Re: An apology for the unwashed Re: Heard at The Local Game Store ...

On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Tom.McCarthy wrote:
 
> No doubt about it, FT has some serious advantages over DS2 and SG2 for
> teaching / demo purposes.
> 
> FT is easy to learn, easy to teach, and easy to play.  SG takes longer
to
> learn and is harder to teach, but once learned is relatively quick to
play.

I've taught a number of people SG2, and all of them have gotten the idea
fairly quickly. They all even still talk to me...

First Rule: DON'T sit down and explain _everything_ before the game
starts. Surefire way to put your new victim to sleep.

I start by setting up the troops, with a quick blurb about each squad
and
a basic rundown of the quality/leadership chits. eg "This is a squad of
militia. There's a lot of them, their officer is decent but they're not
good troops and their equipment isn't the best." "This is an SAS PA
squad.
Just stay out of their way, OK?" :>

After a turn or two of just moving - during which you can float the
'combat move' system - you'll be into some shooting, probably at range.
Introduce range bands, Firepower, etc, then run through the casualty &
suppression rules AS THEY HAPPEN ON THE TABLE, or just before you think
they're going to happen.

> FT is clearly an SF game when you put those spaceship models on the
table.
> SG troops may look all too much like Vietnam, Desert Storm, or Bosnia.

This is one reason why I like walkers, 'gears & mechs - despite the
goofiness of them in 'real life', a plt of Size 1 inf. walkers on the
table screams 'SF' better than any number of regular AFVs, even if they
are grav or hover...

> FT is a lot like its competitors; it's about the clash of hardware
closely
> controlled by the players.  SG is a lot about the challenges of
controlling
> troops who have strong survival instincts, are fallible, and a bit
lazy,
> too.	Quite frankly, I think the morale system is one of the biggest
> differences in SG2 and it sets it apart from FT as well as from the
> competition.

True - that's why when teaching SG2, I don't start with the combat &
weaponry rules, but with the quality/leadership/morale rules.
 
> That said, lots of players want to play SF games so they can run
slavering
> aliens, implacable aliens, remorseless hordes of bugs, and other outre
> forces.  In FT, you can make your ships be flown by whatever aliens
you
> want, and the psychology of it is all played out in your head.  SG2
and DS2,
> so far, only offer players a chance to have neat zappers and bombs,
but no
> strange opponents (rules-wise; there's always strange gamers out
there).
> With the emphasis on morale and psychology rules, you really need
alien
> psychology and morale rules to make an enemy force which is truly
alien, and
> there aren't many of those.
> 
> I think Bugs Don't Surf or the scenario book could do a lot to bring
true SF
> elements into SG2 and DS2, and make the game more appealing.

BDS is the GZG product I've been waiting for for far too long... you
vacumnheads have a shiny new Fleet Book and a second one coming, but us
poor groundpounders are _still_ waiting on BDS!

An Alien race or three will make SG2 much more appealing to a certain
type
of SF gamer who doesn't think something's SF unless the table is covered
in multi-legged and/or tentacled horrors of some sort...

Brian (yh728@victoria.tc.ca)			      
-DS2/SG2/FR!/HOTT-
		   - http://warbard.iwarp.com/games.html -
-SciFi & Fantasy Wargaming House Rules, Photos, GWAutobasher, & more-
   -"Just because it's not nice doesn't mean it's not miraculous."-
	 - from Terry Pratchett's 'Interesting Times' -