[War_ooc] Okay, so...

[Iain]

Damn, you shot me down before I could suggest Narnia!

I really abstain from any form of objective checks, this is an area that I
have little experience/knowledge in other than what I research to put into
the game. So I defer to those of you who perhaps know a bit more.

I will however, put forward the suggestion that we are all (more than!) able
to bring up when we find something realistic and maybe some sort of
consensus-finding once we're playing is the best check of all?

Or I'm talking poo again - I never can tell which ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
Sent: 21 June 2009 21:46
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...

My issue is with what is DECENT. In the end, that basically comes down  
to John's judgment, and then we get things like flying Ebola monkeys.

At the very least, that decent explanation needs to be ruled against  
some barometer of quality. Maybe a qualitative left-center-right scale  
in terms of checks and balances? As I've explained to John,  
right-leaning policies wouldn't necessarily fly well in a left-leaning  
environment. Further, how do we determine what is too severe a  
reaction from what is not? I'm not saying the game has to be  
determined by numbers, but a clear, objective system SHOULD be in  
place so that the game doesn't go to Narnia.

And no, I'm not interested in playing in Narnia. ;)

Quoting Iain <iain at iain-waddell.co.uk>:

> For the very little that will be my two pence (being British and all ;-)):
>
> I also think the best setting (from a totally personal preference and
> selfish-I-would-enjoy-more) would be near future. Again this gets us out
of
> being bogged down in current affairs (does anyone REALLY want to play
Gordon
> Brown?? Huh? Lol) and also gives us enough grounding in reality to not
have
> to overthink how the world would be or research how it was...
>
> Furthermore, I agree that the game needs something to keep it chugging
> along, but through experience of sims (yes yes, mainly Trek I admit it)
this
> is done by having guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and a good
set
> of players/writers.
>
> And I'm afraid good writing with 'decent' explanation does win over
complete
> realism in my book. Note the word 'decent'.
>
> Iain
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com]
On
> Behalf Of lee.tarnow at utoronto.ca
> Sent: 21 June 2009 21:32
> To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
> Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Okay, so...
>
> I see what your saying -- that turning this game into a strictly
> by-the-numbers game would make it boring.
>
> HOWEVER
>
> I think that, while not overly restrictive, SOMETHING needs to be in
> place. If we don't have anything objective in place, the game will
> need constant nudging along, which would not bode well in down times.
> I'm not saying that we need to be number crunching GDP and such, but
> if a left-leaning country implements right-leaning policies, the game
> should reflect the consequences of that decision. Further, in a lull,
> the game SHOULD be able to support itself.
>
> To reiterate my point, while we don't need a D&D rulebook, we need
> some clearly defined rules that'll keep the game chugging along during
> down time, and make sure things make sense.
>
> Quoting Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>




_______________________________________________
War_ooc mailing list
War_ooc at esteroic.com
http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com