Re: SG:AC discussions (was: Official - More re GZG news update - NEW RELEASES!)

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:25:29AM -0500, Patrick Connaughton wrote:
>In my opinion, the targeted players are those who wish for more context
than
>simple "head-banging" face up matches.

Speaking for myself --

(an aside here: things I like and things that are commercially
successful are pretty much two disjoint sets, so doing stuff I like is
a horrible way to make money)

-- I very much agree. Even if you only have time to play a single
game, there should be some sort of outcome more than "I won, you
lost". Whether that's a lightweight campaign system, or just a victory
evaluation system that rewards you for preserving your forces as well
as for killing the bad guys, is a matter for the designer.

Chain of Command (again, sorry) has a campaign system that promises a
three-way evaluation: what higher command thinks of the bloke, what
his men think of him, and how he feels about himself. In practice it's
a bit of a disappointment: did he achieve his objectives, did he get
people killed? But something along those lines would certainly be
welcome.

>There have been comments above inconclusive games. These happen
>(sadly) all too often when you're using point based, matchup games.
>It becomes the challenge of the presenter to build a good scenario
>that provides victory conditions or success criteria that challenge
>the players to do more than body count.

Yes, I think that some sort of objective, even if it's just "get your
guys off the other edge of the map", almost always improves things.

R