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

On 11/3/06, John K Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Why does
> it NEED to be in games?

Although, as I pointed out in an earlier e-mail, I personally don't
need balanced games, the reason other people do is because we play
competitive games. People like to play games where they have the same
chance of winning as their opponent (casino blackjack tables not
withstanding), where winning is based largely on ability.

Point systems started as a way of quantifying the "quality" of a unit
relative to other units in the game. Even _Squad Leader_ had a point
system, in its DIY section. What Games Workshop discovered (or
blundered into, depending on your beliefs) is that building an army
with a point system was a game in its own right. Nothing new here,
min/maxing wasn't new when roleplayers started doing it either, and I
believe games like SFB were doing this way before GW got big. GW just
made it a larger part of their games than some, where building the
force was more important than actually playing with it.

Does this sound familiar? It should, it's the basis of most
collectible games, and in some respects it's a big part of FT. Soap
bubble carriers didn't come along because people were using them in
scenarios.

So, players like to build their own forces. In part this is because
"force building" is an interesting exercise. I wouldn't be surprised
to hear that there are a large number of FT ship designs that have
never seen play. In part it is so players aren't "hosed" by the guy
setting up the table. SG2 gives nothing but rough guidelines, making
it hard for two players to pick their armies when they are on their
own and still have an "even match" when they get together.

The goal of a scenario is to give both players an even chance of
winning the game (unless of course you have a 7 year old with a
fragile ego) even though the force composition and victory conditions
are be completely different for each player. It is _very_ hard to
balance scenarios. The General magazine used to run articles listing
the balance of various _Squad Leader_ scenarios based on playtest
results. X scenario might see the Axis win 40% of the time, while Y
scenario might see them win 55% of the time. Days of Wonder allow
gamers to record AARs for _Memoir '44_, giving folks an idea of how
balanced _Memoir 44_ scenarios are. It's not always obvious which
scenarios are balanced and which are not just by looking at them. I
played a Wake Island scenario with Logan (the aforementioned 7 year
old). I gave him the Marines because there were fewer units for him to
worry about, and they were on the defensive (which is usually easier
to play). I didn't find out until later that Wake Island is considered
heavily balanced in favour of the Japanese. It didn't matter, the
cards went his way, he made few mistakes, and his Marines slaughtered
my Japanese on the beaches.

This highlights one of the great advantages of unbalanced scenarios.
If you win an unbalanced scenario with the disadvantaged side, you did
something memorable. If you lose, you can always add "game balance" to
the reasons you "failed", along with "bad dice rolls".

Players often have to contend with opponents who stack the deck
against them for reasons of ego and poor self esteem. RPG.net has
several threads dealing with bad GMs or bad players. I personally know
of two people who cheat at roleplaying games. Most of us have probably
met folk who had bad experiences with games because the guy hosting
the event slanted a scenario in his favour or his buddy's favour.

When you can't trust the other guy, an even-point meeting engagement
with some sort of rules as to who gets to decide the terrain and/or
the side they enter the board from is the only way to get a competitve
game where both players have the same chance of winning. Most players
would rather have a competitive, if repetitive, game than an
interesting scenario they were hard pressed to win from the outset.

That's why games need point systems and game balance.

On the other hand...

...tell that to my 7 year old, whose eyes lit up when I said, "Not
only did you beat me last weekend in that _Memoir '44_ game, I found
out that it's supposed to be _really hard_ for the Marines to beat the
Japanese." We now both have a memory that no even-point meeting
engagement will ever match.

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