Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

At 05:23 PM 3/2/97 +0000, you wrote:
>At 04:14 AM 3/2/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>	 Without a sliding scale, players will immediately see that all
>vessels pay the same rate for engines. Now I don't know what kind of
guys
>you play with, the guys I play with will translate that into: 
>
>	 "Nothing but superships!! You see, you get all the increased
>defenses of a huge starship and you pay the same rate for speed as a
little
>ship with a C-bat and a submunition. Doesn't make sense to get anything
>other than superships!!" 
>
>	 I'm very interested in this descriptive design system idea, but
to
>implement it with our group I'm going to need some incentive for people
to
>take smaller ships, or they simply won't. Would you? Would you take
several
>ships with a handful of damage boxes when you could merge them into one
big
>ship for the same price? You wouldn't lose a ship to incidental damage.
You
>wouldn't risk the whole force being annihilated by a single wave gun
hit,
>etc., etc., etc. We need some way to make ships with high price tags
pay
>proportionately more for their engines or frigates will wind up in
museums.
>
>	 James
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
<SNIP>

When I create a game, I allways like to provide players with the maximum
choices I can without blowing up the game.  One way to do this is to
strip
all "Game Setting" rules from the construction rules, and then have the
setting specify any changes needed to properly do that setting.  

Adjusting the rules to convince players to buy more smaller ships, feels
like a "setting rule" more than a universal rule.  This leaves the game
to
be a core around which players may place any settings with the minimum
of
changes.

Donald Hosford
 
--
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com