DS3 points systems, ongoing (and ONtopic!)...

Hi,

Several thoughts re this thread.

1. Good for us! We've kept an interesting thread on topic for nearly 2 days
now...

2. TomB - good job.

3. I'm seeing a few posts that are seem to be making the point that "there
is only 1 right way to do a tank - they are the way they are because
that's the way to do them. Fullstop." This is a dangerous trend. Well, maybe
not dangerous, but certainly limiting. Sure, there seems to be a best way to
build a tank now, here in real life. But, that has to do with several
factors - primarily technology level and intended use.  We build tanks
the way we do now because that's the optimized design for the way we use tanks
now, and with our current technology. Change the technology, and the equation
changes. Change the intended use, and the equation changes. Both technology
level and "cultural factors" (ie stuff like how the tank will be used, what
your army thinks about the role of the armoured vehicle, etc etc) are part of
"background assumptions". As TomB pointed out, the DS points system should
accomodate the widest possible variety of background assumptions.

We shouldn't get caught up in trying to build a system that is "realistic" for
*right now*. Well, perhaps I should say that we shouldn't get caught up in
trying to build a system forces people to work with today's assumptions and
limitations.

It would be nice if the points system was realistic if modeling a
current-day situation - but it should not force the players to work with
those assumptions.

I don't think that a perfectly "fair" or "balanced" points system is possible.
There is always going to be some way, sticking strictly by the rules, to
munchkinize a points system. OR, the points system will be *really* bland,
giving perfectly mathematically modelled options, and probably very few of
them...

Ok, so what? This is where judgement and good gamesmanship come into play.
Given that any points system will have inherent imperfections if abused, we
can create one that is pretty good, working within a set of assumptions.

What assumptions? I'm not talking about technology or cultural factors, as
mentioned before. In most circumstances, any military force worth their salt
is going to have *some* idea what equipment their opponents can field.
 That is *basic* intelligence.  I'm not talking specifics - like exact
weapon calibre or weight of explosive charge in a warhead. I mean stuff like
"they use tracked vehicles, they use metal armour, they use projectile based
weapons that have chemical propellants" or "they use vehicles that fly, they
use ceramic based armours, they use plasma based directed energy weapons. The
sorts of things that would be relatively easy to determine after one or two
engagements. More importantly, the sorts of things that would be commonly
known if two different groups shared the same universe and were in contact
with each other.

Ok, so what? So... unless you've created a scenario specific situation where
forces that are *completely* unknown to each other and coming from
*radically different* technology/cultural bases are squaring off, your
opponent should have *some* idea of the tech behind your vehicles.

The problem someone mentioned earlier:

"I see five big armoured vehicles with big guns, and one little jeep with a
little gun. I'll shoot the big ones. OH NO, the little one had the
Generica-SuperWaveMotion-InstantMunchkinIAutomagicallyWin-UltraCannon
and it kills my entire army in one round of fire..."

This should not happen. Why? Like I said, unless you've created a scenario
where the forces facing off are completely unknown to each other, each side
should have SOME idea about what their opponents are capable of fielding. Not
specifics, but *in general*. There would have to be something pretty radical
going in in the other guy's R&D if he had the UltraCannon armed jeep and you
had never seen one before. SO... Players should TELL each other if they have a
figure that is radically different from what it LOOKS like. That should be a
GIVEN in any game...

We have to stand back at some point and say "Any point system can't be perfect
for every situation, and some people are going to be munchkins. It is
reasonable of us to expect some degree of 'fair play' and good gamesmanship,
and if munchkins abuse the system, well so be it."

SO, in practical terms (getting back to the point - which is all about a
points system) we should

a) Not try to make it perfectly balanced in every possible situation. b)
Assume that the players will exercise some degree of good gamesmanship, and
not cheese out on each other. If they DO want to play that way, more power to
them, but the points system won't be built to accomodate them. c) Realize that
background assumptions can change everything, so try to build a system that
works independently of background assumptions, other than: d) Assume that most
players will want to play in a universe that is
internally consistant/logical, and if they want to play WWII era tanks
vs. Traveler TL15 super flying tanks with heavy plasma cannon, there is a
*scenario specific* reason for it and they *know, ahead of time* that the
system won't balance out properly in that case. So as part of the points
system rules, indicate that the system will break down if they force extremes.
Then let them break it if they want to.

There will be extreme circumstances - like the WWII vs. TL15 Supertank
scenario - in which a points system will break down trying to provide
perfect balance.  We shouldn't be designing to accomodate those -
because we'll beat ourselves silly trying to make that "fair" and "balanced".
But there is a lot of common sense middle ground that allows us to have a
points system that is flexible enough to create a lot of different designs,
and does not force us to develop vehicles along the *one* most effective path
to win win win every time.

4. Good point John about creating complete forces vs. individual vehicles.
That should figure in here too...

********************************************