Re: [GZG] DSIII q

Grant et al.,

I agree with what you are saying in principle.	However, I would caution

that no rules system guarantees full participation.  As an example, I 
would point out the FT game that you invited me to participate in at the

ECC.  As you know, each player was given a small task force as part of a

larger, 2-sided engagement.  Random placement (or displacement, as the 
case may have been) altered entry points.  Some NSL task forces had
thrust 
of 2.  If my group of 2 ships had started in a far corner rather than at

the front of the battle, it's entirely possible that I'd have done
nothing 
but accel by +2 and move for the entire game.  Not saying that I'd
likely 
never get in a shot, but it could have happened.  If the faster FSE
ships 
had charged in, then turned and bolted for the far end of the table, I 
would NEVER have caught up.

So, rather than addressing this issue as a "rules problem", I would say 
that it should have been my job to suggest that you (the players) not
each 
control full companies, but rather that each player control 1 company 
command and one platoon in their own company, and 1 platoon in each
other 
players companies.  That way, when player A's company charges in,
players 
B and C each have a platoon to play with in the firefight.  That at
least 
increases the chance of fuller participation by each player. :)

Still, it's a valid point that you bring up, especially for convention 
games.

:)

John

John K. Lerchey
Assistant Director for Incident Response
Information Security Office
Carnegie Mellon University

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Grant A. Ladue wrote:

>
>  Let me rephrase it then.  For me, a "convention" game implies at
least 2
> players to a side and usually has more.  Quite frequently, more than 1
of these
> players will be new to the game.  Almost all of our local games fall
into this
> type of category whether they are played at a convention or not.  As
such, I
> would prefer to see the rules be set up such that it minimizes the
chances that
> one or more of these players spends most of the game doing nothing.
>
>  Now, that said, I've got no problem with the rules being configured
the way
> they currently are if that works well for smaller groups of players. 
I would
> just like to see a "standarized" set of options that would allow
groups to run
> it in a more "group friendly" way when appropriate.  I'm a big fan of
optional
> rules that help to prevent a large accumulation of "house rules" to
achieve the
> same effect.	Optional rules have the advantage of being accessible to
all and
> allow for formal answers to questions that arise.  I find that
flexibility in
> a ruleset is highly preferable.
>
>
>  grant
>
>
>
>>
>> Grant,
>>
>> I think your ideas of how to make a convention game
>> more interesting for all players are very good and
>> quite valid in that setting.
>>
>> I don't think that the rules should be written to
>> "keep folks happy at a convention".	I think that
>> should be up to the GM and the scenario.
>>
>> I think the rules should simulate combat with weapons
>> and equipment that are not available to us now but are
>> possible to exist given the laws of physics.  There
>> are situations in every battle where significant
>> portions of the forces available were not active. This
>> should be part of the game.	If the players do not use
>> all the force available then that is a tactical
>> mistake that should result in a loss.  If the rules do
>> not allow forces to enter the battle but have a good
>> reason for that (ie firefight ongoing is working
>> inside the normal game timeline) that is fine by me.
>>
>> Bob Makowsky
>>
>> - Note that I am a "simulationist", I would be happy
>> if the game did not have any players at all (even at a
>> con) if it resulted in the "most likely
>> historical(future historical) outcome.  I play games
>> to see what could have, should have, or would have
>> happened.  Winning and losing matter not and I have as
>> much fun watching what other players are contributing
>> to the simulation as I do actually moving and firing
>> myself.
>>
>> So given that, my comments are to maximize the
>> simulation of the system (though I understand that if
>> it is not a "fun" game then it will not sell and I
>> will not have the opportunity to buy it).
>>
>>
>> --- "Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@cse.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>    :-)  Yeah, I get that.  I'm just saying that in a
>>> convention setting, that
>>>  can be an extended period of time where everyone
>>> else isn't doing anything.
>>>  Minimizing that is a good thing.  I know that a lot
>>> of it is that we're not
>>>  yet really familiar with the new system and
>>> therefore don't know how to use it
>>>  to avoid this.  Still, my first look at it made me
>>> feel like putting in a few
>>>  things to help limit one or two firefights being
>>> the *entire* game would be a
>>>  good thing.  I'll happily concede the point if
>>> repetitive play in a similiar
>>>  setting shows that it doesn't come up often enough
>>> to be a concern.  I'm
>>>  concerned though, because I've been to many a
>>> convention and the only games
>>>  I didn't enjoy were where the scenario setup or the
>>> game rules left me unable
>>>  to do *anything* for most of the game.  For DSIII
>>> I'm a bit concerned that the
>>>  "shaken" result which forces unit to go to cover
>>> may often force one player's
>>>  forces entirely to cover.	If a long firefight or
>>> firefights occur after that,
>>>  you may never reach the end of the turn that allows
>>> those units to get back
>>>  into action.  I'm thinking that some mechanism for
>>> keeping things flowing to
>>>  turn end points is a good thing, especially in the
>>> convention type games.
>>>
>>>    Our game at ECC was ~ 3 to 3.5 hours of play, and
>>> the entirety of the game
>>>  was 3 firefights in the first turn.  We probably
>>> had 2 more to go to the end
>>>  of the turn (we had 2 more mbt units to ram home).
>>> I didn't get a close look
>>>  at the other game, but I thought it was similiar.
>>> I like how DSIII plays, but
>>>  I'm not sure that one turn convention games are a
>>> good idea.
>>>
>>>    I want to make sure that you understand that I'm
>>> not being critical of the
>>>  game system or how it's been developed.  I'm just
>>> thinking out loud about
>>>  what might be a flow issue in the game.  I rather
>>> enjoyed the faster movement
>>>  speeds and the morale.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   grant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gzg-l mailing list
>> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l