Generic Gaming

Brian, 

I agree wholeheartedly that having your own storyline is fun. It just
isn't
so good for interacting with folks at a long distance (email/cons/etc)
where
the more conventional 'canon' stuff is more well known. It can work, but
the
'canon' stuff is easier. 

The reason you see more conversation about FT and SG on the list (I
believe)
is that they are more commonly played. DS2 seems (if GZG ECC is any
indication) to be one of the least played (FT being first obviously) of
the
GZG games. 

Also, the reason FT might seem less generic and the reason more people
seem
to reference 'known' ships is because almost every ship mini has stats
(not
quite, but almost). In SG2, this is far from true. In DS2, I also
supsect
there is a lack of an official set of stats for every figure. SG and DS
players are thus forced to define more for themselves. FT has more
'pre-gen'
stuff done for it. And SG lacks a point system, so some new players
prefer
to stick to 'standard' TO&E to get some sort of scenario balance. It
takes
some playing to appreciate the impact of various units in SG and to
comprehend play balance. I routinely screw it up (prior to playtests).
Playtests tend to be of great use in SG2 I find (for events you want to
run
at cons and such). But once you have a good feel for the game, and
experience in playing it, you begin to understand what is an UberUnit
and
what will distort or lopside a battle. 

The great strength of SG2 (and the other GZG games) is that they can all
relatively easily be tailored to custom universes. That's sweet (and I'm
sure the marketing angle hasn't escaped St. Jon of Needham). It means
you
can 'play what you want to'. All GZG games seem to be 'play the game,
not
the rules'. Unlike some other large hulking games companies I can
name.... 

Thomas Barclay
A staunch fan of GZG loosely-millieu-coupled rulesets