From: Tom Sullivan <starkfist@h...>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 06:55:26 PDT
Subject: [MISC] Point Systems
Wanna watch me take my life into my own hands? Anyone? Okay, here
goes....
Stargrunt II needs a point system.
Why, you ask? Or scream, as the case may be? Because people THINK
that it does. Does that make any sense at all? Probably not, so let me
explain.
Historical gaming has a context, generally. If you want to play Fire and Fury,
there is a wealth of historical data available to you about how the Union and
Connfederate forces matched up. Same with the Napoleonic era, or with WWII.
The better known fictional battles have pretty much the same information
available: How well do Earth Alliance ships perform against the Mimbari? Thus,
in all these cases, players have at least some idea of the relative faults and
merits of any given force.
That's all well and good, but what about SF games? The ones
without a pre-established fictional background? Tell me, anyone, pound
for pound, whose troops are better? The NSL, or the NAC? I don't know.
Do you? There is no context upon which to judge them.
Because of this, the general consensus is that SF games need a point system. I
will not argue the rightness or wrongness of this position: it is irrelevant,
in any case. What matters in this case is what people THINK is true. I wish
that this was not the case, but there
you are.
You can say, of course, that this does not matter. Real battles don't work
that way; no one really knows the worth of his foe until he meets him upon the
battlefield, right? Right. However, this IS a game that we are speaking about.
And games are...different than reality.
A lot of people on this list are guilty of thinking that there is
really only one way to game--purely and simply for the pleasure of
playing. Hell, that's how *I* game! And how most of the people on the list
game, as well. What we have to remember, though, is that is not how a lot of
gamers, especially young gamers, play because they want to WIN. Immature?
Perhaps. But competitve gaming is as valid as any other way of playing.
And, more importantly, to a lot of people the ONLY reason to play a
game is in order to win. After all, to the man (or kid) on the street that's
what playing a game is all about, isn't it? Because SGII makes determinations
of "fairness" difficult, at best, without extensive experience with the game,
many people instinctively shy away from it. How many people on this list have
wncountered people who refused to try SGII simply because it has no points
system? I've met more than a few, myself.
What would the addition of a point system do to SGII? Well, for one thing, it
would broaden the player base. This, simply, is a Good Thing. Firstly, it
would put more money in Mr.Tuffley
pockets--something that we are all, I think, in favor of. Secondly, it
would give us all a lot more potential opponents. Sure, we might have to
civilize them a bit, but it would be a start, wouldn't it?
DSII and Full Thrust poth have point systems (or did--I have not
seen the Fleetbook yet, alas....), and I have heard no one complaining aboutn
them. Hell, I remember a LOT of people complaining about how unbalanced the
Kra'vak are, points wise. Can everyone here honestly say
that they don't use those point systems at all? I know that even John
Atkinson, our resident curmudgeon, uses the DSII point system...and if HE
does, well! ANYone would.
All in all, I think that the addition of a point system to SGII is
a win-win proposition. You like being outnumbered? Give your opponent
twice or threee times as many points as yourself! Or experenced players
can simply disregard the point values! For us, it really doesn't
matter...certainly nothing will be harmed by it. For the newbies, though, it
can make all the difference in the world. And if it causes even one new player
to pick up the game and give it a shot, it has proved its worth right there.