Re: Blue Sky Thinking (was: Re: [GZG] re: Wanted)

On 11/3/06, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@mail.com> wrote:

> So...  what? Write off new players as "not mature enough" and lose
> them from the game?

No, definitely not. I guess "mature" was the wrong word. I didn't mean
it as the opposite of immature, I meant it in the sense that as a
gamer becomes more seasoned (that's probably the word I should have
used), he matures as a gamer. Some players never go past point-based
meeting engagements, and some games (naval and starship games, for
instance) find points very useful since they rarely have terrain to
contend with/equalize a force. Many of us get to the point where we
realize points in a ground combat game are inaccurate the moment you
put down asymmetric terrain on the board and/or you come up with
scenario requirements other than "kill the other guy".	We then
realize points are mostly irrelevant, that you are better off creating
a TO&E and using that as the basis of your scenarios. A "seasoned"
gamer doesn't sweat the point systems. If you are recreating Waterloo
or Gettysburg you don't worry about whether the sides are evenly
matched in points, or even necessarily have the same chance of
winning. It is a "seasoned" gamer that finds satisfaction in playing a
"forlorn hope" scenario.

That having been said, there is a certain "cost of entry" to SG2 that
you don't get with That Other Game. A scenario book would help, but I
suspect even _that_ wouldn't be enough. What's needed is a tutorial in
creating scenarios. Even then, as anyone who has done it enough will
tell you, the only way to get a really good scenario is to playtest
the dickens out of it. There is no way to balance a scenario
otherwise.

This kind of stuff could bury a small two-man outfit like GZG that's
first and foremost a miniatures company.

> I'm sure SG2 is not aimed at the 40K market (thank goodness), and I'm
> not suggesting that it should be. However players I've introduced to
> SG2 who *have* played 40K (but quite often looking for something
> better) are put off by the "no points" nature of SG2. "How can the
> game be fair?" they ask (and bear in mind that not a few have been
> r**ted in GW game-store games by bent rules and the battle-winning-
> model-of-the-month, so trust levels are low).

There in lies the problem. "How can it be fair?" Scenarios are quite
often _not_ fair, particularly the first time you play it.

I personally think that a point system should have been included in
SG2 (if you search the archives you'll find that a decade ago I was
poo-pooing point systems), if for no other reason than to attract
people who need them to make "fair" scenarios.

However, then you run the other side of the coin. Supply a point
system and then every other convention game becomes an equal points
meeting engagement.

Personally, I'm not sure how many people would be weaned off 40K for
SG2 even if it had a point system, but it's very hard to even try to
convert people without one. Or without a scenario book. The GZG web
site, undergoing redesign, could make for a good scenario repository.
A point system could be developed and stuffed up there, too, but I'm
not sure how "fair" it would be. Perhaps a broken point system, that
gives a hint at what can be done, is better than no point system at
all.

> Thanks for your comments on 15mm BTW. Some food for thought.

You're quite welcome. Germy has some 25mm cardstock sci-fi buildings.
I'm sure they could be scaled down to 15mm. Maybe he can make some
more (and add colour?) in his spare time, when he's not tempting me
with way cool looking 2mm figures...

Allan

-- 
Allan Goodall		 http://www.hyperbear.com
agoodall@hyperbear.com
awgoodall@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l