[War_ooc] Okay, so...

[John Penta]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Michael Downey <
michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com> wrote:

> I personally vote for the near-future timeline. War in Space is really
> not what I imagined this game to be. Historical is interesting but
> would seem like a fundamental shift in WAR. Aren't there other games
> like that out there?


Weirdly, no, I don't think so. Not to my knowledge anyway.


>
> Near-future gives us a strong basis but does not bog us down with
> current events. If things happening now suddenly come up that make our
> near-future scenario out of place then we just have to shrug our
> shoulders and remember it is AU.
>
And hope nothing too seemingly-unlikely happens.:)


>
> I have and always will be a proponent of realism but John is correct
> that this is a creative writing RPG and not a number-for-number
> simulation. A lack of realism leads to things like the Anglo-Japanese
> War of 2001, Austrian Gundam and Central African railgun tanks. But
> becoming a bunch of bean counters that pour over the GDP and other
> stats of a country vs. another would bog the game down and make it
> boring and pedantic. That is why I would suggest we take a 'Tom
> Clancy' approach; a solid grounding in realism but a bit of
> unrealistic (or more precisely, unlikely) events being allowed if they
> are backed with good writing.


We need to figure out the line between unlikely and not-possible. We can
find plenty of examples of stuff sitting way past the line (you listed only
WAR's classic examples...), but it's hard for me to figure out the stuff
that's merely unlikely or just-barely impossible.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://esteroic.com/pipermail/war_ooc_esteroic.com/attachments/20090621/bf088eb6/attachment.html