Re: Simple is good

Jeff spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> When I first joined, I asked if they ever played DS2.  Most of the
> criticisms of it and SG seemed boil down to "too many fiddly bits."
> Anything where you can write the relevant rules on the back of an
index
> card and finish a game (or two) in an afternoon is a hit.

Wow. Although most of the guys I game with like to finish a game, if 
the game is too simplistic, they can't be bothered. They find it more 
a waste of their time to play something that doesn't give them the 
right (to their mind) feel and complexity. I can't imagine us playing 
a game where the rules fit on an index card. 
 
> I own both of the FMA games and like their content, but don't really
care
> for their mechanics.	I'd like to see the chits and n-sided die column
> shifts replaced by the "fists full of six-siders" mechanic you see in
FT
> and Charlie Company.

Why do you prefer ten zillion six siders to say a d1000? And it sure 
isn't better than the die levels Jon has worked out for Stargrunt.  I 
don't necessarily see that using a bunch of d6s is an improvement. It 
works for FT, but I don't see it working well for SG2.	

> (For those of you who've never seen/played it:  Charlie Company is a
> squad-based Vietnam RPG/skirmish game.  Base fire power is one die for
> every rifle, two or more for larger weapons.	Fire is squad versus
> squad(s).  Modifiers can halve or double the number of dice rolled and
are
> cumulative.  Sixes hit.  Then you roll to see which troopers of the
target
> squads are hit and whether they are wounded or killed.

Seems (on the surface) like a lot of dice are rolled here too (moreso 
because of the way you conduct fire combat). 

  Good points: Quick
> and simple, easy to learn.  

Bad points: Simple. That one cuts both ways. 

GM keeps everything moving along and reduces
> rules squabbles.

Doesn't sound like there is a lot to squabble over. Now, mind you, 
put two gamers in an empty room and they could still squabble...

  Bad points: It is locked into the GM-controlled RPG
> format.  While that works very well for ambush scenarios and other
> fog-of-war situations, it lacks the team vs. team aspects that I like
in
> most other games.)

And it sounds like it lacks a higher level organizational aspect. I 
think the command rules are part of what makes SG2 a good game. To 
often I've seen games where command is not represented as 
significant. Nor troop quality. SG2 does this (IMHO) very well. That 
make all the difference in the real world, I'd guess. 

Tom.  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist
Police Communications Systems
Software Kinetics Ltd.
66 Iber Road, Stittsville
Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page: 
     http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page: 
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/