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

> If you are recreating Waterloo or Gettysburg you don't worry about  
> whether the sides are evenly matched in points, or even necessarily  
> have the same chance of winning.

Sure, but how is this relevant to SF gaming, where the historical  
aspect is absent? People interested in the ACW can explore "What  
would have happened if Ewell had pushed home an evening attack on  
Culp's Hill?" or whatever, but in SF gaming the whole thing has to be  
built from scratch. If players are handed a thoroughly unbalanced  
game, they know that it is not the vagaries of history that are to  
blame, but the choices of the person that wrote the scenario. There's  
a huge psychological difference between dealing with adverse  
circumstances, and handling unfair treatment by another *person*.

> It is a "seasoned" gamer that finds satisfaction in playing a  
> "forlorn hope" scenario.

I haven't met any gamers, seasoned or otherwise, who enjoy losing...  
There has to be a chance of a psychological win or there's no  
satisfaction in playing. In a rearguard scenario, the "win" may be  
the satisfaction of retreating off the end of the table with n% of  
your forces intact, but it's still there. But rearguard players have  
to feel that they've a fair chance of achieving it.

> 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.

Great advice for those who have a large enough group of players to  
provide play-testers who are not the same people as will be playing  
the scenario in an actual game. Not especially useful otherwise.

In another posting Laserlight asked:

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

I don't quite seem to be communicating clearly here. I'm not saying  
that SG's "no points" system is bad (indeed I've repeatedly said the  
opposite), or that points systems guarantee a fair game. The issue I  
feel is that players coming to SG for the first time are *accustomed*  
to point-system games, in which the points-system is *supposed* to  
deliver a reasonably balanced game. Then they come to SG, and it's a  
matter of just *trusting* the scenario writer/umpire with very little  
support from "official" or pre-tested material, which creates a  
barrier to entry. I'm not advocating a point-system for SG, I'm  
looking for more support on scenarios.

Best regards, Robert Bryett
rbryett@mail.com
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l