There has been a lot of talk on gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu about capacity
versus a myriad ideas of points based systems in a Dirtside 2 remake.
Here's my heresy.
Rant mode on.
Why?
Why have multiple points systems? Seems most of the work has been done
different times by multiple knowledgable people using different assumptions,
opinions, and for different 'genres' and there are many great derived systems
out there without GZG redoing the game. You like 40K, change the rules as GZG
says you should. You like B5, ditto. Starblazers, ditto. Mecha anything,
ditto. Starguard, ditto. Yada, yada, yada.
Why does the *game* have to mirror either the current reality or a projection
into the future outside of the current generic background? Why is it so damn
vital to take a system that has holes (all systems have
'holes' and freaking min-maxing munchkins will always find them - it's
in their degenerate genes) and junk it if it generally works?
Sure there are spots where the current system has inconsistentness, just like
FT had the problem with top end escorts being significantly more powerful
proportionally then bottom end cruisers... but the solution was a fix of the
system not a new system.
And that's what most of these threads have been, IMO. NOT DS3 but "Star
Tanker"! I think the granularity of DS3 (which is perfectly fine for me) makes
the attempts to perfectly portray much of the discussion I read before I
started deleting before reading a change in the game itself that goes beyond
the appropriate intended granularity of the game itself and creates a new,
completely different game. Not that a game of that flavor might not be great
game but that would not be DS3, IMO. And DS3 is the game of the three GZG
makes that is my primary interest.
Yes, I'd love to see linked FT-DS-SG rules but I doubt it would be easy
and I doubt that any or all three games would merge intact. And the one who
would suffer the most in payability would, IMO again, be DS3.
Yes, I think there are some problems with DS2, most of which relate to the
players (How many people field an HVC equipped, tracked CFE powered force as
their main army? Anybody use a DFFG armed force as their personal favorite
when the MDC and HKP calls so seductively?) Sure some weapons are 'more
effective' in one off game terms. GMS are win big or die completely, at least
for me. And HEL's (unless the chits are replaced by one the die roll methods
we discussed on the GZG list before) are essentially too expensive for their
effectiveness unless you play on an flat featureless game table (Planet
Billiard Ball anyone?) but they sure look cool in the rule book on first read.
Now, maybe my setting up a situation where all the weapon systems are
presented by third to fifth tier groups within neighboring star systems has
prejudiced me towards
semi-campaign play but the game works, with caveats and limitations,
for me pretty much as it is.
So, fix it but fix it without making it a retread of Stargrunt 2 is my
'theology of the day'.
YMMV as always.
Rant mode off.
Gracias,
Glenn,
> Why?
I think that most of the points system fans will explain that we only want 1
base point system. The reason most want a new system is that the current point
system does NOT reflect accurately the game effects of the different systems
paid for.
> Seems most of the work has been done
True enough. And a point value only system would only make this even MORE
true - it would make NO assumptions about capacity of weapons, armor,
etc.,
it would merely rate the relativecombat value of such.
> Why does the *game* have to mirror either the current reality or a
It doesn't have to. But as it stands it does - the capacity system DOES
make certain assumptions that the game becomes tied to. By freeing the points
system from the capacity system, you can use ANY
capacity/construction system you want. Or not.
> Why is it so damn vital to take a system that has holes (all systems
I suppose the answer to that is that it DOESN'T work - at least not as
well
as it would/should. I'll let Oerjan and the other Numbers-gifted get
into more detail, but many of the points values for different compnents,
especially armor and stealth, are either under or over priced.
3B^2
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:15:42 -0700 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
This is SF remember? <grin> I can PSB anything but we have been over this in
various forms and with multiple flavors before. ANd will again I am sure.
<VBG>
One Base point system for all genres? Am I missing something? Like the Holy
Grail? <GRIN> Brian, you, and others, on this list are respected by me because
you appear far more knowledgable then I feel (except maybe in
my areas of interest at work but they are irrelevant to SF - I think)
but here I must disagree on principle without any math or technical detail but
only the repeated observation that changing the game that much makes it into
Stargrunt with treads. YMMV. This not meant as a personal attack or a
criticism of the ideas presented just as a response that sees what appears to
be throwing out the baby with the water. Again YMMV and it's Jon's game, he'll
do what he thinks best. I will not complain if he completely redoes the game.
I *might* even buy DS3 <grin> and try it
(depending on how it is re-written) but I currently like DS2, warts and
all. But maybe that's because I set up the scenarios and GM the baby for
others to play. If others were to have scenarios and I was to get a chance to
play them I might see things differently. Might.
> Seems most of the work has been done
In whose opinion and in what setting? And, almost like reality, I think there
are two many unquantifiable (spelling? is that a real word?) variables that
will rise up post rewrite that will create at least as many anomalies as DS2
has currently. Again YMMV and such a system might actually work. But I won't
be betting on it until long after it's published, tested and dissected by the
people on this list. I expect many of the same discussions will rise if only
from a different starting
point...
> Why does the *game* have to mirror either the current reality or a
And certain assumptions are in everything, especially SF war game rules.
You will just be trading assumptions. No value judgment on whether it would be
improved is legitimately possible until DS3 is printed but that
hasn't happened yet. <grin> And as the baby of the FT-SG-DS trio I
expect it will have the least incentive to be 'updated'.
> Why is it so damn vital to take a system that has holes (all systems
Spare me the numbers, please! I watch statistics used five days a week to
justify policy, frequently flawed policy, where lives and property are put in
peril based on those numbers. Yes, I have a experienced based *bias* against
such proofs. They may be right but trying to achieve 'accuracy' of weapons
systems so far in the future is well within my bias zone. Plus it's a game. A
war game (always the idea of combat simulation
haunts my memory - we "won" the Vietnam War before a shot was fired but
some how that doesn't match my memories of the actual experience my country
went through) at that with all that implies. A Science Fiction War Game to
boot.
Okay, I can find agreement here about DS2 having price/capacity
anomalies/problems but I expect, given our obvious different centers of
reference that it might be more apparent then real. Sigh.
> 3B^2
Anyway, I wasn't going to reply to any posts on this but let me finish by
saying that I respect your desire to change the game to reflect what you
believe is a 'better' game but I have been the 'odd man out' since I was born
and I guess I will have to reluctantly assume that position on this subject
too. I think the systems presented for fixing DS2 are so
complicated and/or involved (and full of unstated assumptions about
systems that do not [and may, no probably will never] exist) that I find them
less intuitively satisfying then the current method, such as it may be.
Differing in position but seeking the best game I can afford, I will wait and
see what Jon T's decision is about DS3's format. And IF it goes this way *and
IF I find it works better as a game, then I will publicly
acknowledge - "Brian told me so."
Gracias,