Re: [GZG] Question: What's in a name - WYSIWYG or not?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTim
e for me to chime in, now that a number of others have.

These answers are my own, and may or may not conform to "popular
opinion" or
what you would like to hear. I make no claims for anyone else.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I posed this question on TMP the other day, and thought it was worth
> repeating here:
>
> If a mini (say, a vehicle or starship) is described as belonging to a
> specific power or faction in a specific game system, is that going to
> make you any less likely to use it with a different force or in a
> different game system than if that same mini was described in very
> generic terms?

Yes, if described as used by or belonging to a specific power/faction,
then
for THAT game system I would be less likely to use it in a different
force.

However, I have less self-imposed limitations for using the same mini in
OTHER game systems. For example, if I were to play Brigades SF tank game
and
use their minis, I'd probably use 'em as they are described by
power/faction. However, bringing some of the same minis over to the GZG
universe, and they would get reassigned wholesale to other
powers/factions
as the need required.

>
> If I named something as a "UNSC Marines MkVII "Piranha" Light Grav
> Tank", would you ONLY think of it in those terms, or would you still
> think "hey, cool tank, that'll do for my Peoples' Republic of New
> California Revolutionary GuardŠ"?

I think it's a rather black/white question you ask. I would *tend* to
think
of it in the described terms, HOWEVER, if it doesn't "fit" and I see it
fit
somewhere else better, then that's where it'll go in my head.

>
> And, if you DID use it for your own army, would any of your little
> gaming buddies grumble that "that's a <xxx> tank for <xxx> army/game,
> you can't use it for your PRNCŠ."
>

Nope. They don't know from SF minis. ;-)

>
> What prompted this thought was the fact that while our Stargrunt
> infantry figures have always been named for particular powers within
> the game background, the vehicle ranges have always been kept fairly
> generic rather than being specifically tied to a faction, and we've
> always encouraged people to use them for whatever forces they like;
> but I'd be very interested in any opinions either way on thisŠ.
>

I'd personally like to see power-specific vehicles. But that's just me.

>
> Related to this, do folks like to see vehicle types NAMED, even if
> they are not specifically tied to a force or faction? Do you think of
> the V15-01 as a Cougar, or just as a tracked MBT...?
>

Here I feel the most strongly about. Yes, I think you should name
vehicles.
It does more than just give it a "name" - it gives it an *identity*. It
is
very much like rock climbing routes. You can have a bunch of different
routes up a wall - one up a corner, one up a crack, one through an
overhanging roof, one up a blank face. But if one climber talks to
another,
they'll want to refer to the routes by name. As soon as, say, the crack
climb is named, mention the name to anyone who has climbed there or
heard of
it and instantly everyone will be on the same page as to which climb one
is
referring to.  I think this has a direct application to minis. You call
something the "Cougar MBT", and everyone who is remotely familiar with
it
will instantly know the mini that is being referred to. Call it instead
V15-01 tracked MBT, and it just won't bring the same visual cue to most
people (except those who memorized the catalog) (no, I'm not one who
memorized the catalog ;-) ). Names have meaning, names have power. Names
give identification for everyone.

Annnnd that's my two bits worth.

Mk