Re: [GZG] DSIII q

Grant,

I agree most heartily and like to see simple and
flexible with optional rules for genre.  

Games that deal easily with a larger number of players
are also a good thing.	In our club in NJ we are
always playing 4-6 players with occasional 8 player
games.	It is much more fun to have a set of rules
that keeps everyone occupied.  

So for the record I agree with you on playability.  I
just would not want to see simulation take too much of
a back seat to it.

Bob Makowsky

--- "Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@cse.Buffalo.EDU> 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
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l