[GZG] [OFFICIAL] Another question: SF game styles...?

A quick poll-type question where everyone can chip in with their
opinions:

What style(s) of SF ground combat game do you prefer, and why?

Possible categories:

(a) "Realistic" games that are a serious projection of current
technology/tactics/organisation, with a few SF ideas added?

(b) Games based in a specific "hard SF" background, true to the source
material even if some of it has already been overtaken by Real World stuff
(Hammer's Slammers and Aliens are prime examples...)?

Love to see someone do the Aliens APC and Drop Ship....)

(d) anything else you can think of....?
Some post -apocalyptic-Mad Max-ish vehicles

> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

Yes.

As long as everyone at the table is playing the same game the same way at the
same time, any of those can be fun. Problems only arise where in a "generic"
pickup game one person is playing it one way, someone else is playing it the
other.

> Ground Zero Games wrote:

I am playing enough 'modern' games that 'realistic near projected future'
doesn't hold much attraction for me.

A game based on a specific background (b or c) is much more attractive as it
enables players to easily identify with the game. Whether you give me a game
with a fixed system and background, or a flexible system with background
specific army lists is I think less important.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> A quick poll-type question where everyone can chip in with their

Depends on my mood. :-)   Which isn't the answer you wanted, probably.
:-D
I probably lean more towards A and B, but I do enjoy C games as well.

Mk

in order B, A, C

D would be throwing in Psionics/Magic

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:49 AM
To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Another question: SF game styles...?

> A quick poll-type question where everyone can chip in with their

I'm going with (d).

I like the general "Tufflyverse" motif. The major powers are nice projections
into a possible future. However, I also like to have the option to expand it.
For example, I use a series of grav tanks (DSM114 is one of them, I think)
with Adler Kiff infantry in powered armor as an alien force loosely
amalgamated from Star Gate Jaffa and Kif in the Chanur books. I also like to
pull in OGREs once in a while. One of our players has a mercenary company of
Mechs. I want all of this stuff to "work" in my games.

That also means adding some new weapons. I want some more generic energy
weapons, so I've written up stats for blasters and phased particle cannons.

That said, my focus is still in the DS3 realm. I don't think that it would
make much sense for SG:AC to have OGREs in it... Though I do have two of Joel
Frocks 15mm scale OGRE Mk IIIs...
:)

J

> A quick poll-type question where everyone can chip in with their

My first love is the custom, player-created setting. What I love about
SG/DS are that they tend to support a fair amount of flexibility if
you're disciplined about removing options that don't apply in your setting.

Overly "realistic" rules tend to be boring and show their age quickly. I'm a
fan of hard science fiction, but some license for drama keeps it fun.

I really don't have any interest in using the system for re-creating
movie or TV series battles, like B5, aliens, SW, etc. Personal quirk.

Robert Mayberry
(678) 984-5113
Robert.Mayberry@gmail.com

> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
:-D
> I probably lean more towards A and B, but I do enjoy C games as well.

> On 7/1/08, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

I like this if it's written well, and imaginitive, and I have been seeing a
lot of well done ideas here, including the Tuffleyverse.
> (b) Games based in a specific "hard SF" background, true to the

Yes, I game here a lot, including Hammers Slammers, Traveller and 2300, to
name a few (Kravak make great Kafers). I also do
post-apoclayptic Cold War moderns in 20mm (aka Twilight 2000 related).
> (c) Games where the background (deliberately) has no connection with

Not real nuts about this kind of gaming, for the most part though I do do 15mm
Stargate (my version, with Army Rangers and Delta coming out to play) and
Terminator in 15mm.

> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

I'm a B or C kinda guy.

I want to play games that feel like Appleseed/Ghost in the Shell meets
Aliens with a good healthy dose of 40k and/or Shadowrun, on strange
new worlds.

Can I use the phrase Hard Science Fantasy :-)

Mostly I want a good set of rules that will allow the above and be fun
(i.e. I think it will all turn out to be (nano?)robots/RPVs fighting
(nano?)robots/RPVs, but that's not fun).

> What style(s) of SF ground combat game do you prefer, and why?

I'm not as big a fan, as these tend to degenerate into armchair generals

loudly voicing their opinions on what is and isn't possible, which detracts
from the laser guns and spaceships.

> (b) Games based in a specific "hard SF" background, true to the

Again, not a huge fan, as it leads to nerds loudly arguing interpretations
of super-specific details of the genre, instead of getting on with the
enjoyment of the game.

(Exception: the GZGverse, since it's, you know, all yours to mess around

with.)

> (c) Games where the background (deliberately) has no connection with

This is where I tend to lean, as it gives us the most freedom of the
background to come up with fun stuff to play with, and not get slogged down in
the details.

> (d) anything else you can think of....?

Terrible space monkeys!

-P.

> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> (a) "Realistic" games that are a serious projection of current

A mixture of B and A, actually. I prefer B, but it really, really bugs me when
the game is supposed to represent a future universe but you can't do something
that's available today.

G'day,

> What style(s) of SF ground combat game do you prefer, and why?

(e) All of the above. Not always all at once, but across a spectrum of games
we will touch on all of these. In a pick up game we'll typically have GZG
verse extended by our mad imaginations to cover some new
homebrew nation/species.

That's not going to make your life simpler I suspect;)

Cheers

> (d) anything else you can think of....?

'...nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. '

The_Beast

What style(s) of SF ground combat game do you prefer, and why?

Possible categories:

(a) "Realistic" games that are a serious projection of current
technology/tactics/organisation, with a few SF ideas added?

Most Enjoyable.

(b) Games based in a specific "hard SF" background, true to the source
material even if some of it has already been overtaken by Real World stuff
(Hammer's Slammers and Aliens are prime examples...)?

Can be enjoyable.

(c) Games where the background (deliberately) has no connection with our real
world, eg Star Wars?

Can be fun, but I tend to enjoy the above two categories more.

(d) anything else you can think of....?

Not really that falls into the genre.

In general I like the GZG series because I enjoy the ability to adapt and
home-brew the range of scales for my own setting. I've used it for
Cyberpunk, I've used it for Traveller, I've used it for CyberTraveller (see
a progression?), and I've run games in the GZG-verse as well.

> G'day,

This question was more prompted by general curiosity than any need to research
a specific point, so all answers (yes, even yours, Beth!)
are interesting....  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

> Cheers

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Jul 1, 2008, at 1:49 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> A quick poll-type question where everyone can chip in with their

Some of A and B. Zap guns and what not have always just stood in for the
sixgun of the western genre in my mind. Advancement of what is the current
tech in a lot of ways is more science fiction than total replacements.

The settings that attract me are the work-a-day ones where tech just
is, and is obviously being used, Traveller, Outland (Shotguns in space),
Firefly, your universe. all of these have a feel for a working universe. As
such i like small games that scale to everyday concerns.

Jon asked:

What style(s) of SF ground combat game do you prefer, and why?

Possible categories:

(a) "Realistic" games that are a serious projection of current
technology/tactics/organisatio
n, with a few SF ideas added?

(b) Games based in a specific "hard SF" background, true to the source
material even if some of it has already been overtaken by Real World stuff
(Hammer's Slammers and Aliens are prime examples...)?

(c) Games where the background (deliberately) has no connection with our real
world, eg Star Wars?

(d) anything else you can think of....?

------------------

I'd have to say somewhere between a) and b). The Hard SF books I like
are the ones that are sort of up-to-date-plus-a-bit. Hammer's might
have been no so bad at one point, but it is dating now. There is newer
'military SF' that is like modern+looking ahead.

I find that if I have a realistic ruleset, I can usually find reasonably easy
ways to break those rules to produce b) or c) effects. If I have a game which
does not provide a realistic feeling basis, it is a much harder proposition to
twist a ruleset of type c) into shape to do more realistic things.

Voice of the Tuffleyverse wrote on 07/01/2008 05:14:10 PM:

> *Beth*:

On the contrary, I'm going to assume this, and the other answers, will make it
MUCH more difficult, as they are all over the place.

The combined four books for FT give generic and simple 'realism', fiddly
realism, specific 'out there', and richly developed background, between the
1) original rules, 2) vector movement, 3) weird add-ons like wave guns
and fighters, 4) FTII and MoreT fluff extended into fleet book fleets.

Why do we still talk about BDS? Gropos want the same cake-and-eat-it-too
that we Vacc-heads so deservedly enjoy.

Glad I don't have to think about it; would keep me up nights...

The_Beast

> On Tuesday 01 July 2008 09:49:43 Ground Zero Games wrote:

When I think of Hard SF, I tend to think of authors such as Greg Bear, Stephen
Baxter, Vernor Vinge or Charles Stross. None of them would translate well to
the gaming table (though the Tines might be interesting to model in SG).

I think soft SF settings like Traveller or the GZGverse are
reasonably well suited to gaming - they ignore the very
probable advances that would make gaming difficult, whilst having a bit of the
stuff that allows for some fun options
(anti-grav and FTL (minus any pesky time travel)).

Something that could handle a setting like Transhuman Space or Ghost in the
Shell would be very interesting, but also I think hard to do.

So, I think (a), with options covering things like anti-grav,
cybershells and zombies/xenomorphs (being able to do something
like 28 days later, or even Doom, would be nice - so add Horror
to the list of genres) which can be layered on top (but not part of the core
rules) would be nice.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Jul 1, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Ryan Fisk wrote:

> I want to play games that feel like Appleseed/Ghost in the Shell meets

That come pretty close to where I am at.

> Can I use the phrase Hard Science Fantasy :-)

Sure 'cuase I'm stealing it.

Evyn MacDude infojunky@ceecom.net

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> When I think of Hard SF, I tend to think of authors such as

I think that might be part of the problem with a poll like this. It's not
exactly obvious what constitutes "hard science fiction" and what is "soft
science fiction".

When I was growing up, hard SF consisted of fiction with a relatively accurate
look at science, even if some things were allowed that were technically
impossible. Hard SF didn't mean "no FTL!". Hard SF meant that when the author
based his story on the tidal pull of a neutron star he did his homework. "Soft
SF" was everything that wasn't "hard".

By the definition I grew up with, the Tuffleyverse swings between hard and
soft SF. There's not enough detail to know if what the Tuffleyverse postulates
is pure space opera. SG2 in particular seems to be close to "hard SF".

Of course today we have another definition muddying the waters: Mundane SF.
This is an extreme variant on hard SF, where only that which is possible is
written. No FTL. No interplanetary adventures. Strictly what makes physical,
logical, and economic sense. I haven't read any myself, and I've heard a
number of people grumble against mundane SF zealots who turn up their noses at
other forms of SF as "badwrongfun".

I noticed Jon didn't mention mundane SF in his poll. There are few games that
fit that title, though there are a few on the console game platforms (the
games that extrapolate "future warrior" tech into the next decade would
qualify).

I have a little different take on this.

I prefer games with rules based on effect, and I can decide the style by
choosing the effects I want. This works best with a point system, though of
course there are weaknesses with that.

So if I made a giant walking thingy in a more realistic world, I might add
whatever walking ability, plus some flaws that make it easy to spot and shoot.
If I wanted to make it in a more fantastic setting, I might
not add the easy-to-shoot stuff, because it is so big it obviously can
shrug off your puny guns, or whatever.  With points and effects-based
rules, at least these can co-exist on the game table, though those using
them may think the other is loony.:) This points to expectations of those with
whom you play being more important than the rules' assumptions.

Effects-based rules can ignore whether the technology should work, and
you just choose the effects that describe what you're after. I think of The
WarEngine, which is the underlying rules in Shock Force.

Many years ago, I originally bought GW's Space Marine 6mm game as a big box of
minis to use with Dirtside II. But I felt that DSII made assumptions about
walkers, capacity, etc, that I didn't necessarily want to live with. That
probably meant I was happy with the GW game (and I was for a while, because
the basic rules were simpler, until I found out about all the layers that get
put on).

There are probably lots of assumptions in rules that can't be abstracted to
effects, however, like the role of morale or quality, the importance
of squad vs individuals, etc.  But I'm not sure if that's a hard SF /
soft SF issue, or something else.

Great point!

I think that it all boils down to how much suspension of disbelief a reader is
willing to accept. Of course that's going to vary from person to person. It
even varies between disciplines: the same "hard science fiction fan" who
demands rigorous six decimal precision in his
physics might accept a fair amount of hand-waving in biology and total
nincompoopery in his politics and economics.

To me, one of the gigantic strengths of GZG's material is that while there's a
unifying theme to it, it is still tremendously customizable to fit different
players' preferences and prejudices.

Rob

> On 7/2/08, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:

> By the definition I grew up with, the Tuffleyverse swings between hard

Jon asked:

What style(s) of SF ground combat game do you prefer, and why?

Possible categories:

(a) "Realistic" games that are a serious projection of current
technology/tactics/organisatio
n, with a few SF ideas added?

(b) Games based in a specific "hard SF" background, true to the source
material even if some of it has already been overtaken by Real World stuff
(Hammer's Slammers and Aliens are prime examples...)?

(c) Games where the background (deliberately) has no connection with our real
world, eg Star Wars?

(d) anything else you can think of....?

I'd be a mostly A and possibly B (if it's not too silly) kind of guy.

Doesn't sound as if the nose-up-turning is all on one side...

I'm a bit of a Mundane myself, though it depends on what "possible" means.
Mostly I mean "doesn't breach the laws of science as we understand them
today", and not "I'm going to patent it tomorrow".
So, for example, I say no to FTL travel, but yes to hydrogen-
deuterium fusion (we know it is possible, and we know how to make it
happen, but we can't harness it for controlled power-generation or
rocket propulsion).

But hey, the "chanting druids in the engine-room" SF worlds can be
fun too. I enjoyed the Honor Harrington books for example, until the
series broke the cardinal rule of space-opera and became dull (IMHO
of course. Your milage may vary).

Best regards, Robert Bryett

> On 03/07/2008, at 05:14 , Allan Goodall wrote:

> Of course today we have another definition muddying the waters:

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't sound as if the nose-up-turning is all on one side...

> From what I understand, and I'm getting this second hand, there are
No FTL? That bites!"

> But hey, the "chanting druids in the engine-room" SF worlds can be

I readily admit that I've read precious little science fiction after attending
Worldcon in 1994. There's a story to it, but it was the writers I was hanging
around that wrecked my interest in literary SF (ironic, since I was hanging
around them because I was, technically, one of them). There have been a couple
of exceptions, particularly Iain Banks and some military SF, but for the most
part I get my SF fix from movies and television.

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@gmail.com> wrote:

> But hey, the "chanting druids in the engine-room" SF worlds can be

David Weber broke his wrist. He couldn't type. So he was dictating. If you've
ever heard Weber talk, he tends to go on at great length. Repetitively. And no
one had the balls to edit him (It's David Weber!!!) so that's one reason his
books have been getting longer and ramble on.

Or so I was told by someone who co-authored a series with him that is
on hold indefinitely because that coauthor wants final cut authority on the
next collaboration, but Dave Weber isn't giving it up.

But seriously, Honor Harrington should have ended about three or four books
ago.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
lol... & no category for speculative fiction...

I suppose the best thing I could say is that I was brought up on Star wars &
rpg's... I'm not sure I want military vs military stuff on every
occasion - I like the wargaming table & toys out fun, but would like to
shift towards a plucky band of heroes/villains/pirates/whatever vs
military

SG2 has been good fun and will continue to be no doubt, but perhaps I want
FMAS!!

I won't hold my breath... but perhaps will do some homebrewing in my basement!

Andy<html><div></div></html>> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:14:49 -0500>
From: agoodall@hyperbear.com> To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Another question: SF game styles...?> > On
Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:>
> When I think of Hard SF, I tend to think of authors such as> > Greg
accurate look at science, even if some things were allowed that were>
technically impossible. Hard SF didn't mean "no FTL!". Hard SF meant> that
when the author based his story on the tidal pull of a neutron> star he did
his homework. "Soft SF" was everything that wasn't "hard".>
> By the definition I grew up with, the Tuffleyverse swings between
Tuffleyverse postulates is pure space opera. SG2 in particular seems> to be
close to "hard SF".> > Of course today we have another definition muddying the
waters:> Mundane SF. This is an extreme variant on hard SF, where only that>
which is possible is written. No FTL. No interplanetary adventures.> Strictly
what makes physical, logical, and economic sense. I haven't> read any myself,
and I've heard a number of people grumble against> mundane SF zealots who turn
up their noses at other forms of SF as> "badwrongfun".> > I noticed Jon didn't
mention mundane SF in his poll. There are few> games that fit that title,
though there are a few on the console game> platforms (the games that
extrapolate "future
warrior" tech into the> next decade would qualify).> > Allan> -- > Allan