RE: DS3 points systems, ongoing (and ONtopic!)...

Hi,

Several thoughts re this thread.

1. Good for us!  We've kept an interesting thread on topic for nearly 2
days now...

2. TomB - good job.

3. I'm seeing a few posts that are seem to be making the point that
"there
is only 1 right way to do a tank - they are the way they are because
that's
the way to do them.  Fullstop."  This is a dangerous trend.  Well, maybe
not dangerous, but certainly limiting.	Sure, there seems to be a best
way
to build a tank now, here in real life.  But, that has to do with
several
factors - primarily technology level and intended use.	We build tanks
the
way we do now because that's the optimized design for the way we use
tanks
now, and with our current technology.  Change the technology, and the
equation changes.  Change the intended use, and the equation changes. 
Both
technology level and "cultural factors" (ie stuff like how the tank will
be
used, what your army thinks about the role of the armoured vehicle, etc
etc) are part of "background assumptions".  As TomB pointed out, the DS
points system should accomodate the widest possible variety of
background
assumptions.  

We shouldn't get caught up in trying to build a system that is
"realistic"
for *right now*.  Well, perhaps I should say that we shouldn't get
caught
up in trying to build a system forces people to work with today's
assumptions and limitations.

It would be nice if the points system was realistic if modeling a
current-day situation - but it should not force the players to work with
those assumptions.

I don't think that a perfectly "fair" or "balanced" points system is
possible.  There is always going to be some way, sticking strictly by
the
rules, to munchkinize a points system.	OR, the points system will be
*really* bland, giving perfectly mathematically modelled options, and
probably very few of them...

Ok, so what? This is where judgement and good gamesmanship come into
play.
Given that any points system will have inherent imperfections if abused,
we
can create one that is pretty good, working within a set of assumptions.

What assumptions?  I'm not talking about technology or cultural factors,
as
mentioned before.  In most circumstances, any military force worth their
salt is going to have *some* idea what equipment their opponents can
field.
 That is *basic* intelligence.	I'm not talking specifics - like exact
weapon calibre or weight of explosive charge in a warhead.  I mean stuff
like "they use tracked vehicles, they use metal armour, they use
projectile
based weapons that have chemical propellants" or "they use vehicles that
fly, they use ceramic based armours, they use plasma based directed
energy
weapons.  The sorts of things that would be relatively easy to determine
after one or two engagements.  More importantly, the sorts of things
that
would be commonly known if two different groups shared the same universe
and were in contact with each other.

Ok, so what?  So... unless you've created a scenario specific situation
where forces that are *completely* unknown to each other and coming from
*radically different* technology/cultural bases are squaring off, your
opponent should have *some* idea of the tech behind your vehicles.

The problem someone mentioned earlier:

"I see five big armoured vehicles with big guns, and one little jeep
with a
little gun.  I'll shoot the big ones.  OH NO, the little one had the
Generica-SuperWaveMotion-InstantMunchkinIAutomagicallyWin-UltraCannon
and
it kills my entire army in one round of fire..."

This should not happen.  Why?  Like I said, unless you've created a
scenario where the forces facing off are completely unknown to each
other,
each side should have SOME idea about what their opponents are capable
of
fielding.  Not specifics, but *in general*.  There would have to be
something pretty radical going in in the other guy's R&D if he had the
UltraCannon armed jeep and you had never seen one before.  SO... Players
should TELL each other if they have a figure that is radically different
from what it LOOKS like.  That should be a GIVEN in any game...

We have to stand back at some point and say "Any point system can't be
perfect for every situation, and some people are going to be munchkins. 
It
is reasonable of us to expect some degree of 'fair play' and good
gamesmanship, and if munchkins abuse the system, well so be it."

SO, in practical terms (getting back to the point - which is all about a
points system) we should

a) Not try to make it perfectly balanced in every possible situation.
b) Assume that the players will exercise some degree of good
gamesmanship,
and not cheese out on each other.  If they DO want to play that way,
more
power to them, but the points system won't be built to accomodate them.
c) Realize that background assumptions can change everything, so try to
build a system that works independently of background assumptions, other
than:
d) Assume that most players will want to play in a universe that is
internally consistant/logical, and if they want to play WWII era tanks
vs.
Traveler TL15 super flying tanks with heavy plasma cannon, there is a
*scenario specific* reason for it and they *know, ahead of time* that
the
system won't balance out properly in that case.  So as part of the
points
system rules, indicate that the system will break down if they force
extremes.  Then let them break it if they want to.

There will be extreme circumstances - like the WWII vs. TL15 Supertank
scenario - in which a points system will break down trying to provide
perfect balance.  We shouldn't be designing to accomodate those -
because
we'll beat ourselves silly trying to make that "fair" and "balanced". 
But
there is a lot of common sense middle ground that allows us to have a
points system that is flexible enough to create a lot of different
designs,
and does not force us to develop vehicles along the *one* most effective
path to win win win every time.

4.  Good point John about creating complete forces vs. individual
vehicles.
 That should figure in here too...

********************************************

Adrian Johnson