Re: (DS): Systems per Class

Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> 
> I think all SF rules with design methodologies are poorly designed or
> executed as are most historical and (crawls out on limb) ALL fantasy
> efforts.  Reality is too complex for a reasonably simple game to try
and
> take in.  You compromise and there is where you get dinged.
>
> I am not saying not change it in house rules if you want but I am
saying
> that 'reflecting reality' is a Holy Grail or even a chimera that many
a
> game pursues too closely to it's ruin as a game. [...]

I think this depends (to some degree) to what you want/expect a
system to reflect. In the GZG games, iirc, the word "abstract"
plays a huge role in the design systems (at least for FT and DS2).
I'm not arguing with you, or anyone else, necessarily on this thread.
I just want to point out that all too often people forget about the
ABSTRACTING of things. Yeah, okay, so I have a tank that has X weapons
systems, but the rules say I can only have X-2 weapons systems. Well,
the two 'extra' weapons are just then abstracted into the overall
design. You can't model every little aspect of a vehicle (or starship)
in games with this level of simplicity. 

> As to DS 2, which is what I believe this thread started about,  we
have
> to remember that modern composite armors may (it's SF we have no idea
of
> what the 'reality' of the future might be) may be paper thin
> effectiveness compared to what nations use when DS 2 supposedly
occurs.

Oerjan pointed out a year or two ago (don't remember if it was on this
list or the test list) that if you were to try modelling contemporary
armour (specifically he cited the Abrahms MBT) with DS2 rules, the
armour distribution would have to be changed from 3/2/1/1 (front/sides/
top/bottom) to 8/2/1/1 (to reflect the stopping power of said armor
in the front as compared on a relative scale with all the other armor
around the vehicle and on other vehicles). But according to the rules,
you can't have that armor distribution. ;-)  So, need to accept that
this is not possible, or abstract the reality into how the rules are
written, or house-rule things (this latter is what I think most people
tend to do in any event, even me in some cases ;-).

Mk