Re: [MISC] [OT] Bring and Battle

>Tom spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
>
>> Scenarios are a lot of fun, and I enjoy playing them, but they take 
>> work.  They take time to design them; time that I do not have.
>
>That's why you try to build up a collection of scenario cards so you 
>can just pull a couple of cards and run a battle. 

Again, that's all well and good if you have established opponents.  It 
may work with a pick-up game, but it may not.  It depends on the other 
players.

>
>  Plus, I 
>> have found that, all too often, I would be the one designing the 
>> scenario, and therefore would be the guy stuck with the Ref cap.
>
>Don't need a ref. Unless you have players who can't agree to sort 
>things out themselves.

You do if you are the only person who knows the rules.	The people that 
I have gamed with have played SGII, and none of them liked it enough to 
bother buying the rules, let alone learning them.  They were willing 
enough to play if I ran a game, but otherwise...no.

> I  don't like running games.	I like playing them.  I like the 
>luxury of 
>> being able to pick up a box of tanks, go to the local Hobby Shop, sit

>> down and play.
>> 
>> You can't do that with Stargrunt.
>
>Pardon? I don't have a problem with that with SG2.

It's not as easy as it is with, say, Full Thrust.  With FT, you can go 
up to a total stranger and start playing.  I've done it.  With SGII, 
it's difficult.

>  That, and its total lack of local 
>> popularity, are why I have given up on it.
>
>I'm sure that is how many good gaming systems, and many good ideas 
>have given way to the mediocrity of the systems with mass (witness 
>Microsoft). 
>

See, this is what I mean by arrogance.	Popular does not always mean 
bad.  Or good, for that matter.....  Yes, the 40K rules have more holes 
than a piece of Swiss Cheese.  And yes, there are a lot more people 
playing 40K then there are playing SGII.  There's probably a reason for 
that.

>  I CAN do that with a lot of 
>> other games.  That's why I still play them.
>
>I find, if I want to play a quick game, I play a board game - little 
>or no prep, lots of fun. If I want to wargame, I accept that some 
>minimal prep is a good thing. If I want to really enjoy myself, I 
>like a thought out, detailed scenario, which means work. But I can 
>enjoy myself at a bring and battle too - I just don't take the 
>results as seriously because it might be unbalanced. Judgement goes a 
>long way here.  

I just want to have fun.  Taking things really seriously is not part of 
that.  Winning or losing doesn't matter.  Playing does.

>
>> You know, annoying though GW gamers are, I can say this much for 
them:	
>> They are at least a hell of a lot less arrogant than GZG gamers....
>
>I feel I'm being tarred with someone else's sins here. So I'll say 
>that such a generalization does no one any credit. 

You are right, and I apologize.  Generalizations are enver a good thing.
 
I was just remembering the recent "discussion" on r.g.m.m.  The SGII 
advocactes had attitude to spare.  On the other hand, they were 
generally more coherent than the 40K folks....	And does anyone remember

the posting that listed the difference between 40K players and SGII 
players?  Almost the entire list took issue with it.  Almost no one saw 
the humor in it.  it was the crack about "...maybe I'm just lucky in 
that I game with adults who don't take pushing around little metal toys 
THAT seriously." that got to me.  So I don't game exactly like you 
do...does that make me immature?  To take Shakespeare entirely out of 
context, the play's the thing, people.

Tom Sullivan
"Say what you will about the MiGo...at least they're a bunch of fun 
guys!"

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com