Grant,
I think your ideas of how to make a convention game
more interesting for all players are very good and
quite valid in that setting.
I don't think that the rules should be written to
"keep folks happy at a convention". I think that
should be up to the GM and the scenario.
I think the rules should simulate combat with weapons
and equipment that are not available to us now but are
possible to exist given the laws of physics. There
are situations in every battle where significant
portions of the forces available were not active. This
should be part of the game. If the players do not use
all the force available then that is a tactical
mistake that should result in a loss. If the rules do
not allow forces to enter the battle but have a good
reason for that (ie firefight ongoing is working
inside the normal game timeline) that is fine by me.
Bob Makowsky
- Note that I am a "simulationist", I would be happy
if the game did not have any players at all (even at a
con) if it resulted in the "most likely
historical(future historical) outcome. I play games
to see what could have, should have, or would have
happened. Winning and losing matter not and I have as
much fun watching what other players are contributing
to the simulation as I do actually moving and firing
myself.
So given that, my comments are to maximize the
simulation of the system (though I understand that if
it is not a "fun" game then it will not sell and I
will not have the opportunity to buy it).
--- "Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
:-) Yeah, I get that. I'm just saying that in a
convention setting, that
can be an extended period of time where everyone
else isn't doing anything.
Minimizing that is a good thing. I know that a lot
of it is that we're not
yet really familiar with the new system and
therefore don't know how to use it
to avoid this. Still, my first look at it made me
feel like putting in a few
things to help limit one or two firefights being
the *entire* game would be a
good thing. I'll happily concede the point if
repetitive play in a similiar
setting shows that it doesn't come up often enough
to be a concern. I'm
concerned though, because I've been to many a
convention and the only games
I didn't enjoy were where the scenario setup or the
game rules left me unable
to do *anything* for most of the game. For DSIII
I'm a bit concerned that the
"shaken" result which forces unit to go to cover
may often force one player's
forces entirely to cover. If a long firefight or
firefights occur after that,
you may never reach the end of the turn that allows
those units to get back
into action. I'm thinking that some mechanism for
keeping things flowing to
turn end points is a good thing, especially in the
convention type games.
Our game at ECC was ~ 3 to 3.5 hours of play, and
the entirety of the game
was 3 firefights in the first turn. We probably
had 2 more to go to the end
of the turn (we had 2 more mbt units to ram home).
I didn't get a close look
at the other game, but I thought it was similiar.
I like how DSIII plays, but
I'm not sure that one turn convention games are a
good idea.
I want to make sure that you understand that I'm
not being critical of the
game system or how it's been developed. I'm just
thinking out loud about
what might be a flow issue in the game. I rather
enjoyed the faster movement
speeds and the morale.
grant
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l