Re: DS3 Heresy Mine

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:15:42 -0700 "Brian Bilderback"
<bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
>Glenn,
>
>>Why?
>>
>>Why have multiple points systems?
>
>I think that most of the points system fans will explain that we only 
>want 1 
>base point system.  The reason most want a new system is that the 
>current 
>point system does NOT reflect accurately the game effects of the 
>different 
>systems paid for.
>

This is SF remember? <grin>  I can PSB anything but we have been over
this in various forms and with multiple flavors before.  ANd will again
I
am sure. <VBG>

One Base point system for all genres?  Am I missing something?	Like the
Holy Grail?  <GRIN> Brian, you, and others, on this list are respected
by
me because you appear far more knowledgable then I feel (except maybe in
my areas of interest at work but they are irrelevant to SF - I think)
but
here I must disagree on principle without any math or technical detail
but only the repeated observation that changing the game that much makes
it into Stargrunt with treads.	YMMV.  This not meant as a personal
attack or a criticism of the ideas presented just as a response that
sees
what appears to be throwing out the baby with the water.  Again YMMV and
it's Jon's game, he'll do what he thinks best.	I will not complain if
he
completely redoes the game.  I *might* even buy DS3 <grin> and try it
(depending on how it is re-written) but I currently like DS2, warts and
all.  But maybe that's because I set up the scenarios and GM the baby
for
others to play.  If others were to have scenarios and I was to get  a
chance to play them I might see things differently.  Might.
 
>>Seems most of the work has been done
>>different times by multiple knowledgable people using different
>>assumptions, opinions, and for different 'genres' and there are many
>>great derived systems out there without GZG redoing the game.  You 
>like
>>40K, change the rules as GZG says you should.  You like B5, ditto.
>>Starblazers, ditto.  Mecha anything, ditto.  Starguard, ditto.  Yada,
>>yada, yada.
>
>True enough.  And a point value only system would only make this even 
>MORE 
>true - it would make NO assumptions about capacity of weapons, armor, 
>etc., 
>it would merely rate the relativecombat value of such.
>

In whose opinion and in what setting?  And, almost like reality, I think
there are two many unquantifiable (spelling? is that a real word?)
variables that will rise up post rewrite that will create at least as
many anomalies as DS2 has currently.  Again YMMV and such a system might
actually work.	But I won't be betting on it until long after it's
published, tested and dissected by the people on this list.  I expect
many of the same discussions will rise if only from a different starting
point...

>>Why does the *game* have to mirror either the current reality or a
>>projection into the future outside of the current generic background?
>
>It doesn't have to.  But as it stands it does - the capacity system 
>DOES 
>make certain assumptions that the game becomes tied to.  By freeing 
>the 
>points system from the capacity system, you can use ANY 
>capacity/construction system you want.  Or not.
>

And certain assumptions are in everything, especially SF war game rules.

You will just be trading assumptions.  No value judgment on whether it
would be improved is legitimately possible until DS3 is printed but that
hasn't happened yet. <grin>  And as the baby of the FT-SG-DS trio I
expect it will have the least incentive to be 'updated'.

>>Why is it so damn vital to take a system that has holes (all systems 
>have
>>'holes' and freaking min-maxing munchkins will always find them - 
>it's in
>>their degenerate genes) and junk it if it generally works?
>
>I suppose the answer to that is that it DOESN'T work - at least not as 
>well 
>as it would/should.  I'll let Oerjan and the other Numbers-gifted get 
>into 
>more detail, but many of the points values for different compnents, 
>especially armor and stealth, are either under or over priced.
>

Spare me the numbers, please!  I watch statistics used five days a week
to justify policy, frequently flawed policy, where lives and property
are
put in peril based on those numbers.  Yes, I have a experienced based
*bias* against such proofs.  They may be right but trying to achieve
'accuracy' of weapons systems so far in the future is well within my
bias
zone.  Plus it's a game. A war game (always the idea of combat
simulation
haunts my memory - we "won" the Vietnam War before a shot was fired but
some how that doesn't match my memories of the actual experience my
country went through) at that with all that implies.  A Science Fiction
War Game to boot.

Okay, I can find agreement here about DS2 having price/capacity
anomalies/problems  but I expect, given our obvious different centers of
reference that it might be more apparent then real.  Sigh.

>3B^2
>

Anyway,  I wasn't going to reply to any posts on this but let me finish
by saying that I respect your desire to change the game to reflect what
you believe is a 'better' game but I have been the 'odd man out' since I
was born and I guess I will have to reluctantly assume that position on
this subject too.  I think the systems presented for fixing DS2 are so
complicated and/or involved (and full of unstated assumptions about
systems that do not [and may, no probably will	never] exist) that I
find
them less intuitively satisfying then the current method, such as it may
be.

Differing in position but seeking the best game I can afford, I will
wait
and see what Jon T's decision is about DS3's format.  And IF it goes
this
way *and IF I find it works better as a game, then I will publicly
acknowledge - "Brian told me so."

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit: