Re: Another POINTless Argument

At 06:21 PM 4/23/97 GMT, David Brewer wrote:

>I think it is unfair to ascribe this to GW. Not everything is their
>fault. I may not be as old as Allan, but I'm sure points values and
>tournament games pre-date the GW-boom.

Oh, sure, call me an old goat. IMPLY that I'm senile. Suggest that I...
what
was my point again...?

True, point systems predate GW. However it was with the mid 80s (GW
being
the prime culprit) that even-point based games became the primary method
of
playing pickup as well as tournament games. WRG's WWII rules had a point
system, for instance, but still  stressed scenarios.

>I think the DB* games are a relatively good example of how a points
>system isn't necessarily crap, or irredeemably broken. It is 
>definately worth noting that there is a sort of context generation 
>aspect to game set-up where it is determined who attacks/defends/
>sets-out-the-terrain, what time of day/night the battle is fought, 
>what sort of terrain can be used, what sort of weather conditions 
>prevail. Players chose to send out flank marches and have to defend 
>their baggage train. A player can gamble on buying defensive 
>barriers and naval units. That sort of context elevates the game 
>from being just another bland meeting engagement (and, hey, armies 
>*did* go looking for each other). Also the game resolves into a 
>range of Victory Points with 10 points shared between the players.

Of all the point based systems I've seen, the DBM and Armati systems are
probably the best.  Even still, they are the exception that proves the
rule.
There was a recent discussion on the Armati mailing list about
tournament
armies. The discussion revolved around Byzantine armies and how one
player
thought they seemed over powerful. In the end, it was determined that
there
were several particularly nasty armies, including the Byzantines,
Alexandrian Successors, and Romans. While a weak player with one of
these
armies could lose to a strong player with another army, it was
determined
that these armies did have a considerable edge. This lead to a
discussion of
how warband based armies (i.e. Caledonians and Britons) were at a major
disadvantage against Roman legions. The suggestion was that Caledonian
armies should either have a higher point total or that specific
scenarios
giving them a defensive advantage should be used.

Note that this illustrates the basic philosophy of even-point armies.
The
exception, to fix a perceived problem, is to play a scenario or to throw
out
the point system altogether. It also shows how a 50 point Roman army is
NOT
equal to a 50 point Caledonian army. If the two sides aren't even, why
even
bother with a point system?

Well, the answer is that it allows CCG-like pre-game building. Instead
of a
deck, players build an army. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a
different type of enjoyment, but it is still enjoyable. However, one of
the
big problems with some CCGs is that there isn't very much to playing the
game, that deck building is the main purpose. I find that I prefer
scenario
play to point play, even though I too have spent many hours designing
armies
to a specific point total. 

I also think that this shows a trend towards stressing a win over game
play.
As we can see in professional sports, "it's not whether you win or lose,
it's how you play the game" just doesn't apply anymore. Sure, winning is
the
point of the game. It makes your opponent play that much harder. But
it's
never been the be-all and end-all in my games. I enjoy the after action
discussions, where we discuss how the game could be better played. In
the
end, we evaluate our play based not on the opponent but on the overall
scenario. It's possible for someone to have lost the battle, but take
pride
in the fact that it was a close thing even though they were greatly
outnumbered. Ironically, I've seen fewer blowouts in uneven games than I
have in point-balanced meeting engagements. 

I'm not necessarily against point systems. They have their place. Some
players really want them, and they are an aid for pick-up games or when
you
are new to the game. But it really gets my goat when someone says that a
game is crap--even without having tried it--simply because it doesn't
have a
point system, which is usually broken to begin with.

Allan Goodall:	agoodall@sympatico.ca 
"You'll want to hear about my new obsession.
 I'm riding high upon a deep depression. 
 I'm only happy when it rains."    - Garbage