.
>    Now, I agree that in most club settings where you're gaming with
the same
>  people you game with all the time, this may not be much of a problem.
 On the
>  other hand, you could be in a convention setting or any public forum
where
>  you may be trying to introduce new players and give people a taste
for the
>  game.  I think that a new player that never gets to do anything
because of
>  the rules is not likely to be interested in the rules again.  We've
mentioned
>  that "careful" scenario design is important, but the very mechanism
of the
>  firefight rules seem to me to work strongly against predictable
design.  An
>  excellent game mechanic that potentially alienates the people playing
it is
>  not a good thing.
>    I would simply suggest that a few simple mechanics be worked out
for
>  putting an upper limit on the number of rounds that a firefight can
go within
>  a turn.  I would offer these as an optional rule that can be used or
not
>  depending on the situation and the group.  I would expect that a good
number
>  of gaming groups (our own included) are likely to develop such a
"house rule"
>  on their own if it isn't offered straight away.  I would prefer to
see such a
>  rule be formally tested and offered to help keep it consistent. 
Under no
>  circumstances am I arguing that this should be the default way of
playing.
>  This would just allow for a game to keep "moving along" in the
situations
>  where I think that is a good thing to do.
>
>    Just one man's crazed opinion.
>
>
>  grant
>
>
>
>> I think in *this* case it's not a matter of "what are the odds" but
rather
>> "sometimes shit happens".  :-/   If the player in question controlled
a
>> squad from each platoon, well, what more can you do for them? Other
than le=
>> t
>> that person run everything, then no one else gets any action.
>>
>> But then what if all the squads from all the platoons become shaken?
That
>> would leave everyone on that side of the table, whatever they
controlled,
>> pretty much out of it ('course it would likely end the game, too ;-)
).
>>
>> At some point you have to say it's no longer feasible to divide
things up
>> just to keep a player in the game for a turn.
>>
>> Mk
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l