Re: [DS] Why play DS?

At 04:31 PM 12/7/98 EST, you wrote:
>I'm a big fan of FT and SG, but every time I try to read DS I long for
the
>elegant simplicity of FT and SG.  In contrast DS just seems too
cumbersome
and
>detailed.  Now I haven't actually played DS yet, and it doesn't seem
like Jon
>can write a bad set of rules, so my question is, what am I missing?  Do
the
>rules actually play clean and fast, despite appearances?  Are there any
>sizable chunks of the rules that could be ignored easily (like ECW)?
>Jed Docherty 
>

Actually, by the sounds of it, it seems as if you aren't missing enough
;)

If you've played and liked SGII, you should know that they are _very_ 
similar. The quality, control and morale are essentially identical. 
Most of the apparent complexity is helped a great deal by vehicle data 
cards. Once you have vehicles designed, you can figure out most of 
the ranged fire from those. Some sizable chunks of rules that can be 
avoided would be basically everything in the optional sections, as well 
as the aerospace and artillery sections (although you will most likely 
want to incorporate them once you've played a couple of games).

Of course, the easiest way to learn is by playing. I find similar things

with almost all rule sets. SGII is, IMO, no easier or more difficult to 
learn that DSII (and vice versa). If you've played one, the other 
will likely come very easily and naturally.

       Tony Christney
       tchristney@questercorp.com

  "If the end user has to worry about how the program was 
   written then there is something wrong with that program"
				  -Bjarne Stroustrup