KHR said: But my argument is that, to calculate a balanced points cost that
includes target signature, you have to take into account the vehicles' size
and equipment.
[Tomb] Elaborate. Why?
The more equipment, the more expensive going down to a given signature should
be.
[Tomb] Why? This is expensive in dollars (no contention). But in a point
system that has _NO_RELATION_ to money and only describes effect
_IN_GAME_ then any two vehicles displaying the same characteristic X
should have been costed (insofar as characteristic X is concerned)
identically. In the game, signature is how hard you are to hit with direct
fire. Two vehicles identically difficult to hit with direct fire should have
been costed using the same costing for that aspect of their design. If they
were in all other aspects equal (carrying capacity, weapon fit, fire cons,
ECM, etc), then it DOES NOT MATTER if one is a skateboard and the other is a
stealth tank. ONLY if other vehicle systems differ THAT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE
GAME should costing vary.
[Tomb] I'd be happy if you can supply an argument based on IN GAME
EFFECT that argues why it is necessary to account for vehicle size and
equipment since only the SIGNATURE dice is considered in the game.
> On 5-Apr-02 at 11:50, Tomb (tomb@dreammechanics.com) wrote:
> [Tomb] I'd be happy if you can supply an argument based on IN GAME
Ah choose your ground carefully. You may argue only as long as you don't use
the point I can't address.:)
I want to be able to travel to city X, game with player Y, and by looking at
the mini have a clue as to its' capabilities. Your plan does away with this.
It's excessively generic.
While DS and SG are generic there are assumptions made which, IMNSHO, make it
a good game. They're designed around a David Drake, Rick Shelly model of
military fiction. The fighting stays the same we just have better technology.
If you try to account for the skateboard that can take out a company that
feeling is going to go away and the games are going to become just another
<yawn> who can design the most munchkin of equipment.
When the discussion turns to "don't go there" it's time to start looking
"there".
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:44:22 -0500 (EST), Roger Books
<books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
> On 5-Apr-02 at 11:50, Tomb (tomb@dreammechanics.com) wrote:
I'm not saying that it isn't an admirable goal, but if you're hoping for a
rule system that will prevent twits from being twits...well, let's just say
that I think that you'd be better off searching for the Holy Grail. At least a
few people can claim to have *seen* that.
Even with the current system, there's nothing *in the rules* to prevent an
opponent from sticking bits of cheese on the table and claiming that they are
alien biotanks that extend weapon systems as needed.
"That hole there? It's a DFFG/5. And that one? HEL/3. Oh, and,
before I forget, these are grav cheese....I mean tanks."
Twits will be twits, no matter what you do.
> While DS and SG are generic there are assumptions made which, IMNSHO,
Not unless you relinquish all control over your own gaming. There are,
admittedly, people who enjoy cheese gaming for its own sake. More power to
them, say I! I don't believe in HWF, and these people bring more money and
more gamers into the system. And, best of all, their presence doesn't prevent
me from using the system as *I* want. If you're gaming with total strangers,
you're always taking a chance, no matter what the rules may be. Maybe you can
guess the exact capabilities of his tanks, but he uses loaded dice. Or doesn't
bathe. Or throws a tantrum when he loses.
These people exist. And when I encounter them, I'm not afraid to pack up my
minis, walk away, and chalk up the encounter to experience. And then I come
home and game with people I know and trust.
If you like the Drakeian assumptions, you can stick with them; that's never
going to change. Making the system more expansive can draw in those who find
Drakeian gaming too restricitve.