Prev: Re: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted) Next: RE: Re: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)

Re: Re: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)

From: <laserlight@v...>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:56:33 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Re: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)

>What's needed is a tutorial in creating scenarios. Even then, as anyone
who has done it enough will tell you, the only way to get a really good
scenario is to playtest the dickens out of it. There is no way to
balance a scenario otherwise.

Well...if you have a good gamemaster with a reserve pool. But at some
point you have to stop feeding forces.

Someone else asked:
>> better) are put off by the "no points" nature of SG2. "How can the
game be fair?" they ask (and bear in mind that not a few have been
r**ted in GW game-store games by bent rules and the battle-winning-
model-of-the-month, so trust levels are low).

So....you're saying they want a point system like the one which
obviously doens't generate even battles?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

Prev: Re: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted) Next: RE: Re: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)