Re: SG Humor

On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 17:08:11 -0600, "Mark A. Siefert."
<cthulhu@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:

>	Where the hell is the drama in a game between two geeky 12 year
olds
>with armies composed of more chesse than Wisconsin?  Comedy is the word
>I'd use.

Maybe they mean drama in the wider sense. It easily qualifies as a Greek
tragedy, or a Roman farce...

> > On a weekend when they aren't gaming, SG players may be found
>>   calculating the instability of the ringworld or the specific
>>   density of the BOLA.
>	
>	Excuse me... even I didn't get this one.

SF fanboy geekdom stuff. The kind of stuff that I used to do when I was
in
high school, actually. There's a reason there's a famoust (well, famous
in SF
circles) saying that, "Science Fiction is 14"...

>	Your damn right I'm a "hard SF fanboy" and I'm ----ing proud of
it!

Don't worry, you'll grow out of it... probably. :-)  I used to be, too.
Then I
started to look for something different in fiction: characters, emotion,
writing... After a while, "good ideas" aren't enough. Niven has yet to
write a
female character with more than two dimensions, for one thing... (which
puts
him about 1 dimension ahead of Tom Clancy... sorry, I'm in a catty
mood).	:-)

>> SG players read lots of Heinlien & Asimov, but probably very little
>>   Hemingway.
>
>	Heinlien yes... I won't touch Asimov with a Ten-foot-poll....
not after
>"Foundation's Edge."

You could touch Asimov with a 6 foot pole attached to an auger, though.
Got to
get through that casket lid...

>> 40k players read lots of Wells & Lovecraft, but probably very little
>>   Hemingway.
>
>	What the hell does "Farewell to Arms," and "The Old Man and the
Sea"
>have to do with sci-fi ground combat? Hmmmmmm?  Huh?

I think the writer was poking fun at SF with the usual mainstream belief
that
no one has written truly literary SF. This is a spurious argument, such
as
judging all mainstream writing on Tom Clancy or Jackie Collins. Instead
of
Hemingway, and to keep on an SF note, the writer could have used Philip
Dick,
Sheri Tepper, or even Harlan Ellison (his earlier stuff) or Ray Bradbury
(I'm
not a big Bradbury fan, but he's a wordsmith, thus a darling of the
mainstream
world).
 
>> It is a bad idea to question a SG player concerning his gaming
>>   prefrences.
>> It is a bad idea to question a 40k player concerning his gaming
>>   prefrences.
>
>	Your point being? 

They are both prone to flame wars? 

I don't buy a lot of the argument made in this joke. I'd replace
Stargrunt
with Star Flee Battles, and it would be pretty accurate. I find
Stargrunt
players are prone to playability. Most of the players I've played with
aren't
big SF fans. I also don't find Stargrunt to be THAT accurate a realistic
simulation. I do happen to like its mixture of playability and realism,
though. The Stargrunt players I know are also willing to experiment and
try
different systems. There are a number of SG2 players on this list who
like
Great Rail Wars, Legions of Steel, Shockforce, and even games by the
Evil
Empire. 

In short, I find SG2 players to be open minded. I find too many GW
players are
deeply indoctrinated in the religion of the One True Game. But they grow
out
of this when they start having to spend their OWN paycheck on the
game...

Allan Goodall	       agoodall@sympatico.ca

"We come into the world and take our chances
 Fate is just the weight of circumstances
 That's the way that Lady Luck dances
 Roll the bones." - N. Peart