Re: [GZG] DSIII q

  I think I need to step back here and clarify what concerns me.

    I'm not arguing for a mechanism that keeps everyone involved all the
time.
  I think I'm actually arguing the inverse.  I'm concerned that the
firefight
  mechanism (which is pretty cool) is *very* unpredictable.  A single
firefight
  can be very quick or possibly very long.  A very long firefight could
easily
  end up involving only a small section of one (or both) side's forces. 
In 
  this case, I'm concerned that a subset of the players can be
effectively out
  of the game for extended periods of time, possibly *most* of the time.
 
    Now, I agree that in most club settings where you're gaming with the
same
  people you game with all the time, this may not be much of a problem. 
On the
  other hand, you could be in a convention setting or any public forum
where 
  you may be trying to introduce new players and give people a taste for
the 
  game.  I think that a new player that never gets to do anything
because of 
  the rules is not likely to be interested in the rules again.	We've
mentioned
  that "careful" scenario design is important, but the very mechanism of
the
  firefight rules seem to me to work strongly against predictable
design.  An
  excellent game mechanic that potentially alienates the people playing
it is
  not a good thing.
    I would simply suggest that a few simple mechanics be worked out for

  putting an upper limit on the number of rounds that a firefight can go
within
  a turn.  I would offer these as an optional rule that can be used or
not
  depending on the situation and the group.  I would expect that a good
number
  of gaming groups (our own included) are likely to develop such a
"house rule"
  on their own if it isn't offered straight away.  I would prefer to see
such a
  rule be formally tested and offered to help keep it consistent.  Under
no
  circumstances am I arguing that this should be the default way of
playing.
  This would just allow for a game to keep "moving along" in the
situations
  where I think that is a good thing to do.

    Just one man's crazed opinion.

  grant

> I think in *this* case it's not a matter of "what are the odds" but
rather
> "sometimes shit happens".  :-/   If the player in question controlled
a
> squad from each platoon, well, what more can you do for them? Other
than le=
> t
> that person run everything, then no one else gets any action.
> 
> But then what if all the squads from all the platoons become shaken?
That
> would leave everyone on that side of the table, whatever they
controlled,
> pretty much out of it ('course it would likely end the game, too ;-)
).
> 
> At some point you have to say it's no longer feasible to divide things
up
> just to keep a player in the game for a turn.
> 
> Mk
> 
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l